Thursday, 3 June 2021
Volume 752
Sitting date: 3 June 2021
THURSDAY, 3 JUNE 2021
THURSDAY, 3 JUNE 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
SPEAKER: As part of our Samoan Language Week trilogy, I ask Terisa Ngobi to say the prayer in Samoan.
TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tatou ifo ma tatalo, le Atua silisili ese matou te sulaina lou alofa ma lou agalelei ona o tofiga ua e valaauina i ai matou. Amanaiaina o le Tupu Tamaitai o Peretania. O le matou tatalo alofa ma taitai ia matou felafolafoaiga uma ina ia faia i le loto maualalo ma le faamaoni a matou faaiuga i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Faamanuia Taitai o le Faigamalo ina ia maua le tofamamao ma le loto maualalo e taitai ai lou atunuu i le manuia ma le filemu. I le suafa o Iesu Keriso, Amene.
Obituaries
Dr the Hon Ian John Shearer
SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 1 June 2021 of Dr the Hon Ian John Shearer, who represented the Hamilton East electorate between 1975 and 1984. He was Minister for the Environment, Minister of Science and Technology, and Minister of Broadcasting from 1981 to 1984. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.
Members stood as a mark of respect.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill, the second readings of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill, and the committee stages of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. Wednesday, 9 June will be a members’ day.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House. I was wondering if he could give some guidance to the House on the Government’s intention for progress on item 21 on the Order Paper, which is the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which is approaching its fifth anniversary of being low down on the Order Paper.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In the fullness of time, at the appropriate moment.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Rebecca Toms requesting that the House urge the Government to provide more expert care and subsidy assistance for young people with eating disorders
petition of Angela Mason requesting that the House urge the Ministry of Education to build a new high school to serve the growing community on the Pohutukawa Coast, Auckland Region.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill, and
report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Health
1. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: What is the latest estimate for the total cost of the health system restructure, and what risks, if any, have been identified that could delay the new system being established by July next year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. In response to the first part of the member’s question, Budget 2021 provided a total of $485 million over the next four years, which includes funding to establish the Māori Health Authority, establish Health NZ, build workforce capacity, prototype localities, and support the transition unit and Ministry of Health through the transition. In response to the second part of the member’s question, as would be expected for a reform of this scale, there are material risks that need to be monitored and managed as we move towards implementation. These include disruption and uncertainty of the system and for those working within it. However, I am confident that these risks are being managed and mitigated appropriately.
Dr Shane Reti: If there is a business case for the health restructuring, what does the business case estimate the total cost of the health restructuring will be?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I thought I’d largely answered that question in my answer to his primary question, but to the extent that the member asks for a business case, the case for change was made in the report of the Health and Disability System Review that was published last year. And it’s not only made there, but it’s made in the literally hundreds and thousands of people I come across, pretty much every day, who tell me it’s time for change in our health system and to have a health system that serves the needs of all New Zealanders.
Dr Shane Reti: When he was unable to name one health outcome yesterday that would be improved in the first year of the $485 million health restructuring, can he today name one health outcome that will be improved in the first year of the restructuring?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We will have a better health system as a result of these reforms.
Dr Shane Reti: Is he really telling New Zealanders that, for $485 million in health restructuring, he cannot today name one single health outcome that will be improved in the first year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can revert to the answer I gave in questions to the select committee yesterday and say that that member is being just a little bit cute. So, for a party that, when in Government, successively underfunded the health system year after year after year and has left it to this Government to rebuild it and restore it and restore public confidence in it, I’m just a little bit stunned that he is looking for those sorts of responses. The reality is we have a health system now that is not serving the needs of all New Zealanders, and it needs to change, and we are changing it.
Dr Shane Reti: How will spending $485 million in creating new health agencies in Wellington make any difference to the outlook for a Māori patient in South Auckland on renal dialysis?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member clearly misunderstands what has been provided for in the Budget two weeks ago. Maybe he hasn’t read it, but actually what that funding will provide for just in relation to the Māori Health Authority is not just establishing that Māori Health Authority but actually working on some initial commissioning of Māori services and building the capability of kaupapa Māori health services. In addition to that, it is providing for the establishment of Health New Zealand. Health New Zealand actually needs to be across Māori health needs as well. Because it’s not going to be confined to just one single part of the health system. There are a number of things that that investment is going to purchase, but in the end it will be about a well and much improved health system for all New Zealanders.
Dr Shane Reti: How many extra years of life, if any, is it estimated that New Zealanders will gain from $485 million spent on health restructuring compared to $485 million invested in Pharmac?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What will improve life chances and life expectations for New Zealanders is actually having a health system for the long term and the long, sustainable term that provides for the health needs of all New Zealanders. That’s why this Government has increased funding for the health system by more than 45 percent since it became Government, has put more than $5 billion into health facilities since it’s become Government. That’s the stuff that over time adds to life chances.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai lou Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Fa‘afetai tele lava. The Government’s ongoing support to secure the economic recovery is being reflected in the Crown’s financial accounts. The Crown accounts for the 10 months to the end of April 2021 were released today, and they show that both the operating balance before gains and losses—the OBEGAL—and the overall operating balance are better than forecast in the Budget in May. The OBEGAL was a deficit of $5 billion, $3.6 billion better than forecast in the Budget. Tax revenue was $79.1 billion, $2 billion above forecast due to higher than expected corporate and income tax and GST revenue, reflecting the economy growing well. Net core Crown debt is—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Of course it is!
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —33.9 percent of GDP, $2.6 billion less than forecast. Mr Goldsmith, I’m not taking advice on numbers from you! While the Government’s books are in better shape than expected, we cannot afford to be complacent. We’re still facing elevated levels of debt and OBEGAL deficits for some years to come in response to the pandemic.
Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Securing the recovery has also been supported by industries, including the export sector. Statistics New Zealand reported yesterday that the terms of trade for the March quarter 2021 remain near historical highs, rising 0.1 percent. Exports continue to be resilient, with global demand pushing up log prices, while dairy and meat prices experienced modest declines. BNZ economists noted that the result continues a period of relative buoyancy in the terms of trade, which has been a major support to the New Zealand economy. They anticipate terms of trade to rise further over coming quarters to a new record level as the likes of higher dairy prices filter into the official statistics.
Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen about the impact of the agricultural sector on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fonterra is forecasting a record-high milk price payout forecast range for the coming season. The cooperative announced an opening forecast for the 2021-22 season, which started at the beginning of June, of between $7.25 per kilo of milk solids to $8.75 per kilo, with a mid-point of $8 per kilo. Its previous highest ever opening price was $7 per kilo. Fonterra cited an improving global economy and strong demand for dairy amid muted growth in global supply. The mid-point of the forecast would see the cooperative contributing more than $12 billion to the economy next season, which is indeed very good news, and we thank the sector for its contribution.
Question No. 3—Public Service
3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for the Public Service: What is the estimated average increase in public sector pay, excluding step-based progressions, built into the Estimates of Appropriations in Budget 2021?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): I’m advised that the Estimates of Appropriations do not build in any average increases in the public sector, so the level of detail around public sector pay sought by the member is not available in those documents. As was the case under previous Governments, staff pay increases beyond the budgeted year are managed within baselines, except where there is a specific Budget initiative that’s been approved to provide additional funding to particular organisations for that purpose.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the appropriation in Vote Health for district health board cost pressures $1.2 billion less than last year’s increase in part because of the Government’s expectations for low or no pay increases in that sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How much of the $90 million reduction in Vote Police is a consequence of an expectation for lower wage growth for the 12,000 staff who work for New Zealand Police?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government doesn’t reveal in the Budget appropriation documents the funding that is set aside for potential pay increases.
Hon Grant Robertson: How would the Minister describe a negotiating strategy for pay that revealed the amount of money available for that pay?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It wouldn’t be very much of a strategy at all. In fact, it’s likely to result in the money being made available through the Budget documents for pay being insufficient to meet the demands that that would likely generate.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is paragraph 2.2 of the Public Service pay guidance released by the Public Service Commission, which says “The default position is that there are to be no increases to bands for lower to middle [income] earners; pay”, an example of a negotiating strategy?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member reads the entirety of that guidance, he’ll find it’s a much more subtle position than the one adopted by the previous National Government, of which he was a part, that basically said no one was allowed pay increases at all.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would paragraph 4, which says “Universal across the board pay increases are not consistent with this guidance.”, be an example of his definition of subtle?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member needs to read the entirety of the guidance.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was the Government forced to act to control salary cost increases in this Budget in part because it now realises the structural cost impacts of the more than 10,000 extra public servants it has recruited since 2017?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I thank the member for his question and the opportunity to remind the House of the people that we are talking about here, which includes the thousand extra people employed by the Ministry of Social Development to, among other things, provide the wage subsidy that kept hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in work; the 434 people recruited by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who are protecting our border from COVID-19; the 328 extra people employed by the Ministry for Primary Industries to deal with, among other things, Mycoplasma bovis, critical to our primary industries; 609 additional people employed by Oranga Tamariki, who are mostly social workers dealing with our most vulnerable.
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I could continue on, Mr Speaker, if you’d like me to.
SPEAKER: Order! No, the member can’t continue on. He’s not going to list out the entire 10,000. Michael Woodhouse.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes?
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, no more supps? No. OK.
Kieran McAnulty: Were there any others on that list?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Indeed—oh!
SPEAKER: That question has been answered.
Question No. 4—Education
4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to address historical imbalances in funding for vocational education and training?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Between 2014 and 2019, the average amount of Government tuition funding per learner for vocational education and training increased by significantly less than the Consumers Price Index—in other words, it went backwards in real terms. It increased by 2.4 percent, which is significantly less than the average rate increase for degree-level education, which was 11.4 percent over that period of time. That’s why, in this year’s Budget, we’ve invested an additional $279.5 million over the next four years to bring vocational education and training funding up so that it is sustainable and so that we can boost that part of our education system.
Angela Roberts: Why has the Government considered it important to provide this rebalancing now?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Vocational education and training has long been undervalued in our education system. In fact—and those areas are covered by this funding—we are often talking about the areas of skill shortages that are the most acute here in New Zealand. Making sure that we make the economics of those programmes stack up and recruit more people into those training areas will go a long way to helping New Zealand rebuild from COVID-19 by tackling the critical skill shortages that have been holding us back.
Angela Roberts: How will the increased funding in 2022 support apprentices and other workers learning in the workplace?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that funding rates for apprentices and those in industry training will increase by 5 percent. That will start to align those funding rates better—the work-integrated learning funding rates—with provider-based learning funding rates as we move to a more unified funding system for all vocational education and training.
Question No. 5—Health
5. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “I don’t buy into extremist rhetoric”, in relation to comments from Patient Voice Aotearoa on Pharmac funding, and, if so—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is finished.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I stand by the statement as quoted but point out that the member is incorrect that the statement, as it was presented to me at the time I was questioned about it, was from Patient Voice Aotearoa. The comment I made was in response to a quote from an individual.
Brooke van Velden: Does he believe that advocating for increased funding for lifesaving medicines is extremist?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, and I think the member makes the mistake of assuming that a comment I make about one person’s statement is a comment made about hundreds of other people. It simply is not.
Brooke van Velden: Point of order. The comment that the Minister was making was in relation to a person who is advocating on behalf of Patient Voice Aotearoa, which is Patient Voice Aotearoa.
SPEAKER: It’s not the member’s job to try and correct a Minister’s answer by way of point of order. I think the member, while she’s a relatively new member of the House, actually knows that one doesn’t argue about answers by way of point of order.
Brooke van Velden: Will he apologise to the individual in question for describing their advocacy for increased funding for medicines as extremist rhetoric?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I will not criticise anybody who challenges, contests, opposes, protests about any measure by Government, but I will take a stance on people who use extreme language.
Dr Shane Reti: What was the quote from the individual that he has deemed to be extremist rhetoric?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That’s an interesting question. I don’t quite recall it, except that at the time, I made a judgment that it was extreme. It’s interesting how much coverage has been given to my response and not the quote that was put to me.
Question No. 6—Environment
6. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. What changes is the Government making to the resource management system?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Government is repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) during this parliamentary term, primarily, with two Acts. The Strategic Planning Act, the SPA, will integrate the other legislation relevant to development and require long-term regional spatial strategies. The Act will integrate functions under the RMA, the Local Government Act, the Land Transport Management Act, and the Climate Change Response Act to enable clearer and more efficient decision-making and private sector investment. The Natural and Built Environments Act, the NBA, will provide for land use and environmental regulation. An exposure draft of the core parts of that bill is due to be sent to the Environment Committee in the coming weeks.
Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Urban areas have been struggling to keep pace with population growth and the need for affordable housing; water quality has deteriorated; biodiversity is diminishing; and there’s an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions as well as adapt to climate change. The new laws will improve the natural environment, better enable development within environmental limits, and provide an effective role for Māori while improving housing supply and process affordability. This will be achieved through planning processes that will be improved so that costs and times are reduced for users of the system.
