Thursday, 10 June 2021

THURSDAY, 10 JUNE 2021

THURSDAY, 10 JUNE 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

DEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday, 22 June. On that day, the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill will receive its first reading, and the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill will complete its remaining stages along with all stages of an imprest supply bill. Other legislation to proceed through further stages that week will include the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill, the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill, and the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. On Thursday, 24 June, the House will debate the report of the Education and Workforce Committee on its inquiry into student accommodation.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I’d just ask him, in light of an interesting exchange in the Justice Committee this morning, what the Government’s intentions are in relation to three issues they have previously signalled legislation would be introduced on: three strikes, hate speech, and conversion therapy.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can confirm the Government intends to progress all three of those issues.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Jane Sutherland and Rebecca Greer requesting that the House urge the Government to establish a school bus service from Kingston to Wakatipu High School

petition of Samantha Edmondson requesting that the House urge the Government to increase resources for, and access to, mental health services for children

petition of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union requesting that the House urge the Government to withdraw funding for SkyPath.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

External Reporting Board, Statement of Performance Expectations for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022

Takeovers Panel, Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/22

Revision Bill Programme 2021-2023.

SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to annual returns, June 2021, and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Strategic suppliers: Understanding and managing the risks of service disruption. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on:

the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, May 2021

Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 2021.

SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident the Government is getting good value for money out of all the taxpayer money that it is spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am confident that not just the Government but New Zealanders and businesses are getting value for money from the Government’s investments that are made on behalf of all New Zealanders. I would add that, as has always been the case, some initiatives do need to be altered along the way to ensure that they deliver the best value for money. This is particularly the case when new programmes are being developed, and if we’re adopting innovative approaches to improving the wellbeing of New Zealanders, there will be occasions when they do not work as initially planned and can be tweaked.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that the $785 million for a cycle bridge in Auckland would clear the entire waiting list for the 30,000 people needing hip replacements, plus fund 100,000 free mental health counselling sessions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sure the member is aware of the difference between capital and operating expenditure. He also will be aware that we spend billions and dollars each year in our health system. And he’s at risk here of comparing apples and giraffes.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that, for $785 million, the Government could pay for all life-saving medicines on Pharmac’s unfunded list for two years, including for cancer treatment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is that the Government has increased the budget for Pharmac by over 25 percent since we’ve been in office, taking it to over a billion dollars a year. And I repeat my earlier answer: the member might want to conflate these things together, and Governments previously have always invested in long-term transport projects at the same time as investing in things such as Pharmac.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that, for $785 million, the Government could clear the backlog of school classroom upgrades so that our children can learn in safe and healthy environments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that the Government has massively increased the amount of funding that we put in to upgrade classrooms, as we have done in the health system to improve hospitals after the previous National Government failed to invest in capital in health and education.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that, for $785 million, the Government could fix the country’s most dangerous road, north of Tauranga, and build a second Ashburton bridge?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that the Government is investing billions of dollars in transport and upgrades right across New Zealand. This also includes ensuring that we do maintenance on our State highway network, something that the previous Government decided not to bother with.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that, according to Waka Kotahi, for just $300 million more the Government could build an extra harbour crossing with three lanes for cars and buses and a cycle pathway?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t confirm that. What I can confirm for the member is that, for $785 million, he could get some better questions.

Question No. 2—Research, Science and Innovation

2. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: How is the Government continuing to support Just Transition in Taranaki and Southland through Budget 2021?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Last month’s Budget included $20 million over four years to continue the work we started in 2018 supporting a just transition approach in Taranaki as the region moves away from oil and gas exploration. This funding will also enable support to be extended to the Southland community as the Tīwai aluminium smelter moves towards closure in 2024. I’m proud of the work we’ve started on supporting workers and communities through the transition to a low emissions future, and I was pleased to see the endorsement of the just transition approach by the Climate Change Commission in their advice released yesterday.

Glen Bennett: What will Budget 2021 funding support in Taranaki and Southland?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Funds will be used to unlock additional investment, further business cases, support community initiatives, and pay for local staff to support the ongoing transition process. In Taranaki, a significant engagement programme has been undertaken to deliver regional economic development plans that set the strategy for the region through to 2050, and this new funding will support implementation of these plans. In Southland, we’re working closely with regional stakeholders to identify priorities and projects that can support the transition following the expected closure of the Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter in 2024. Currently, the focus is on strengthening relationships and part of a broad-based partnership with the Murihiku collective of rūnanga, councils, mayors, unions, and industry.