Rachel Brooking: How did Budget 2021 support the reform of the resource management system?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government’s investing $131.8 million in the design, enactment, and transition, which includes substantial progress to be made on implementation of the reforms through to 2024. In my view, the success of the new system and its ability to hit the ground running doesn’t depend just on the new legislation but on proper implementation. The Government’s commitment to properly fund the transition is really born of the lesson of why the RMA, which is essentially quite good legislation, did not perform as it was intended. After the 1991 Act was passed, the Environment Court wasn’t properly funded. Plans and consents were held up for many years, which held up a lot of development. There were no standard forms of plans, no standard formats, and there was very little national direction; so there was too much uncertainty. National policies such as freshwater or urban development guidance was too little too late, and we’re not going to make that same mistake. We intend to redraft the national planning framework to produce draft NBA and SPA plans and related maps as part of the transitional programme so that this hits the ground running once the legislation comes into effect.
Hon Scott Simpson: Why, when house price inflation continues unabated at about 20 percent a year, is he not moving faster on his resource management system reforms?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The member’s wrong. I think the latest house price inflation in Auckland Central suburbs was a decrease of 1 percent in the central city and 2 percent in Devonport, and both Treasury and the Reserve Bank are predicting inflation in the coming year of 1 or 2 percent per annum averaged across the country.
Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment
7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “I’m not going to pretend that living on $315 is easy”; if so, what further steps is she going to take to ensure everybody can live with dignity?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Yes. Living on $315 per week isn’t easy. From 1 April, this will be the main benefit rate for a single person, 25 years or over, without children. Depending on their circumstances, they may be eligible for supplementary assistance like the accommodation supplement. We’ve come a long way, but we have more to do when it comes to welfare reform and making sure everybody can live with dignity. That is why the Government announced a review of Working for Families in Budget 2021. This review was proposed by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and is one of a number of recommendations we are working through in the short, medium, and long term. However, I’d also like to point out that most people on a benefit want to work. Budget 2021 sees the Government invest a further $99 million in work-focused case management. This investment, along with increasing main benefit rates, will help us achieve our aim of ensuring people can live with dignity.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What steps is she taking, if any, so that people don’t miss out on temporary additional support payments due to increases to core benefits?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a misconception that people will have their temporary additional support abated dollar for dollar; with benefit increases, that’s not the case. There are many interactions within the welfare system. One of them, with regards to temporary additional support, is also the temporary disability exception, which is on top of temporary additional support, if people have a disability and have more expenses. There’s an interaction there that could’ve seen people worse off. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has fixed that. There will be about 120 people on 1 July who may be worse off because of the benefit changes in the interaction, but a temporary additional payment will be put in place so that that doesn’t happen.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that the reasons some people experience an overall decrease when there are benefit increases is because the welfare system is broken, overly complicated, and ineffective at helping our most vulnerable?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would agree that it is overly complicated and that is part of the set of recommendations that came from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations that were about making the welfare system less complex so that we don’t have interactions that result in people being worse off in any way. So we continue to look at the welfare system and how we can fix that and make it less complicated.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What further recommendations from the two-year-old Welfare Expert Advisory Group is she planning to fully implement this year?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, the Government has committed to undertaking a review of Working for Families. There’s a number of other things going on. There’s work on how we address debt across Government for people who have debt to Government. There is work going on with regards to childcare assistance and what we should do with that moving forward. We’re constantly looking at the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report and seeing how we can do things better. I don’t want to pre-empt any other changes at the moment, but we will definitely see more.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that if job seeker had been put at $315 and indexed to wages in 2019, as recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, the value of job seeker would be at least $335 a week today, and it is therefore inaccurate to say that the increases are on the report?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When we received that report we said that we would not be able to address every recommendation in that report immediately. We laid out a short-, medium-, long-term plan. I think many of us in this House are relieved that we’ve been able to increase benefits to the extent that we have. Yes, we did meet the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations, but, actually, we also need to keep in mind here that for beneficiaries with children, we’re beyond what the Welfare Expert Advisory Group had recommended.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she consider universalising Working for Families so that people outside of paid employment are supported by the payment?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, there is a review of Working for Families that will be undertaken this year, and I don’t want to pre-empt any decisions that will be made as part of that.
Jan Logie: Will further increases to baseline benefits be needed to lift the 130,000 children who continue to live in material hardship out of poverty?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s important to keep in mind that a large number of children living in material hardship are actually in working households. And I think, today, Bryan Perry at MSD presented a report that showed about, I think, 50 percent of those are in working households. I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are a number of reasons why they experience material hardship. The additional costs in relation to disability is one. Another is debt and having to service that debt. So there’s a range of work that needs to go on. It’s not all about increasing benefits. There are some other areas that we need to address as well.
Question No. 8—Health
8. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: What proportion of the mental health funding announced in Budget 2019 that was supposed to be spent by year two has been spent, and what measurable difference, if any, has this made to the mental health of New Zealanders?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): As the member is aware, $1.9 billion was announced in Budget 2019; $1.1 billion of that was made available for Vote Health, and so my answer will be confined to the Vote Health part of it. To answer the first part of the member’s question, of the $1.1 billion around $350 million was made available to be spent by the end of year 2—that is, 30 June this year—and as at mid-May this year, roughly $290 million has been committed in contract. That is because the nature of the contracts is that they are invoiced on a monthly sort of basis; so we won’t know until roughly August what has been fully spent to 30 June.
To answer the second part of the member’s question, if we turn to the flagship integrated primary mental health and addiction services part of the package, I can tell him that that service is now available in over 195 sites, across 16 district health boards. It covers an enrolled patient population of about 1.4 million people. More than 360 fulltime-equivalent roles have been added to GP and community clinics to provide those services alongside 70 fulltime-equivalent roles in other access and choice services. Over 119,000 sessions have been delivered, with about 10,000 people being seen per month.
In addition to that, we’ve established the pregnancy and parenting service in Eastern Bay of Plenty and Whanganui; we’ve established new alcohol and other drug support services and family and whānau peer support services in Taranaki; we’ve funded eight additional clinical psychology internships each year; we’ve topped up the Rainbow Wellbeing Legacy Fund; and we’ve put in place 16 youth services, across 15 DHB areas, with more than 60 contract fulltime-equivalent roles and more sessions delivered. In addition to that, we’ve established the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the Suicide Prevention Office—I could go on.
Matt Doocey: So what is his response to mental health advocate Mike King, who said about the lack of improvement in mental health, “There is more than enough money in the system—it’s just the incompetence at the top.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would say to Mr King exactly what I said in my answer to the member’s primary question.
Matt Doocey: So is Mike King wrong when he says things haven’t changed in New Zealand’s mental health sector; and if so, why?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mike King is a highly respected advocate for mental health, a champion for that cause, and he is entitled to his opinion. I disagree with him.
Matt Doocey: Is he embarrassed that as a result of his Government’s failure in mental health, Mike King has—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will start that question again.
Matt Doocey: Is he embarrassed that as a result of the Government’s failure to deliver in mental health, Mike King has felt compelled to return the Order of Merit medal he awarded for his advocacy for mental health; and if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Regardless of what Mike King does in relation to the award made to him, the reasons for that award stand. He is a highly regarded, highly respected champion for the cause of improving the nation’s mental health. He is a very fierce advocate for it, and I support him in every step he takes in that regard.
Matt Doocey: When Grant Robertson said he was having a conversation with the health Minister about whether the $1.9 billion is being adequately spent, did he commit in that conversation to doing a better job?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have regular conversations with the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance repeatedly expresses confidence in what I do.
Question No. 9—Local Government
9. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent reports has she seen about water infrastructure in New Zealand?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Fa‘afetai tele lava. I’ve seen reports released by the Department of Internal Affairs yesterday which provide New Zealanders with a clear picture of the urgent problems our water services and infrastructure face. The reports include analysis of the economic benefits of reform by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS), independent reviews of WICS’ methodology by Farrierswier and Beca, and an analysis of the effects of the proposed reform on the economy and affected industries by Deloitte. Together, the reports confirm the need for major reform to upgrade and maintain our water infrastructure, protect our environment, and avoid unaffordable increases to household bills. They identify investment of between $120 billion and $185 billion needed over 30 years, to ensure New Zealanders’ drinking-, waste-, and stormwater infrastructure meets acceptable public health and environmental standards. The reports also highlight the economic benefits we can unlock by tackling these challenges, such as job creation and an increase in GDP and tax revenue.
Rachel Boyack: What do these reports say about the affordability of three waters services into the future?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Without reform, average household bills in 2051 are forecast to range from $1,900 to $13,900 a year. This is simply unaffordable for many communities. For example, in Auckland, it’s been recently reported that water bills could double in less than a decade. Central and local government accept that the current arrangement of 67 council water providers is not working. The Government is proposing a small number of large publicly owned water service providers. Under reform proposals with three to five providers, those figures would be much less, ranging from $800 to $1,800 a year. The modelling underpinning the reports is based on data provided by every council. I’d like to acknowledge their hard work and the expertise of council staff that helped us put together this data.
Rachel Boyack: What do these reports tell us about the potential impact reforming New Zealand’s water services could have on our economy?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. The Deloitte economic impact report finds that every region in New Zealand is expected to be positively impacted through the reform, with provincial and rural areas estimated to benefit most. Benefits include an increase in GDP of between $14 billion to $23 billion, in current dollar terms, over 30 years, an additional 5,800 to 9,300 fulltime-equivalent jobs across all sectors. The water sector workforce is forecast to increase by 80 percent, an increase in average wages associated with improved productivity and more high-skilled jobs in the economy, and additional tax receipts of about between $4 billion and $6 billion.
Rachel Boyack: What other challenges are the reforms proposing to address?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I believe that all communities should benefit from this reform. Every New Zealander, irrespective of where they live, should be able to drink water safely from the tap. It is unacceptable to have sewer pipes bursting on city streets and sewage seeping into our waterways. It’s intolerable that there are communities like Te Kao in New Zealand that do not have potable water supplies and are still on a regular boiled water notice. That is why the Government is working to address the challenges facing these critical services and the communities that currently fund and use them.
Question No. 10—Immigration
10. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all policy decisions made in relation to the new Accredited Employer Work Visa; if so, is he confident that the new visa will improve the immigration system?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Fa‘afetai tele lava. The new Accredited Employer Work Visa was developed in consultation with business, workers, and migrants themselves. When we announced the changes back in 2019, we set out our intent to rebalance our temporary work visa system. This is by ensuring that businesses are able to get the workers they need to fill critical work skill shortages but also encouraging employers and regions to work together on long-term workforce planning, including supporting New Zealanders with the training they need to fill the gaps. The new Accredited Employer Work Visa does this by replacing six visa categories with one temporary work visa, and it ensures there is an employer check, a job check, and a worker check. This makes it far more streamlined and supports this Government’s overall objective to lay better foundations for the future through a rebalanced immigration system. So, in answer to the question, yes and yes.
Dr James McDowall: Is the Minister confident that Immigration New Zealand will be able to avoid creating a significant backlog of employer accreditation applications?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. The new system comes into force on 1 November, and we are allowing accreditation to begin earlier than that.
Dr James McDowall: Can the Minister be certain that the new scheme will not increase migrant exploitation if, for example, bad employers demand money from migrants in exchange for supporting their visa applications?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m very glad that question has been asked, because the new system will prevent migrant exploitation happening compared to the old regime. Under the new regime, there will be an employer check, and one of the gates that you will have to pass for that is being a good employer, and that has being compliant with the employment and immigration law. I am surprised that the ACT Party, who support and advocate for business and people following the law, aren’t supporting the new system, which makes sure that good employers are complying with the law, and therefore, because of that, there will be less exploitation.
Erica Stanford: On what date will the Minister produce a complete set of instructions so that all users have 100 percent clarity on cost and how long it will take for businesses to go through the accreditation process given they all have to be accredited by 1 November?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I can’t give a precise date, but in answer to the member’s question, well before the new system comes into force.
Dr James McDowall: Is the Minister concerned that a potential backlog of employer accreditation applications could lead to greater migrant exploitation as workers will be less able to change employers because many will still be waiting for their accreditation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said in a previous answer, the potential for this new system is to drastically reduce the amount of migrant exploitation that has been in the system historically, and again, the ability for businesses to become accredited is going to open well before the system comes into force.
Question No. 11—Police
11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Will Budget 2021 help reduce gang membership and violence; if so, how?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Fa‘afetai lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. This Government inherited annual Police funding of $1.5 billion in 2017. We’ve increased that to over $2 billion—an increase of roughly 30 percent. Budget 2021—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Do the members want to have an answer to this—
Hon Member: Yes, we do.
SPEAKER: —and the supplementaries? Well, there’s at least three members there almost preventing it.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Kia ora. Budget 2021 continues funding for the Striving Towards 1800 New Police programme, including 700 police to be focused on organised crime, as well as increasing funding for preventing family and sexual violence, continuing action to improve social inclusion, and an expansion to Te Pae Oranga Iwi Community Panels, which have shown a reduction in harm from reoffending by 22 percent by participants.
Simeon Brown: How will the $90 million cut to the Police budget in Budget 2021 help reduce the record number of people joining gangs under this Government?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question. The Police budget is 30 percent higher than it was when National left office. I am confident—[Interruption] I stand by statements that I have made around that there is no decrease in budget, as the member claims. They are a result of ongoing negotiations for road policing funding, which is around $63 million—expect news on this shortly—and one-off funding such as the Whanganui police hub shovel-ready projects.
Simeon Brown: How will the Police finish recruiting the promised 700 police officers dedicated to combatting gangs and organised crime, given the Police budget has been cut by $90 million?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I repeat: the budget has not been cut by $90 million. The Police are in negotiations with regards to costs for road policing. That announcement will be made shortly. There was approximately $25 million which was a one-off for the Whanganui police hub shovel-ready project; there was an amount of $4.5 million which the members claim was cut from the budget, but this is actually funding for reimbursements for Police from the proceeds of crime fund, not the budget; and $5.5 million for primary response, which was funding for COVID-19 procurement of personal protective equipment and a cancellation of annual leave, which is no longer required.
Simeon Brown: Why has no new funding been given to the Gang Intelligence Centre in Budget 2021 when there has been a 50 percent increase in gang membership under this Government?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’ve clearly explained that. I find it quite ironic that since we’ve come into Government, we’ve increased the Police budget by 30 percent, and I stand by this Government’s record on this. That National Party, when they were in Government, froze the budget and they cut police numbers. I stand on our record, every day. I do not stand on theirs.
Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was around funding for the Gang Intelligence Centre in light of the increase in gang membership.
Hon Meka Whaitiri: She addressed it.
Simeon Brown: That wasn’t—I mean, that’s an interesting comment, but the point was around—
SPEAKER: Who made the comment? The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Meka Whaitiri: I apologise.
SPEAKER: Mr Brown will have two additional supplementaries. You can use one of them to try that question again.
Simeon Brown: So the question was: why has no new funding been given to the Gang Intelligence Centre in Budget 2021, given the 50 percent increase in gang membership under this Government?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I want to just refer to an operation that’s live at the moment—Operation Tauwhiro—in terms of the police response to gangs, and this has seized 522 firearms, seized $2.6 million in cash, arrested 476 people, seized methamphetamine, and conducted 361 search warrants. The police are doing a fantastic job at dealing with gangs, and I stand on that record.
Simeon Brown: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was around the Gang Intelligence Centre—
SPEAKER: No, I think it’s fair to say that the general question on the relationship between funding and gangs, and the police response was addressed. Simeon Brown—a further supplementary.
Simeon Brown: Does the Gang Intelligence Centre not need any additional funding, given the 50 percent increase in gang membership?
SPEAKER: I’m going to just remind the member just to keep his questions to questions, without the additional comments afterwards.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question.
Simeon Brown: How will the $90 million cut to the Police budget boost officer morale, given the record increase in gang violence in New Zealand?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’ve already addressed that question.
SPEAKER: The member’s still got another one.
Simeon Brown: OK, thank you. When will the Police complete recruitment of the promised 700 police officers dedicated to combat gangs and organised crime?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve said repeatedly in this House, we are on target to meeting the 2023—
Hon Members: When?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —2023—target, as stated in this House repeatedly, over and over and over again.
Question No. 12—Emergency Management
12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Acting Minister for Emergency Management: How does Budget 2021 help ensure our emergency management systems are geared towards an inclusive, community-led response to natural disasters and health events?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Acting Minister for Emergency Management): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Budget 2021 provided a $46.6 million funding boost for the National Emergency Management Agency to strengthen our emergency management system and make our communities safer and more resilient to natural disasters and other emergencies. As demonstrated earlier this week, these emergencies can impact anyone anywhere at any time, and this is an investment that will benefit every New Zealander. This initiative realises the Government’s manifesto commitments to ensure our emergency management systems are geared towards an exclusive community-led response to emergency events. And can I acknowledge Minister Kiri Allan, whose strong advocacy for the emergency management cause secured the funding in this year’s Budget.
Willow-Jean Prime: How will this funding help communities?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Talofa, Mr Speaker. Well, strong communities need a responsive and inclusive emergency management system that is up to the task and empowers them in times of crisis. As an example, we’ve seen time and time again how iwi have sprung into action to support communities impacted by disasters, and this funding will enable meaningful partnership with iwi Māori in our emergency management system. This funding will increase opportunities for critically important work in the emergency management sector to keep our community safe.
Willow-Jean Prime: What will this funding deliver?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The funding boost will lift the performance of the emergency management system at the local, national, and regional level, and empower communities before, during, and after emergencies. The improvements that this funding will enable are growing the role of iwi Māori in emergency management and integrating iwi and Māori perspectives and tikanga into responses; a stronger, more professionalised emergency management workforce; greater coordination and planning across agencies involved in preparing and responding to emergencies and targeted initiatives to support disproportionately affected communities; and improved hazard risk management expertise. This is a great investment to keep our communities safe, and with that I wish everyone a very safe Queen’s Birthday weekend.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the recent natural disaster in Canterbury only been classified as a moderate event?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think that is a question for the Minister of primary industries in terms of the $500,000 funding that he announced on Tuesday, I believe. In terms of my role as Acting Minister for Emergency Management, an initial contribution of $100,000 has been made through the emergency response. As the member will know, the assessment of the damage is still continuing in the region, and, as that comes to further light, the Government will surely respond to any requests that come from the region.
Bills
Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the GCSB) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I present a legislative statement on the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move that the Intelligence and Security (Review)—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the Minister is moving on behalf of another Minister and therefore should say so.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, I move, That the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration, and at the appropriate time, I will move that the bill be reported to the House by 17 June 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196(1)(b) and (c).
The call for this change to this bill, which is really just changing a date in the bill, arose out of the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the attack on the mosques in Christchurch on 15 March 2019. The nation was horrified by that act. It was very much a threshold event for this country in understanding what threats we face and what we need to properly deal with and counter those particular threats, especially the threats of terrorism and specifically white identity violent extremism.
The inquiry, in its very wide-ranging approach, looked at a number of things, examined closely the Government agencies responsible for security and, indeed, intelligence. It looked at our security and intelligence agencies, looked at the Police, and considered the Intelligence and Security Act, and it considered that there are some gaps in the current legislation. It looked at the current legislation that calls for periodic reviews of both the agencies and the legislation, and it suggested that reviews be taken of legislation immediately. I think recommendation 18 calls for a review of all legislation relating to counter-terrorism and asks for that to be taken straight away.
So this is very much in response to that, to the royal commission. The royal commission of inquiry delivered its report at the end of last year, the Government has accepted all of the recommendations in principle—there were 44 recommendations—and, therefore, we want to come on and bring on the review of the legislation, and, indeed, eventually of the agencies in due course.
It’s interesting, also, that other recommendations related to the need to look at specific parts of our intelligence and security apparatus and to make sure that the correct powers that are needed and the correct arrangements between different Government agencies, including our security and intelligence agencies, are also put in place. So this bill simply brings forward, under, currently, section 235, the provision for that review, which currently would require it to happen no earlier than September next year or October next year, and brings it forward so that we can commence it, effectively, from July this year. So that’s what it does.
I’ve also foreshadowed that I will be moving that the House approves a truncated select committee process. This particular bill does nothing more than shift a date. It doesn’t deal with issues of substance, and I think for members of the public who wanted to make sure they have a chance to play their part in the examination of this very important piece of legislation, they will have the opportunity to do that, but the select committee can make sure that by making this change now and setting ourselves up to be able to bring forward the review that otherwise would take place, nothing is being missed, and we can hear from those people with a particular interest.
But I think it would be important for members of the public—indeed, members of the House—to know that the opportunity to participate in and submit on substantive issues to do with the content of the current legislation, and other issues to deal with our intelligence and security apparatus, will arise both during the course of the review, because there will have to be a public element of it, but also in any substantive amending legislation.
So, on that basis, it is a simple and somewhat technical change to the legislation to do a quite simple thing and enable us to get on, to pay respect to the work of the royal commission of inquiry into the mosque attack, to pay respect to the victims, to the shuhada, of that attack, and to continue to do the work that I know that every member of this House supports, which is the proper role of every MP, every public official: to strive to ensure the greatest possible security of all New Zealanders in this country of ours. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The Minister describes this bill as being simple and technical; that is quite correct, but it would be wrong to suggest that the potential that this bill enables is at all simple.
When the Intelligence and Security Bill was passed back in 2017, it was always envisaged that there would need to be a review at some point, and it was thought then that five to seven years would be a sufficient amount of time for the Act to bed in and for a review to take place. It’s quite clear, though, that there are people in the world who have ill will towards this country, ill will towards a number of countries who are likeminded to us. As a consequence of that, we saw the dreadful events that took place around the mosques in Christchurch back in March of 2019.
Those events did lead to a consideration of what we should have known—what could have been known and what steps could have been taken that might have prevented that event taking place? The Government set up the royal commission. The royal commission did its work over a reasonable period of time and came up with suggestions for what might change in the future. To change those conditions, to pick up on what they had to say, essentially, and to give life to their suggestions, there is a need to review the Act at a time much sooner than the time line that’s currently legislated for. So, without wanting to disturb the Act itself and the provisions that it makes for the agencies to be vigilant on the behalf of New Zealand, this bill simply sets out an amendment that brings forward that date for review from any time after 1 July of this year.
National supports that. We think it’s important that we do put some life around some of the recommendations of the royal commission. One of those recommendations, though, does have the suggestion that the intelligence services should be overseen by a board. That’s an interesting idea, one that I think I’d like to see teased out in any legislation that might come out of the review. And that means that the reviewers need to be people that there is a high level of confidence in. The proposal is that there would be two people carrying out that review, people who have the highest security clearance—so, therefore, people who do know what they’re dealing with—and I’m sure that we will have people of very high calibre appointed into that role, who we can have a great deal of confidence in.
So I don’t think it’s appropriate to prolong this particular contribution. Can I simply say that this respects the fact that some New Zealanders suffered dreadfully because there was a lack of intelligence about what might happen. That’s not a criticism of either of the services or the New Zealand Police. It is just a harsh reality that there are people in our society today who have ill will towards the rest of us, who will go about exercising their particular prejudices in a nasty way. So, while there has been terrible tragedy for the families most affected in Christchurch, a dreadful tragedy that will never leave them, there has also been a smite on our wider community. The upside of that is a greater understanding of people and a greater willingness to embrace difference, and I think that is an upside that we need to cling to.
So, when this review is done, I would hope that we do have recommendations for further changes to the Act that will strengthen the ability of our intelligence services to protect the way of life that we enjoy in this country, the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, and the right for any individual to express themselves, in a reasonable fashion, religiously, culturally, or other belief wise. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fa‘afetai tele lava. I call on the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019 delivered 44 recommendations to this Government. Part of those recommendations was to make changes across the system to—well, actually, all of those recommendations were about making changes across the system to protect the lives and the wellbeing of those who choose to call New Zealand home. The royal commission highlighted also the importance of regulatory stewardship and ensuring that our legislation remains fit for purpose.
Now, the Intelligence and Security Act sets out the objectives, the functions, the powers, and the oversight arrangements of the intelligence and security agencies, allowing them to act, as necessary, to protect New Zealand and New Zealand’s interests with appropriate limitations and robust oversight. As the member who resumed his seat, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, pointed out, the Act actually requires that an independent review of the Act takes place as soon as practicable after September 2022, which is five years after the Act commenced, and then every five to seven years after that. However, we have had the Christchurch mosque attacks in 2019 and, therefore, felt the need, in line with the recommendations of the royal commission, to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose, to bring forward that independent statutory review. And that is actually what this bill, the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill, does. It makes that very minor technical law change to allow that independent statutory review of the Act to be brought forward.
I just want to make two quick points, without re-litigating some of the points that have already been made. I refer to the shortened select committee period that previous members have referred to as well. That is something that both sides of this House, that our Government has negotiated with the Leader of the Opposition as well—and that’s just to ensure that the review itself, the shortened select committee period, is to get to a point of the review happening. Of course, any substantial changes that are recommended through that review to the Act itself will go through the proper select committee process—just giving people comfort that that will happen.
I also want to make the point, in the nationwide series of hui that Minister Little and I led to share the Government’s response to the 44 recommendations of the royal commission that we accepted in principle, we heard from many who attended that, including families of the shuhada, that they still felt unsafe and they wanted changes to be made to ensure that we changed legislation and take all steps that we can to keep New Zealand safe from such attacks in future. I just want to make sure that I emphasise that families of shuhada and the wider public will have the opportunity to express their views on issues related to national security and the matters raised by the royal commission about the legislation, through this process.
So without further delay, I commend this bill to the House.
IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Al salam alaikum and talofa lava, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity as I rise to speak on this very important bill. As a Muslim and an ethnic person, this has an exceptional meaning to me. There is no question that terrorism today causes the biggest threat to humanity. That is why one of the things that the royal commission looked into was a change in the way that our security and intelligence agencies act after what happened in the Christchurch masjidain.
First, I’d like to thank our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and also Minister Andrew Little, who have shown the decisive leadership to bring this review forward from September 2022 to 1 July 2021. I also know how important this is to the Muslim community in Christchurch, and also nationwide.
For many years, since September 11, terrorism has always been linked to Muslim communities all over the world, and, therefore, the intelligence and security agencies have focused all their resources on watching and surveilling Muslims. That is not any different here in New Zealand. Because of that, a lot of Muslims—and many ethnic people, and, historically, of course, Māori—lost confidence and faith in our security and intelligence agencies. At some point, I was one of the people who lost faith in our security, as well, because of how specific laws treated my communities.
While the royal commission didn’t find the intelligence and security agency could have done things to stop—but also it is very important that our security and intelligence treat terrorist threats seriously, because terrorism threats don’t come from Muslims today; it is clear that white supremacy causes the biggest threat. Our current legislation reflects an outdated focus and sometimes sentiments borrowed from overseas where we have seen the tensions grow and continue to polarise communities all over the world, as well. So we don’t want that here in New Zealand.
The distrust in security and intelligence agencies was echoed in consultations throughout the hui that we did throughout the country—about 35 huis. The common theme from the community that came in every meeting was that they want transparency, they want to trust the agencies, and they want to see some actions. And, obviously, they believe that that is going to repair the broken relationship with our security and intelligence agencies.
March 15 showed us how devastating the consequences of not updating our review—or reviewing our models—for national security can be. This was supported by the findings of the royal commission.
In the end, it is important that we arm our security and intelligence agencies with the right tools so that they can be able to do their job properly, so they can be fit for purpose. The Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill will allow for us to fast track that. This bill also implements changes in a reasonable time frame that shows our community that we are taking new threats seriously, that we need to show our community that they can believe in our security and intelligence agencies. This bill is the beginning of repairing the broken trust.
At the end, I just want to say to the Muslim community that you have been targeted by our agencies unfairly and eventually sustained deadly attacks that took 51 lives and injured many more lives. Thank you for the resilience, thank you for the leadership, and thank you for showing New Zealand that the way to move forward is actually by coming together. So, with that, I highly commend this bill to the House.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker and assalamo alaikum to our Muslim whānau, particularly those down there in Christchurch. This bill does one simple thing: it amends the Intelligence and Security Act of 2017 to bring forward the date of the review of the Act, including the GCSB and the SIS, from September 2022 to July 2021. That’s a good thing and we support that. This has been done to ensure issues with the Act raised in the royal commission’s report into the terrorist attack on our Muslim whānau in Christchurch are addressed promptly. The commission made numerous recommendations for amendments to the Act and we look forward to addressing all of those issues in due time.
One of the things that I’m mindful of is the rising threat of white supremacy and I just want to acknowledge that there have been actual death threats in the last couple of weeks against actual MPs in this House as well. So the truncated time process to make sure that we address these in a prompt, timely fashion is a good thing. And it’s important for us to push that here as parliamentarians as well. I’m also hoping that we will have a wider conversation about those that enable white supremacy, those who do not pull the trigger, but create the ground in which those who are in different states of mind, who are in vulnerable situations, then react to that information. So I think it’s really important to talk about the enablers of white supremacy.
Racism is a weed and the enablers feed those weeds with a fertiliser, which is a toxic mix of misinformation and ignorance. These enablers often hide behind arguments of free speech. Free speech is important, and it’s something that we must have in order to have freedom of expression to be our authentic selves in these times. But you can find an enabler, I feel, who hides behind freedom of speech by looking at who they are defending—looking at who they are defending. Are they defending the rights of freedom of speech of marginalised minorities? Are they defending the rights of freedom of speech of people from impoverished communities, from brown communities? Or are they routinely defending the speech of the wealthy—the white wealthy? These are some of the questions that I continue to have.
I think people will want to know what the spies have been doing. We definitely know on March 15 they were not looking at the right people, that they weren’t looking at the white terrorist supremist who killed our Muslim whānau in Christchurch. And so when we ask those questions, it’s all about—because all these spy agencies and the entire alphabet soup of their security apparatus of the State, we have to look at how those resources have been allocated. Are they spying on Māori? Are they spying on Muslim whānau? Are they spying on peace and environmental and social justice activists? And if so, why? And if those resources are being allocated in that way, how much of that resource is being spent on white supremacy? My expectation is that they will pick it up in terms of focusing on white supremacy. But we need to know that.
Last week, Dr Aziz Choudry passed away. For those of you who remember the 1990s, Dr Aziz Choudry was an activist and a social justice activist involved with bring up some of the issues around the APEC ministerial meeting that was happening in 1996. And he actually happened to catch SIS spies on his house. And so people like Aziz are at front of mind for me at the moment—social justice activists who have been routinely scrutinised by the State. He was an innovative researcher, author, and educator. He inspired countless colleagues and students to challenge societal norms to advocate social justice and learning advocacy. He was a passionate and political activist and my thoughts and condolences go out to him and his whānau at this time.
I think as it was with Aziz in 1996, it was with our Tūhoe whānau in 2007, who were also under surveillance. The 2001 September 11 attack happened and because America declared a war on terrorism, we promptly followed and enacted the Terrorism Suppression Act in 2002. Apparently, the apparatus of the State didn’t have anything to do so they started spying on Māori activists. So, as it was with Aziz in 1996 and with our Tūhoe whānau in 2007, it was the same with our Muslim whānau in 2019, because the apparatus of the State was spying on Muslim whānau. I think it’s really important that we do not compartmentalise these separate events, but we need to look at them as a trend over time. Where are these priorities coming from? Where are these priorities coming from over this period of time from the time of the SIS going through Aziz Choudry’s house, to the time of when the apparatus of the State was watching Tūhoe activists, to the time when they should have been watching white supremacists; instead they were spying on Muslim whānau.
Is it because New Zealand is the smallest eye among the Five Eyes? If so, we have to ask ourselves whether we want to continue being part of something that compromises our independence. Do we want to continue to be a satellite State that enables American imperialism or do we want to be an independent Aotearoa? These are the questions that I have and I hope you have those questions too. I commend this bill to the House.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I do not intend to take a very long call on this bill, and the reason being is because it makes a very small change in the legislation. It’s a very simple change, just in regard to the timing of the statutory review of the intelligence and security agencies. This will move the timing of the review to begin this year, from or as soon as practicable after 1 July. The reason for this is to, of course, give effect to one of the recommendations of the royal commission inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks.
The royal commission recommended that all legislation related to the counter-terrorism effort, including the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, is reviewed in order to ensure that it’s current and enables our security services to properly monitor and supress threats of terrorism. It is clear that the events on March 15 2019 illustrated a present need to make sure that the laws that govern the agencies tasked to keep us safe remain up to date, provide the right checks and balances, and allow for agencies to respond to the ever-changing threats to our way of life. What’s more, the report from the royal commission did highlight areas of concern within the security agencies. People who wish to inflict terrorism on our communities are constantly changing their methods and their tactics, and the way that we respond also needs to be in kind with updated methods and tactics.
The statutory framework that governs the security agencies needs to reflect the contemporary environment that these agencies operate in, and we do need to ensure that any weaknesses that may have been identified from March 15 are addressed. This Parliament has already passed the first reading of an update to our counter-terrorism laws, currently being considered through the select committee process, so the review to this Act is timely. On that note, we commend this bill to the House.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Talofa lava. I have some sympathy for the comments by the Green member Teanau Tuiono around the Tūhoe so-called terrorists. One of them was a friend of mine who had a gun for a dance show in her home. She was in her 20s, and as a result of the raids she was dragged through the court system. So it is timely that we take a look at what our agencies are looking at as many of the speakers have said today.
I’m also really grateful on behalf of the people of Taieri that we are moving this small technical piece of legislation through the House at some speed. Even though it is technical, it means a lot to the people in my community. It delivers on our 2020 Labour manifesto where we have a view to eradicating violent extremism and fostering a truly inclusive society. And, as has been mentioned, it also delivers on Cabinet’s commitment to implementing all 44 recommendations of the royal commission.
It means a huge amount to the Muslim communities in Taieri, because the gunman who committed those heinous acts lived in my electorate prior to going to Christchurch. He was filled with hate and he would sit in his flat not far from my house, looking out at the children of people who attended the An-Nur mosque, and he looked at those children with hate. He attended a local gym and he spoke to gym goers about the hatred he felt for the diverse cafe owners and shopkeepers on the main street in South Dunedin. Those people are not just constituents; they are my friends. He killed whānau of the people who attended the mosque, and they still live with that pain every day. As Minister Radhakrishnan has quite rightly said, the communities there still feel a great deal of anxiety. So being in action around legislation is one of the ways that we can alleviate that anxiety.
I would note that we have already introduced to this House another bill in response to the royal commission, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, which is amongst the suite of measures that we are taking to show that we are urgently addressing what needs to be addressed. Also, as the Green member pointed out, for Māori who are feeling vulnerable, this small technical bill will make them feel more safe. The Green member alluded to the highly offensive and racist video that was posted on YouTube last week, and perhaps some of the rhetoric in this House has also added to those anxieties. So it does show that we are taking this seriously.
As the royal commissioner said, we need to review all legislation around our counter-terrorism efforts. We need transparency. We need to publish our security priorities. This will also involve a “threatscape” report being published annually. We need to strengthen the role of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, and it adds a reporting requirement for direct access agreements that allow intelligence and security agencies to access certain databases.
So in order to do that, we really first need to have an independent statutory review. And the questions they will be asking are things like this: what are our current threats? Can the Intelligence and Security Act be strengthened? What specific parts of the Act are problematic, as raised by the royal commission? Members opposite have talked about the balancing of rights. Certainly advice was sought from the Attorney-General as to whether it would limit any rights and freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Attorney-General’s office found nothing inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. There will, of course, be a short foreign affairs select committee process, and I’m privileged to be sitting on that select committee in part of that process. As has also been mentioned by Minister Radhakrishnan, the wider implications around human rights, the substantive elements will go through a further substantive review, through a full committee process, and no doubt there will be more advice sought from the Attorney-General regarding any implications on the Human Rights Act.
So, in summary, this small technical piece of legislation is actually really poignant. It provides surety to all New Zealanders, especially those impacted by the mosque shootings or those who feel marginalised. It delivers on our manifesto commitment, delivers on our commitment to the royal commission. It alleviates anxiety and it shows we’re really serious about creating a truly inclusive New Zealand where all New Zealanders can feel safe. I’m really proud to commend this bill to the House.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Talofa lava. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou o te Whare, ngā āhuatanga o te wā.
[Greetings and salutations to the House.]
I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the first reading of the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill. A review of the intelligence and security system is long overdue and should be an opportunity to feed in to make the system better. It is tika that a review takes place and that it is brought forward, given the increase in white supremacist violence and hate speech in recent months and years. A comprehensive review of the Act and the relevant agencies, including the NZSIS, the GCSB, and the New Zealand Police has been advocated by tangata whenua for decades.
We know, based on the royal commission into the horrific terrorist attack on Muslin whānau in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, that the intelligence agencies were monitoring and targeting completely the wrong people. The reality is that they were not at all focused on white supremacists and their organisations, despite them having a longstanding history of violence in this country, including firebombing marae and attacking Māori on the streets. Instead, we know that the majority of the operations targeted peaceful Muslim citizens and tangata whenua activists.
White supremacy and racism are the biggest pandemics we face in this country, and yet the Crown has weaponised fears around terrorism to target and vilify tangata whenua and have used anti-terror laws to criminalise our people, as we saw with the Urewera raids. As I know from firsthand experience, there is a culture among the State sector of harassing and intimidating Māori, environmental campaigners, and really just about anyone who pushes policies that seek to undo the harm of the colonial capitalist State.
In 2018, I was the CEO of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui. It was revealed that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment had contracted a private firm, Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd, to spy on Ngāti Ruanui and our allies who were fighting seabed mining permits off the South Taranaki coast. This demonstrates how deep the systemic problems are. A bureaucratic culture which allows for intelligence agencies, let alone Public Service departments, to spy on non-violent political campaigners is fundamentally rotten.
Te Paati Māori will be supporting this bill at first reading because we think it’s imperative that a review takes place. However, our support is not unconditional. It is our view that the Act should be amended further to require the appointed reviewers to establish a public engagement process that includes specific engagement with tangata whenua as Te Tiriti partners and invites submissions from the general public. There must be an opportunity for our people, for security experts, and for human rights advocates to be able to submit so that we can create the best possible intelligence and security framework for Aotearoa.
The review should be based solely on the royal commission, despite some good recommendations coming out of that. We must acknowledge—sorry, I need to say that again. The review should not be based solely on the royal commission, despite some good recommendations coming out of that. We must acknowledge that a balance must be struck in legislation and regulations between ensuring agencies have the power to protect our people while also guaranteeing human rights, such as privacy. Above all, we need to be assured that our security agencies, which operate with very little accountability or transparency, have shifted their focus on to the real threats to our peace, harmony, and security in Aotearoa. We look forward to canvassing these issues as the bill makes its way through the House. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Fa‘afetai tele lava, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill, at its first reading.
I’m a strong believer that to be heard, to have your concerns or your views acknowledged, is an affirmation of belonging. So, although this is technically small, democratically and culturally it is powerful. To understand the significance of this change, it’s really about reflecting on the enormity of the loss that the whānau, the Muslim community, and that we all as New Zealanders faced on 15 March 2019. But it’s also significant in terms of what it signifies in terms of the Government’s response to the voices of those who submitted to the royal commission process and then what was reflected through the royal commission report itself.
New Zealand isn’t the only country that has a review function like this; the United Kingdom and other countries do as well. I was recently reading their 2014 review, and the author of their review report commented on the need for reviews where potential conflicts between State powers and civil liberties are acute but information is tightly rationed, and I completely agree. I also think that periodic reviews are needed because of the nature of the risk itself that terrorism presents to society, but also that we need timely reviews because of the nature of our changing world, and I’m often struck by the demands we place on legislation to cover, what can be, the unforeseeable. I think we’ve seen an example of that over the last year.
My colleagues have already spoken to the change itself, which is contained in clause 4 of the bill and is very minor; so I won’t review that again. But I will say there are other aspects to the Act that obviously haven’t been touched. So a robust process will follow, and for those interested who are listening at home, you can look to sections 236 and 241 of the Act that sets out some of the parameters of the review itself.
I started by saying that it’s a deceptively small change. It’s a change to legislation that will have a big impact to our communities. So I do hope that this bill travels smoothly through the House and through select committee and, when we do get to the eventual substantive review, at a time from July 2021, that that will provide a timely opportunity for individuals, including the whānau of the 51 shuhada who lost their lives, to have a say at our current settings in regards to the Intelligence and Security Act and to help us test whether the current settings meet and respond robustly to those areas I spoke about before: the significant powers in place, the security risks present, and to our changing world. I commend this bill to the House.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. The Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill may be a minor and technical law change, but it is still an important change that will begin a process that will be of huge value to New Zealand going forward into the future. The independent statutory review was scheduled in the law to start after September 2022, but as a result of passing this bill, the review will now be able to start on 1 July of this year. And that was a direct reflection from the royal commission.
I was lucky enough to participate and be part of some of the hui that were conducted around the country, that were attended by the Minister the Hon Andrew Little, by the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and also by Ibrahim Omer, where we listened and engaged with communities in the Wellington region about concerns and how we could strengthen our legal system, strengthen our democracy, to make sure that we would never again have an instance such as March 15.
So I think that this bill, enabling the process to kick off sooner, is the right thing to do. It gives reassurance to our communities across New Zealand, who are still reeling from those days we witnessed back on March 15, to know that we will take every action possible to not leave ourselves open to such an attack again in the future. By having this review under way, and taking quick action and not leaving it to sit for another year on the books, shows a dedication and a commitment to making New Zealand a safer place where all people feel free to practise their culture and religion as they choose to do so, without any fear, because that is the wrong thing to have in this country. Therefore, I would like to commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Instruction to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the GCSB) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I move, That the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 17 June 2021, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day in which there’s been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
It is clear from the contributions from members across the House that members accept the need for and eagerly await the review that is contemplated by this amending legislation and bringing it forward. In order to do that, in order to be able to progress the review that otherwise would take place next year, it would be desirable to commence that sooner rather than later. That would ordinarily call for, and if we are to do that, a truncated period of time in the select committee, and bearing in mind, really, that the only amendment is to section 235 of the current legislation, which is to amend the time frame within which a review happens. It doesn’t bear upon the substantive issues that members have rightly referred to and look forward to contributing to a discussion on; it is just about amending that date.
So there’s not a lot for members of the public who take an interest in these matters to express a view on. There may be some who have a view that there should not be an accelerated review, but this is about respecting, as members have said, the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry. There is a general sense by members of this House from all parties that it is timely to look at both the legislation to make sure that the balance of rights and interests and the powers provided for in the legislation are those that are required for our agencies to do their job of keeping the nation secure, and, in terms of that review, to make sure that the agencies’ priorities are the ones that reflect our expectations about the way we keep our nation secure.
But those matters of substance are part of the review. In order to get to the review, we needed to get there sooner rather than later, and the truncated select committee process is the way of doing that. I invite, therefore, the House to consider this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 2 June.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fa‘afetai lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Talofa lava, Madam Speaker, thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and, in doing so, can I acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, on the role that you have played with this particular piece of legislation as it has moved through the various parts of the parliamentary process. I also acknowledge the leadership of the Minister who spoke in the House last night, the Hon Poto Williams, along with officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office in the drafting component and exercise in relation to this bill.
I also want to acknowledge fellow Environment Committee members for their role in progressing it. I guess, as a new member of this House, there are many firsts, and this is amongst the first one that I’ve been a member of the select committee that has gone through second reading, committee of the whole House, and then through to third reading, as it stands presently. So it’s always nice to have those learning opportunities along the way.
This bill, essentially, will be some form of reform to the Building Act 2004: a piece of legislation that has been 17-plus years in the making. Many people in many various industries will have a range of different opportunities where they have engaged with that piece of legislation; it is a piece of legislation that is well known in many circles. What the bill will do is it will, as referred to in second reading, make it easier for people within the industry and outside of the industry to make some well-informed decisions, because they will have specific product information around the components of building supplies, but also the methods that would be used, available to them. I’m sure that members of this House will agree that when they have more information, they are in a better place to make particular decisions.
We all know that a particular challenge that local councils and the sector face, regardless of where you are in the country, tends to be around the issue of consenting, and, obviously, the Building Act has a key role in terms of a primary piece of legislation and what that means in that particular space. This will be yet another tool, I guess, in the tool kit for local government and for local councils, alongside those in the industry, to use in facing the various challenges that they have.
What is pleasing is that as this piece of legislation has moved through its various processes, the committee and the House has been responsive to the various aspects that actually came through this select committee process, where members of the public had an opportunity to submit, and that has worked its way through. As a result, we have a piece of legislation that has a number of changes that are directly as a result of that select committee process. I said it at second reading and I’ll say it again: it’s a prime example of the select committee process in action and working, so that’s really pleasing as well.
Yesterday, we heard from the Minister of Finance, who reminded us of the 100,000 apprentices in New Zealand and that 57,000 of that figure were actually new to that line of work. But he went on to inform the House that, actually, one-third of the 57,000 were in the sector of construction. That’s really important, because the people who will be engaging with this legislative change will come from that very sector, in the construction sector, and so it’s appropriate that I acknowledge them today.
One of the aspects that came through the select committee process as a form of change was around pushing out the amount of time that would be given over to the authorities for regulations to be developed. I don’t intend to go into the regulations as such, but what I would say is that pushing it from 12 to 15 months just gives it that additional little bit of flex to make sure that, actually, when these regulations are developed, made, and effectively implemented, there’s adequate time for that to actually take place and for that to happen.
One of the changes that we also saw come through to third reading was that around offences. So the bill does continue to create some new offences. It does continue to put in place some higher maximum penalties that—it’s certainly my view—would serve as a disincentive. You can have a look at those particular new tariffs. I have no doubt that they will serve as a reminder to anyone that wishes to engage with the Building Act that they have a responsibility and, indeed, an obligation to make sure that they are compliant with that.
It also extends the filing time frame for a charging document, and my view is that when you look at the bill—and it’s contained in replacement section 203A, inserted by clause 51—it outlines a number of factors, but also, actually, what is contained in the bill is around the process for investigation. Many people in this House, I’m sure, will be aware that often, as part of a process of investigation, there needs to be a little bit more time to make sure that the evidence, the information, is gathered, that there are natural justice considerations, and I’m pleased to say that they are very clearly outlined in section 203A around that. When you consider what that means in practice, it makes sense to ensure that, actually, there is an extension as to the period of time by which local government or local territorial authorities may wish to take to actually file a charging document through the courts. So that is appropriate in that regulatory space.
One of the aspects that I think is really important in this bill is that it introduces an opportunity in Part 2A of amended Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 97, to do things a little bit differently. It’s certainly my hope that this would be something that was able to extend itself beyond this particular bill and into other pieces of legislation, because it’s about the way in which we actually go about notifying our community that things are happening. Many people in this House will be aware that the traditional approach is to put a public notice in a community newspaper, or a local rag. We all know, and we can all reflect on the various roles that we have in community groups and other organisations, that, actually, most people—a lot of people; not all, but a lot of people—will get the information from websites, via email, from digital newsletters, and the like. So what Part 2A does as a new part is it provides an opportunity for these rules that would be developed—rules around the product certification scheme and also rules around the modular component manufacturer scheme—to actually be made available on the ministry’s website. Instead of going through the process of putting that into a public newspaper, which can be a little bit cumbersome from time to time, this new provision will allow, actually, for the rules to move with technology and to ensure that there is a presence in that digital space.
So not only is that a wonderful opportunity, but, if we look down further, this particular bill also provides an opportunity for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to actually put on their website and make available to the public a consolidated version of the various scheme rules for both of those: the certification and the modular component manufacturer aspects as well. So not only are the rules in their entirety made available, but also a consolidated version so that they’re easy to access by the community. So that’s something that I’m particularly proud of that stands out in this piece of legislation.
Just last week, I was talking with a local builder who is involved heavily in a local construction company. We all know that there are challenges in that particular sector from time to time—particularly so right now—and that there is certainly no shortage of work in the pipeline for people in the construction sector and industry. So I know that for him, this will be some comfort to those challenging opportunities because it will make the process easier with the introduction of new product information requirements that will provide certainty. They will provide opportunities for consumers but actually also for builders and regulators to ensure that there is that sense of satisfaction, but also that element of protection in that they will be aware and they will know that the products and the methods that they are going to use in construction are certified and are fit for purpose.
This is another example of a bill that is well wanted, well needed, and I’m delighted that its time has come in terms of it coming to third reading. On that particular basis, I’m delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fa‘afetai.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill. The previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, outlined a number of positive developments with this bill. As anyone who’s lived in the Northern Hemisphere probably knows—most countries, not all—it can be a bit of a shock to come to Aotearoa New Zealand and discover in the winter that it’s colder inside than outside.
Probably one of the things that motivated me to get involved in politics after immigrating to this beautiful country was the knowledge that our built environment could be so much better, and that is something the Government absolutely can do something about. It’s not very complicated. We know what the materials are that are needed to build energy efficient buildings. We know the standards and the science that delivers really high energy performance homes that don’t cost much to heat, but also have healthier environments, quieter environments, and better air quality. So many of our overloaded hospitals wouldn’t be faced with the challenge that they’re faced with if we had buildings that were warmer, drier, and healthier to live in. I know it’s been a journey over the last decade or so to try and improve that, but this particular bill, looking at the regulation of building products and methods, is really important to raise the bar and provide the information that’s needed for builders to be able to improve the standards.
For example, a friend of mine who worked in passive houses back in Germany—and the passive house standard is simply a standard that applies to all buildings that means that it has a very healthy and quiet indoor environment, it usually uses some mechanical ventilation, and it usually needs no additional heating, because just living in the building is enough to generate the heat to make it at a livable temperature. So although it might cost a little bit more to cost or design initially, it ends up costing less over the life of the building—a lot less. And she said that when she came to New Zealand she was shocked because it was very easy to get information about the R-value of certain products that you were looking at, like insulation products, and that all of that was required to be published on the packaging of the products, and that here in New Zealand there was no requirement for that information. So that is something that will certainly help inform the process to have that requirement for better disclosure of the materials themselves and their properties.
There’s still one outstanding aspect of this that I think is a lost opportunity. I know that the Minister discussed during committee stage that it would be possible through regulations to address it, and that was an issue that was raised in a submission by the master plumbers association, and that was around the mandatory third-party certification of tapware products that are used for drinking water. I think this isn’t a widespread problem in New Zealand, but it is a problem that the consequences of which are quite severe for the people effected, potentially, and so it’s one that is really worth this House considering and the Government considering how they can ensure that we have a lead-free standard for our tapware products, especially when they are delivering drinking water. That lead-free standard is one that Australia’s moving towards, and that the United States, Canada, and some countries in Europe have already implemented.
The latest science on lead exposure demonstrates that there is no safe level of lead exposure, and it’s been many decades of winding back our use of lead in different industrial products. At times, the impacts of this can be subtle, but they can also be lifelong. So even a very small amount of lead exposure as a child can have lifelong consequences for IQ, for depression and anxiety, and for other factors. So that was not addressed in this bill, and I feel a bit disappointed officials have decided not to go for a mandatory third-party certification system for all tapware products, because, if we don’t have that independent third-party verification and it’s just the supplier themselves signing off that it’s good, there’s no way for consumers to be really confident that the products are, in fact, lead free. The master plumbers have found products that are available on Trade Me that are cheap, they’re available, and they’re leaching really unsafe levels of lead into drinking water for the people who end up purchasing those products.
Already in Australia they have this mandatory third-party certification system, so it’s not something that would severely curtail the supply of products into New Zealand. And 80 percent of the products supplied into New Zealand are also going into Australia—they have mandatory third-party testing. I think it’s a simple thing and the reality is if we don’t have a structure like that then the whole system is undercut by the very small number of people who might be importing and selling unsafe products. And there’s no way for plumbers themselves or for clients and for households—for people who are making improvements to their kitchen or buying a brand new kitchen, there’s no way for them to be certain that the water that they’re drinking is safe. We have wider issues around water supply and making sure that it’s not contaminated and is delivered safely. So I think this is a simple thing that I hope the Minister and the Government decide through regulations to implement a mandatory third-party certification system for those tapware products that are used for drinking water. Kia ora.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Malo le soifua.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
I want to take this time to acknowledge all the New Zealanders who work hard to provide homes for us in New Zealand, the people who go out every day—the builders, the plumbers, the electricians, the drainlayers, the tilers, the carpenters. There are so many people who are all involved in the building process, and I just really want to acknowledge that they do a hard job—they really do. And, under this Government’s Budget, of course, this is middle New Zealand who is being squeezed from every direction.
The ACT Party is supporting this bill because it makes a very simple change that would help to streamline and make the Building Act more effective. We support it because it’s helping to make building homes faster, a quicker process, and hopefully that can go some way to addressing the building shortage in New Zealand—the fact that we have Wellington this week hitting an average house price of $1 million and Auckland hitting $1.25 million. We have a housing shortage in New Zealand, and I am certainly hopeful that this bill will go some way to helping to address that through product certification.
Now, there’s not too much else to say, but really it is a very simple bill, and the ACT Party commends it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Fa‘afetai lava, talofa, and thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just acknowledge the previous speaker, Brooke van Velden—I know that anything that cuts red tape and fastens things up will get the support of the ACT Party, so that is positive.
Also, just thinking of Samoa Language Week, I wanted to acknowledge Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, a former member but also somebody who is leading a piece of construction in terms of a Fale Malae here in Wellington City. Thankfully, our sometimes functioning council approved a site and were able to accommodate such an outstanding facility of Pasefika architecture on the Wellington waterfront.
But I know that in talking to Dame Winnie, she often has fond memories and reflects back on the work that she did here in her role as the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, but also, in the conversation that I had, she not only advocates for her fale constantly but was also complimentary, Madam Speaker, about the construction accord that when you were a Minister, you implemented. I reflect on that because those of us who were on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee this morning heard from our current Minister for Building and Construction, and we reflected on how much of a success that has been, and I credit that to your vision and bold work, Madam Speaker.
That sets the scene, I guess, for what this bill is all about, because that has brought together industry leaders from across the broad sector that is building and construction. And what that does is underpins some of the issues that need to come together to ensure that legislation like this can be effectively implemented. What I mean by that is getting a commitment from our industry, a better integrated commitment from Government and agencies, but also going back to what Dame Winnie talked about, and that was the fact that many Pasefika young people now have something to aspire to. That is the background to making sure that we can get more of our young people into this sector.
This is important, because what this bill does is certainly help address those challenges at a really practical level. So we’ve really underpinned this by the accord, and we know that is driven by this huge need to build more houses and a whole range of infrastructure. In our upgrade programme, you’ll see we are making commitments just this week. I know that my good friend in Ōtaki—or Wellington North, as I like to call it!—is pleased to hear that the motorway from Ō2NL, as the acronym is, has been approved. That is a sign that this Government is committed to delivering on an infrastructure programme that connects in also here at the big picture.
I’m really happy to see this go through, because I know that those in the sector have many ideas that they would like to bring to the attention of Government. One of the aspects I really enjoy is that modular component manufacture scheme. It is a voluntary certification scheme, as we’ve heard, but, only this week, the member for Hutt South, Ginny Andersen, and I had talked to someone who we are bringing back in to introduce to the wider caucus around a modular housing product. He is one of many who are bringing these types of technologies to Aotearoa New Zealand. Look, we’ve had some in the sector for many, many years—and I reflect back on builders like Lockwood Homes and Fraemohs Industries who have been doing kitset housing or modular housing, in some way, for many, many years. But what this does is it brings into effect a voluntary scheme that gives confidence to those wanting to build this type of housing in New Zealand.
The key point here is that the different components comply. I think, you know, we’ve seen far too many incidents in this sector where, if we get it wrong—and, I think, weathertightness is catastrophic in many ways—it impacts Kiwis in ways that we’d never thought. So actually having something that is voluntarily put in place by those in the sector, I think, deserves real credit. They will work with the Government agency responsible, which is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and that programme will, no doubt, roll out.
The other thing that I think deserves a big tick is that product certification scheme. And MBIE, again, will have the power to do some auditing of those bodies, and that means revoking registrations where appropriate and then issuing certificates annually. This is all just part of, as I said, getting that confidence into the sector so that people actually look at some of these things. And there have been real questions around some of the imported product—I’m not going to go into that today, but what it does do is it goes back to giving that reassurance.
So, unfortunately, with these things comes compliance. I know the ACT Party will be very keen to ensure less red tape, but the bill does propose the creation of an offence. So if anyone misrepresents themselves—and we know that submitters came in, they talked about this, they wanted to see some action to say this is unacceptable, but unless there is some deterrent in place that is enforced by a Government entity, we, therefore, know that there is no impact. The other work is around that—and I will talk about offences, but it does propose the introduction of new offences to support compliance. Again, that has been raised by those who came in and submitted—it is well known. There is a range of penalties there that reflect the seriousness of the offences.
The fourth bit that I just wanted to finish off on is the widening of the scope and the collection of and use of the building levy. Just within the building levy, that provides funding for the performance by MBIE’s CEO of functions under the Act. That will enable MBIE to monitor, oversee, and improve the performance of the building sector and relevant systems operating under the building sector legislation. These are some of the biggest changes to the Building Act since it was introduced in 2004. This does reflect, I think, some of the changes that have come into the market place. We know that the sector is supportive.
I started this speech talking about what underpins this through the construction accord. That is an integrated approach to making sure that all aspects of building and construction in Aotearoa New Zealand are cohesive and are delivering to a house-building market that needs to ensure that everything put in place, everything built, any home built, and any piece of infrastructure built has the componentry, or parts of, so that people have a sense of reassurance. That is the key word that I have used throughout the speech because, I believe, and, when I look back at the submissions, that is something that people were seeking: how are we reassured that these components—in terms of, for example, the modular building—meet the integrity and standards that they say that they do? So those offences that are there now or that will come in through this bill will be put in place to give that reassurance and confidence for those in the sector and, obviously, those homeowners and those involved in building.
It has been a real pleasure to talk about this, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Talofa lava. I rise to speak, on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for Southland, on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The National Party supports this bill. It is a bill that is a good first step. It makes a small step in the right direction in terms of solving the housing dilemma that this Government and this country is faced with.
It is a small step—though, I should say, however, it is one that we’ve supported throughout. We supported it at the first reading, the select committee, the second reading, and now at the third reading.
The legislation attributes to improving building outcomes by establishing a registration and certification system for modular construction methods. It will provide faster, more consistent building consent approaches for manufacturers that are able to meet quality and performance standards and have a demonstrated ability to produce buildings with components that comply with the New Zealand Building Code. An efficient regulatory and a high-performing building sector is one that we all support and stand behind.
I just want to take the opportunity here to note that we shouldn’t stop here, and the Government should not stop here. We also have a skills shortage in the tradie sector. We have workforce issues, and the recent immigration reset announced by the Government does not solve the issue of a lack of tradie staff. It’s great that the Government is making some steps in training new staff. However, I would note that it takes five years to train a tradie so they can get out there and actually contribute in a big way to building new houses, to putting more roofs on, to putting more electricity networks throughout our country.
One of the other issues is electricity. It seems a funny thing to say here, but it has a direct impact on the building of new houses in our country. In 2018, spot electricity prices were $80 a megawatt hour. At the moment, they’re peaking at over $300 per megawatt hour. Now, obviously, I’ve heard from a business directly that it is not cutting wood in the afternoons—it’s not dressing wood in the afternoons—because of the price of electricity. So this is having a direct impact on the provision of wood to our building sector in New Zealand, and it’s something that I suggest the Government should pay attention to as there are some quite complex inputs into our building sector, and we need some solutions to them.
And in a time of wood shortage, a time when Carter Holt Harvey has indicated this is going to stop the supply of wood products to major retailers, being Mitre 10 and ITM—it’s not supplying them with structural timber for the foreseeable future—we need every bit of wood being cut and produced for our country that we can. If we have electricity spot prices getting to over $300 per megawatt hour, and we have a timber mill not cutting wood in the afternoons because electricity spot prices are too much, the Government needs to do something about it.
So I should just note that we’re also very interested in the trading environment for our country. We have a skills shortage not only in New Zealand; we have a skills shortage with our cousins across the ditch in Australia, who are having a building boom. They also have trade shortages, and traditionally in Australia they pay more than New Zealand. So we need to make sure that we can actually get the people into New Zealand. We need to support the people we have in New Zealand, but we also need to make sure we can get more in, because it’s going to take time to train these new tradies—five years. In the meantime, we need to let in skilled immigrants who can help us build the houses that we need in this country.
So I would suggest this Government should take a broader approach—look at actually what needs to be done, and actually look at solutions, and don’t just use ideology to decide how to approach these problems, because we need real solutions. We need houses built.
I’ll just finish by saying, though, that I will give credit where credit is due, and this is a step in the right direction. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Always a pleasure to stand up when the Māori Party chooses not to, and here we are on housing. There’s not many issues that are more important to Māori than housing. But don’t worry, we’ve got a great Māori caucus that’s out around the country telling the country what we’re doing, including the papakāinga housing project.
Isn’t it funny that the National Party is saying that we’re not doing enough when this is just one of a huge raft of things we’re doing around housing, whilst they sat on their hands for nine years. What did they do? Sell State housing, and here we are at last. We’ve got more building consents being issued, more houses being built than we ever have had before, and what do they say? That we’re not doing enough. We’re reforming the Resource Management Act to make sure we build more houses, and what do they say? We’re not doing enough. We’re doing so much more than they ever did and we’ve turned the corner. So that’s fantastic.
This is actually a really good piece of legislation, because, you know what? It gives the ability to build houses more effectively, more efficiently, higher quality, and at lower cost. I’m actually really excited about the prospect of modular buildings, because we know that our traditional system of turning up on a building site, digging some holes for our piles, putting up our beams and our platform on top of that, and off we go until we get to the roof and close it in—it’s slow and it’s laborious. And we also know that the compliance around it can be a little clunky, too. We know that the number of building inspections is a lot and they’re costly and they can delay. But the modular building framework means that whole chunks and entire buildings can be built offsite in an audited situation and they won’t need to be consented. They’re given deemed consents. So you can, basically, plug them in, arrange the plumbing, get that consented, and away you go. So that’s really, really good.
I must say, funnily enough, and Madam Speaker from earlier in the day will know this, I was on the Environment Committee when this bill was first introduced. The submissions there were actually really interesting, because we had a number of submissions from people who had innovative building materials, and one of the challenges they had was the time and cost to get those building materials certified. So the other thing that this bill does—a very important thing—is to clarify and streamline the certification process for building materials so that we can have better innovation around building materials. We have a whole lot of people in New Zealand and New Zealand’s conditions are a little different. As Julie Anne Genter said, our houses aren’t always of the best quality, but we want to capture that New Zealand innovation so that rather than spending two years and $200,000 trying to get a cladding certified or some other part of a building structure certified, it can be done a lot more effectively.
Of course, the other thing—and I listened with interest, having just put a new tap into my kitchen—that I might now go and look a bit more closely—
Kieran McAnulty: Tell us about that!
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I thought it was really interesting: the question about lead componentry in taps that the Green member was talking about, because that is a real issue about the descriptions of building products, and there are no standards around how information is to be given to consumers, builders, and so on about building products. So it’s really important that we have the ability to say that safety is paramount.
We need to know what these building products can be used for and how, what their proper applications are, because one of the problems is that people pick up building materials intended to be used in a very particular manner and they use them in a different manner. I’m not going to talk about the James Hardie case, but we know that there’s a discussion there about whether the fault was due to the material or the fact that it was used in an inappropriate way or an appropriate manner. That’s a genuine discussion that goes on all the time when we have some kind of defects in our buildings.
So the need to provide information in a routine manner, in a proper manner—that’s really important so that people can follow the instructions, understand the nature of the product, how good it is. And, of course, then we’ve got some enforcement—a bit more teeth. Always good to have a bit more teeth, because making sure that these things are done properly and having an ability to follow up is really, really important.
So here we go, talking for the Māori Party again on something that I would have thought is close to their heart, but they’ve chosen not to turn up to speak about this today. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.
MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Talofa lava lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to have this opportunity to talk on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. And I figure, if I mention this title a few times in this speech, I might also be able to nail it like Duncan Webb did there in his speech, getting to the full allocation. It also seems very appropriate, since this is a building bill, to acknowledge that it is Samoan Language Week and talk about the theme of the Samoan Language Week, which is “Poupou le lotoifale. Ola manuia le anofale”, which in English means “Strengthen the posts of your house, for all to thrive.” I thought that was quite a nice little touch! It seemed quite appropriate.
The building sector, as we know, obviously, is under real pressure to deliver in an increasingly demanding environment. This bill is making sure that not only will we be delivering, but also delivering durable and affordable buildings at that. This bill, as has been pointed out a few times, is amending the Building Act 2004. It was introduced on 8 May last year and, in fact, is only the first stage of the reforms that we are bringing in, seeking to address those longstanding challenges in the building and construction sector.
Again, I like to look for themes when I do these kinds of longwinded stories. I guess I would like to tie it also to—I’d like to talk a little bit about, and I’ll make it tie into the bill—it is about securing our recovery, because this is what our Budget does; it focuses on accelerating our recovery for everyone, it keeps everyone safe from COVID, but, very importantly, when we’re thinking about this bill, it also tackles the long-term challenges that we have in New Zealand when we think about things like child wellbeing, climate change, and housing.
So I mentioned the reform before, and what that reform will do is support the Government’s endeavours in our broad housing priorities to make sure that we speed up that supply of the housing and also, at the same time, create an economy that grows and that works for all New Zealanders. I know that the Minister Hon Poto Williams, when she first gave the speech, underlined what this bill exactly does, and there are three overarching themes in it. While it is amending the Building Act 2004, I think it’s probably important that we go through those three overarching themes again so people are quite clear on what the bill exactly does.
It introduces a mandatory building product information requirement, making sure that there is better and more informed decision making, because the Building Act as it is—and I think we heard that from my colleague Paul Eagle in quite detail—doesn’t actually require basic information to be provided for building products. It was also my colleague Duncan Webb who spoke about, I think, the taps in his kitchen needing to do the things they’re needed to do, and not other things. I think that’s rather important.
Coming to the second theme then, the bill addresses the fact that some manufacturers are having some difficulties in gaining consents for buildings, and that is something that we—actually, I wasn’t on this committee, but I know that the submissions talked about this from some people and experts in that particular industry.
And then, thirdly, the bill also addresses concerns about the level of confidence with certified products, because, obviously, we need to make sure that the products being used in the building industry are also compliant with building codes for safety and durable building work.
So it’s obvious that New Zealanders deserve confidence in the quality and efficiency of our building system. They deserve a building industry that’s also innovative and, at the same time, as I mentioned before, speeds up that delivery of our housing. And so, in that spirit, I want to make sure that I do thank the Hon Poto Williams for shepherding this bill to its final reading, and also her continuous work on behalf of the Government to reform our building and construction sector, and not to forget, also, the previous Speaker in the Chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, who did all that work in getting to this bill. Not to forget the work that the Environment Committee did on this bill, as well as the many people that came in from industry and provided insight into their expertise and their experience in the industry.
Now, I’m not a member of the Environment Committee, although I had the real pleasure this morning to sit in on a four-hour session—
Hon Members: Oh!
MARJA LUBECK: I know! I couldn’t believe my good luck! So that was really a real pleasure to see that committee at work—a hard-working committee. Obviously, I’m chairing the one that’s the most hard-working, but nevertheless—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Very offended!
MARJA LUBECK: —the Environment Committee is doing their fair share of the work. Apologies, Madam Speaker. I’ll stop this train of thought now. The submissions that were made, I have heard, were incredibly helpful, and obviously we’re very grateful every time we have submitters coming in and bringing their expertise to this bill.
Now, as I said before, the bill introduces product requirement information, and that is important because we not only want to break down delays in consents and the increases in costs that follow, but we also want to make sure that builders and planners have the information they need to make informed decisions. That’s not just important for them but also, of course, for the consumers, when you think about building a house for the very first time—and even if you are building a sleep-out, like we are in the process of at the moment, and we have been for the last 2½ years. I hope my husband isn’t watching at the moment, but I’ve given him a bit of grief for the length of time it’s taken, but that may have things to do with some of the faults at the moment in our legislation, which we are clearing up. So that is all really great, great news. We know that there is a lot of residential activity in the pipeline. There were over 39,000 homes consented in 2020 and thousands of New Zealanders that will benefit from what will be a newfound efficiency with this legislation.
Another benefit of the bill—I spoke about it before—supporting innovation, making use of opportunities to lift productivity under a new voluntary modular component manufacturing scheme. So manufacturers who can demonstrate a certain quality and performance standard will then be rewarded, if you want to call it that, with a faster and more consistent building consent approach, and that will allow New Zealanders making use of the innovation that’s occurring in the construction sector to save time and to save on costs as well, which is a winner all round.
Also, I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this yet, but I think it’s an important point to make, this bill will improve the confidence we can all have in our construction sector, because there will be promotion of compliance with the Act. I think it might have been mentioned already, but of course many of the offences that are in the current legislation haven’t been adjusted since 2004. So it’s high time—and this bill does, in fact, do that exactly, introducing new offences, higher maximum penalties, and also a longer period for a charge to be filed, which gives greater opportunity for our enforcement agencies to actually make sure that those who are not complying are being held to account for that. So it’s a great bill. I am encouraged to know that this is only one phase in the work that we’re doing in our reform programme, but it’s a good first step; many more will follow.
And then, I think, rounding it up—goodness me, it’s already almost time; only a minute and a half to go—I think it’s important to bring it back to look at the wider context for this bill and also the further supports that the Government is providing in this sector. We have heard it already before, but of course there is continued investment in apprenticeships and trades training. I think there are actually 100,000 new apprentices since 2019. And, of course, we have improvements to our planning system, reform of the Resource Management Act—oh and I see we have some of our subject matter experts here in the House. They know all about that reform, so we’re really looking forward to bringing it to the House
Just to quickly wrap it up in the last 30 seconds then, we are a Government that is committed to helping housing supply and supporting innovation and growth of the building and construction sector. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to have this opportunity to speak on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It was an absolute pleasure, and I’m looking forward to the last couple of speeches now but, in the end of my turn, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. Look, I just want to take a very brief call in regards to this legislation. I tell you what, firstly, rising on behalf of the National Party and as the member of North Shore, I just wanted to refer to the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, third reading—the National Party supports this bill.
I think—as we’ve heard this afternoon a number of key comments in terms of the benefits of this bill—obviously, we’ve got a significant challenge across this country at the moment, in terms of the lack of houses being built. I think it’d be fair to say, as my good colleague in front of me referred to in his speech, the need for us to really focus on this key issue and drive it with a sense of urgency is something that on this side of the House, we know is absolutely critically important, but, sadly, on that side of the House, they are all talk and no action.
While we’re on the third reading of this bill—you know, we’ve been through some of the detail and, obviously, we’ve heard some of the comments from the speakers on the other side, in terms of that. But I really want to refer back into—and I think it is a key component, around that workforce challenge. Workforce is a key element of the building sector. Actually, recently I watched and went to the building apprenticeship awards competition in Auckland, at Unitec, and I was very, very impressed with the young and up and coming builders. These were apprentices in their second and third year of their degree. I was very, very impressed with the degree of focus, enthusiasm, and energy that they put into their profession and their attention to detail.
But what was very clear to me when I was at that training institution in Auckland was that, actually, the scale of the challenge and the number of houses that need to be built in this country needs significantly more workforce than what is currently in the pipeline in this country, and that side of the House, that Government over there, has had four long years to get this right. And what have they done? Absolutely nothing, and it’s a disgrace—absolutely disgraceful—and I am very, very disappointed. I’m very disappointed, in terms of what is, in effect, a missed opportunity for this country. It is my children, and I’m sure the children of others around here and grandchildren on the other side, that are going to pay the price for this Government, that it fails to deliver—it just enjoys the sound of their own voice on many occasions.
I do want to get back to this bill, because it is a small, small part of the solution. As I said, the National Party is happy to support it. However—[Interruption] I’m getting a lot of support over here, thank you. But on those grounds, I’m going to commend this bill to the House.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa‘afetai tele. Faatalofa atu lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. It is an honour and a privilege to stand here on this Thursday afternoon to speak on the third reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister the Hon Poto Williams. I was here last night when I heard her give her speech and acknowledge the previous Minister who had the portfolio in terms of the work that has been done so far.
Also, I want to take this opportunity. I would like to thank the many people across the building and construction sector who gave their time and made submissions and shared their experiences and expertise with the Environment Committee. On that point, I want to acknowledge the Environment Committee chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and, of course, my colleague the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking. I know that Rachel Brooking spoke last night. I’m confident that she gave the most intelligent speech, academically accurate and with heart and passion, on this bill.
It is Thursday, and since we’re sitting here in the House, I thought I would listen to all my colleagues who spoke before me to see if I actually understand the bill by just listening to them. So let me recall some of the speeches that I’ve heard. We heard from the MP from Palmerston North, Tangi Utikere. One of Tangi’s statements—and I quote—was the bill will “move with technology”, and he also provided an example from a local voice, a builder in Palmerston North. The builder was saying that it will make it easier in the knowledge of knowing the product fits its purpose. Then we went over there to the Green Party and the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who compared us and her experience in the Northern Hemisphere, coming over here to the Southern Hemisphere, where it’s colder inside than it is outside in winter. She shared her experience on that side of the planet and her experiences.
We had Brooke van Velden, who gave ACT’s support to this bill, so thank you for that. Also, we had the member Paul Eagle, the member for Rongotai, acknowledge that it is Samoa Language Week, and the first woman Pacific member of Parliament, who was a Minister also, was Afioga Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban. The member Paul Eagle spoke of Luamanuvao Winnie Laban’s passion now to build the Fale Pasifika here in Wellington. We then went over there to Joseph Mooney from Southland. I think he said something about opening the border and bringing more workers in, or something like that, and he said that maybe we’re lacking the expertise.
Then we heard from Dr Duncan Webb of Christchurch Central, who listed all the things that this Government is doing in terms of action and what that looks like. But Dr Webb also made a point about the safety and the paramount in having proper applications in terms of products for builders in New Zealand. I want to acknowledge my colleague Marja Lubeck, who joined us today in the Environment Committee. What I took from her speech was that it would improve the confidence we have in our construction sector, so thank you for that. Of course, the last speaker was Simon Watts, who took a contribution for North Shore. I want to acknowledge my friend Maggie Barry. If you see her, say “Kia ora, Maggie.” But he remembered he was actually talking on the third reading of this bill and added some charisma to the conversation, so fa‘afetai tele lava.
I want to remind everybody how the Wellbeing Budget in 2020 came about and how all of this is overarching and how all of this work underpins it. So the Wellbeing Budget—of course, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. The Wellbeing Budget is about a just transition future of work; lifting opportunities for Māori and Pacific, child wellbeing, and, of course, physical and mental wellbeing. This year, with our journey with COVID-19, we’re focusing on our three things, which are: continue to keep New Zealand safe from COVID-19; accelerating our recovery and rebuild; and, of course, laying the foundations for the future, like climate change, housing affordability, and child poverty.
The reason why I spoke about the Wellbeing Budget is because it is a well-thought-out strategy and aspiration that this Government has for New Zealand. Remember last night from the Minister’s speech, she spoke about how we were a bit behind. We were a bit behind in terms of building products, or just building full stop, and that’s because, in the year ending 2020, we have had the highest number of building consents for new builds here in Aotearoa. I just want to remind the other side of the House that we’ve had the highest number of building consents for new builds, and the number is—let me say it—39,420. If they want an example of what action looks like, then I just want to again remind them that in the year ended 2020, new home consents were 39,420. As a Government, we are supporting the sector through trades training, through apprenticeships, and we are already at a high. In 47 years, the number of new-build consents—we’re at the highest that we’ve ever been.
Anyway, I’d like to just, in my last three minutes, recall [Member coughs] again what the Minister—I note that you coughed into your elbow. I just want to recall the Minister spoke about four things this bill would do. So the bill introduces mandatory building product information requirements to support better and more informed decision-making. Currently, the Building Act doesn’t require basic information to be provided, and we’ve heard that today from our speakers.
Secondly, the bill introduces a new voluntary scheme for modular components manufacturers, and we heard that throughout the select committee, and it was interesting for me to learn about the building sector, because we’ll often walk into a building and the only thing that we’d notice is whether it’s beautiful, warm or cold. So this will add to it. This will add to our knowledge of how buildings come about.
Thirdly, the bill introduces new registration requirements for our product certification bodies so that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can have a greater oversight of the CodeMark product certification scheme. Now, of course, the product certification bodies will need to be registered, as well as being accredited, before they issue [Bell rung] product certificates. Gee, only two minutes left?
Barbara Kuriger: And counting!
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Yeah. I’ll keep going, OK—keep going, keep going. OK, let me go back to my other point in terms of the product certificates will also need to be registered by MBIE. So these amendments, as I said before, address concerns about the level of confidence in the current CodeMark scheme and provide greater guidance and that certified products comply with the building code and result in safe and durable building work.
It is the end of Samoa Language Week almost—we’re coming to the end. I want to acknowledge the leadership of our Speaker, the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, because in his leadership, he has engaged—and I’m talking about overall.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK, OK. The Speaker has engaged with our Pacific community and, in that engagement with our Pacific community, made it an easier pathway for people to understand the work of this Parliament. I know that people are—yeah. But if communities understand—and when I say communities, everyone, everyone who speaks—we all speak English, most of us. I try to speak English most of the time; it’s my second language. But I want to acknowledge that leadership, because it’s connected everybody here to Parliament and everyone out there. I just want to wish our Samoan community here in Aotearoa New Zealand a happy Samoa Language Week. And one thing: I am married to a Samoan, and today it is my 19-year anniversary. I forgot to ring him this morning! But anyway, I’ve just remembered: happy wedding anniversary. I hope it survives till the 20th! On that note, I want to commend the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House. Fa‘afetai tele.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for Food Safety) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I present a legislative statement on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ensuring we get our regulatory settings right for our energy markets is a key focus for the Minister’s energy work programme as Minister of Energy and Resources. As a country, we are currently experiencing drier than average hydrological conditions, which, of course, affects our ability to generate hydro power. These conditions highlight the importance of ensuring our markets are well informed about the potential security of supply risks and matters that may affect the wider energy market. This is why we have been focused on increasing information disclosure about thermal fuels in both the electricity and gas markets in recent years. New Zealand has experienced prolonged outages and now a production decline at Pohokura gasfield, which provides approximately 40 percent of the national natural gas supply. And if you want to know how serious it is when you run out of gas, you need to look no further than the contribution from Simon Court recently that ran out of gas halfway through his presentation. It was a shame because we were hopeful that there would have been a roaring supply of gas that would have powered him through a full 10 minutes.
A wide range of parties have highlighted their concerns with the current level of information being disclosed by the gas market participants, particularly if the information could help minimise significant downstream impacts, including impacts for the electricity market, for which gas currently plays a small but important role. Current dry year conditions also further highlight the importance of the Government’s work on addressing a dry year problem through the New Zealand Battery Project. This project will help address our reliance on fossil fuels to cover our dry year risk. I want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their work in consideration of this bill. I also want to thank those who took the time to submit and provide their feedback.
This bill amends the Gas Act 1992, which is the principal piece of legislation for the governance of the New Zealand gas industry. This bill is important for ensuring the appropriate regulatory requirements can be put in place for supporting security of supply and to improve outcomes for energy consumers. The bill expands the scope of regulatory-making powers to enable gas governance arrangements to be made that provide for the disclosure of information about matters that may have a significant downstream impact or may contribute to the risk of critical gas shortages. The bill’s changes are consistent with the co-regulatory approach of the sector, where the Government must first receive a recommendation from the industry co-regulator, the gas industry company, before regulations can be made. The bill’s transitional provisions ensure that the work of the gas industry company is currently undertaking around information disclosure will be considered as part of the process for forming a recommendation for a new gas governance arrangement should they be needed.
The bill also makes changes to the Gas Act’s penalty regime. The bill amends that penalty regime for industry participants by increasing the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available to be imposed by the Gas Rulings Panel for breaches of gas governance regulations from $20,000 to $200,000. This addresses concerns about the low level of pecuniary penalty able to be currently issued by the Gas Rulings Panel, particularly for situations where a wide range of consumers may be affected by a potential breach. This new penalty limit will apply across all gas governance regulations. The bill also creates a new penalty for consumers who are not industry participants, who will now be subject to a civil pecuniary penalty instead of a criminal penalty if they breach gas governance arrangements. This will ensure equitable treatment between industry participant consumers and non - industry participant consumers. It will be used to deter breaches of regulations by these consumers, which include some of the larger consumers of natural gas. This penalty will also have a maximum of $200,000 and will not apply to residential consumers.
The bill also makes a number of supporting changes to enforcement provisions in the Act and clarifies current practices around these. During the course of consideration by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, an important change to the bill was made to address issues raised by a submitter. The recommended change will ensure that a failure of an industry participant to follow a Gas Rulings Panel order will continue to carry a criminal penalty. This will help to ensure that the appropriate incentives are in place for the industry to comply with orders from the Gas Rulings Panel. The bill represents a step forward in improving how information that may highlight risks of critical gas shortages or the potential for significant price impacts is released to the market, which should improve the management of situations where critical gas shortages may occur. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In taking a call on this bill this afternoon it was really interesting for me that about a month ago I was at the New Zealand Energy Excellence Awards, and this bill was the reserve bill for that evening, and thinking that it may come up. We’ve been waiting for a month for this bill to actually come back to the House, and, given some of the self-proclaimed long-winded speeches that we’ve heard from in the previous bill this afternoon and some of the motions between the group on the other side, I’m just not sure that the Government really wants to hear the correct story on gas.
So what this bill is about is strengthening the regulation-making powers of the Gas Act 1992. It has a unique regulatory model, where the gas industry company regulates the industry, so they have the power to recommend to the Government following the passing of this piece of legislation. Now, the sad thing is that by the time it goes through that process and it then comes back to the Minister, hopefully we might have some gas left in this country. I have got my fingers crossed really hard that some of our current permits are going to turn something up, because I’m really worried about the next 10 to 15 years.
So the background to this bill: in 2018, multiple major outages at Pohokura gasfield, which provides 40 percent of all natural gas, and an inspection and shutdown at the Kupe gasfield resulted in a shortage of gas. Now, that’s the story and that’s the only story that we’re hearing from the other side, but that is not the only thing that happened in 2018. In 2018, the Government put a ban on all future oil and gas permits, which drove investment away from this country. I want to commend Minister Little, who’s currently on the other side of the House. He was the only Minister that fronted up at the time. He was brave enough to come to Taranaki, and we didn’t see any of the others—not even a select committee group came to Taranaki.
So once upon a time in 2018 our Prime Minister said, “I’m going on a jet-fuelled flight to the other side of the world and I am going to stand there and tell the world how good we are because we have banned future oil and gas permits.” The sad thing is the same Prime Minister thought that she would wave her wand and we would have all of these new technologies ready to go. And the sad thing is we don’t have all of these new technologies ready to go. I think, probably, what was even worse than that was that our Prime Minister picked up the wrong wand, and now the new technology that we seem to be using the most of is going back to the past and using huge supplies of Indonesian coal.
So if this is being done in the interest of climate change, I would like somebody on the other side to stand up and tell me what this is doing for climate change. I mean it’s the silliest thing in the world to take away current technology when you haven’t got the new stuff. Most of the world is relying on gas. Look, we want the climate change to improve as well, but we know that most of the world is using gas as a transition fuel, and everyone knows that you need a transition fuel to get yourself to the new future.
We keep hearing about just transition—there isn’t even a transition. I’m trying to get a plan out of the Minister; I cannot get a plan. There is no transition plan from this Government. There are no solutions. The lights are going to go off. But in typical style, this bill comes to the House because the Government wants to regulate the industry, because everything’s business’s fault, everything’s the industry’s fault, so Government knows best. What do we do to regulate the Government when they make a mess, right? Because they have.
And look, when I went through the submission processes on this bill, the industry actually have a self-regulatory process now which they developed after the Pohokura outages. And I asked if there had been any breeches of that, and the answer was no, there had been no breeches of that. But, of course, this Government doesn’t tend to trust industry and doesn’t trust business.
So my biggest concern about this bill—and look, we are supporting it because it’s going to go through and they’re doing it anyway and what the heck—is that the gas industry companies are going to have a look at this, and they are going to decide whether they are going to make that recommendation back to the Minister. And what I am going to put a heavy caution on in supporting this bill is to be very, very, very careful with sensitive commercial information, because we’ve already got a situation out there where we have the generosity of companies like Methanex, who are contracting gas back to Genesis so that we can keep the lights on this winter. So we’ve got companies out there that are helping this Government to keep the lights on, and still the level of trust is not there. So my warning, right through this whole process, is please be very careful of commercially sensitive information, because it’s very important that we don’t put that out there.
So I just want to talk a bit further about, really, this Government—they’ve created uncertainty, they’ve destroyed regional jobs, they’ve pushed up electricity prices to the point where we were talking about in the last bill that we’re struggling for timber in places now because of the industrial heat problem. This bill’s actually a meagre measure to somewhat address this.
Look, it might be helpful having a disclosure, but actually I don’t think that this bill’s going to do any more than the voluntary disclosure. And as I said before, I do hope that we have some gas left by the time we get to the end of it. What happens when Governments stick their finger in and meddle in places where they shouldn’t go, they look at an industry and they go, “Oh, this is really cool. So we’ll ban the gas here and then we’ll look out the other end and we’ll put this great big thousand pound gorilla”—which the industry is calling the battery project, Lake Onslow—“out the other end.” They’ve been too quick to jump to a solution. They now have been spending all this money on a working group. At the same time Ministersincluding Minister Parkerare going out there and going, “This is the solution. This is the only way this will happen.” So why spend $100 million on a working group if you’ve already made up your mind?
So you throw these curveballs in one end and you throw these curveballs in the other, and then you come out with an industry where not only have you killed the investment in the gas industry, but you’re now actually frightening off people by putting this thousand pound gorilla out the other end. And I just want to quote, because I haven’t heard anyone in the industry talking about this battery project as a good idea. So Mercury director, Dr Patrick Strange, called the Government’s $100 million advance to the project “mindboggling” and labelled claims it’ll lower power prices as “dreamland”. Meridian chair, Mark Verbiest, said, “Public investment in pumped hydro could lead to uneconomic generation overbuild, crowd out private investment, and push up electricity prices, slowing down the electrification of the economy.” Genesis chief executive Marc England is concerned that spending $4 billion on a new dam would scare off renewable investment by the private sector. And let me tell you that $4 billion, when you talk about $4 billion—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.
BARBARA KURIGER: Sorry. When $4 billion from a project is talked about, you can guarantee it’s probably going to end up $6 billion—could end up $8 billion.
There are two wetlands. Every time we talk about water storage it’s like, oh no, that’s a bit of a no-no. There are wetlands involved in this project. It will take at least 10 or 15 years, and it’ll take years to get through the Resource Management Act (RMA)—an RMA which we can’t even get through the House at the moment because the Government’s been dragging the chain on that for four years as well. So we can’t even get that through the House. So we’re never going to get this dam built. So I would challenge anyone on the other side of the House to stand up and tell me what is the transition for the next 10 to 15 years to keep our energy solutions happening, to keep the lights on, and to keep us going? Because quite honestly I’ve got no faith that they even know. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I think I’ll keep it short and sweet. I acknowledge the support from the National Party on the other side there. A little bit of a strange contribution, because I thought the National Party believed in free markets and competition, and that’s what this bill does. It ensures that there is competition within the gas industry. I’d like to acknowledge the key role that the gas industry plays, both in our industrial and our residential areas.
This bill is about stability of supply, and we have heard from the Minister and the previous speaker that at times we have had gas outages in New Zealand, and that’s something that absolutely we do not want in both our commercial and residential areas, so the regulation is important. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Gas Act to provide for enhanced information disclosed requirements.
We did hear from some of the submitters on the committee around that aspect around sensitive information, and I believe this bill does hit the right balance on that. I believe I’m the final speaker of the night, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 June. Kia ora.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.