Glen Bennett: How does a just transition approach align with our climate change goals?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A just transition is about how we plan for a future with a low-emissions economy and what that looks like with those in partnership with those affected the most. The Climate Change Commission report is explicit in its advice that it will cost New Zealand more down the line if we don’t act now. We do not want to see a repeat of the economic shocks seen during the 1980s which left workers and communities unable to plan for their futures as we prepare for our transitions to a low-emissions economy.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will an objective in future Budgets he delivers be making a just transition to a low-emissions economy, in order to ensure low-income households are not left behind in the Government’s response to the Climate Commission’s advice?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Supporting New Zealanders through a just transition to a low-carbon economy is currently one of the Government’s five Budget wellbeing objectives, and while those objectives have not yet been set for future Budgets, it is a long-term commitment from this Government to support just such a just transition.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission’s summary of what a “just transition” means in Aotearoa, which includes skills training, sending early and clear policy signals, and honouring Te Tiriti?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I do agree with those concepts. More broadly, as the Minister who’s recently resumed her seat has said, these programmes, Just Transition programmes, can be very active programmes that work at both a community and individual level.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What specific support will the Government provide to low-income households so they can access low-emissions technology like electric vehicles and e-bikes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One example is in the Budget: a contingency has been set aside to support the uptake of electric vehicles, and I’m sure there’ll be more detailed announcements about that very soon.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he acknowledge that reducing poverty and income inequality must be central to the Government’s work to address climate change and protect our environment, and why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is central to the Government’s programme for a range of reasons, including that one.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What specific support will his future Budgets provide to those communities and workers that rely on high-emission sectors?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is the very essence of a Just Transition programme. I’m not going to pre-empt specific initiatives in future Budgets, but what I can say is that we’re very focused, through our Future of Work programme, for example, on supporting all workers to a just transition, be that for technological reasons or, in the case that the member is raising, with respect to climate change. We are very confident and optimistic of the ability of New Zealand workers and businesses to transition with support to use new technologies to create new jobs and new areas of work, but that will be a partnership.

Question No. 4—Education

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How does Budget 2021 advance the Government’s reform of the Tomorrow’s Schools system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This year’s Budget provides funding to allow the Government to get cracking on implementing Supporting all schools to succeed, the Government’s response to the Tomorrow’s Schools review. Central to this is initial funding to start rebuilding front-line advisory capability within the Ministry of Education in a new education service agency called Te Mahau. That is being launched by the Secretary for Education in the second half of this year. It does respond to the feedback from schools that whilst they welcome and continue to enjoy the self-governing model, they do on regular occasions feel that they are not receiving the level of support that they would like from the centre.

Angela Roberts: Will these changes include any direct financial support to schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The flexible fund will also be rolled out, starting with a $10 million investment in 2021/22, which will give staff in the regions the ability to respond more flexibly to the needs of schools. We learnt through COVID-19 when we established the Urgent Response Fund, which was a $50 million fund—a much bigger fund—that when you provide flexibility for the staff working for the Ministry of Education at the front line to better respond to schools’ needs, great things can be achieved. We want to continue with that momentum.

Angela Roberts: How will this package support the Government’s curriculum reforms?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very consistent with my first answer, one of the things that we heard from schools over the past few years is that when it comes to curriculum, they do look to the centre for more resourcing and more support. New Zealand’s curriculum is a very devolved curriculum, and that is something that teachers welcome, but they do look for more guidance. As a result of that, we are establishing a curriculum centre within the redesigned Ministry of Education Te Poutāhū, which is going to be a game-changer for the way the Government agencies interact with and support schools when it comes to issues around curriculum.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What percentage of people in each of the Government’s seven COVID-19 subgroups have not received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, and is he confident that the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out is on track to meet the Government target of every adult being offered a vaccine by the end of the year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The size of each of those subgroups of people is not a static number and, in fact, in some of those subgroups, particularly the front-line border workers, quite large numbers of people are adding and exiting from that category. So a percentage number is impossible to calculate and would be meaningless. However, I can give the raw numbers of people in each of those groups who have been provided with vaccines. Across groups 1A and 1B, we’ve provided 53,000 first doses and 46,000 second doses. Across group 2, 306,000 people have received their first dose, and 211,000 people have been given their second dose. In group 3, 111,000 people have received their first dose, and just under 19,000 have had their second doses. Finally, in group 4—a group that is yet to formally start—nearly 28,000 people have been given their first dose, and a couple of hundred people have received their second dose. In regard to the second part of the member’s question, yes.

Chris Bishop: How can the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out be on track when around 50 percent of border and managed isolation and quarantine workers and their household contacts have not even had their first shot of the vaccine, when that group was meant to be finished by March?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the member’s question. In fact, when it comes to household members, the estimate put forward was, at best, a guess. It was an estimate of roughly how many people we thought border workers had within their households, and it’s not compulsory for that group of people to come forward. How many people come forward from that group is totally up to those people, and of course I would say if you’re in that group and you haven’t had a vaccine yet, I’d encourage you to come forward and get one.

Chris Bishop: Does the Government record what group people belong to when they’re vaccinated; and if not, what is the point of the groups?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes we do, but people can belong to more than one group, and so therefore it is possible that some of the people in group 1B—for example, household members who also may qualify in group 2 or in group 3—can be coded under that group.

Chris Bishop: Has he sought an explanation of how one district health board had to destroy a thousand doses of the vaccine in April, and how does he think the thousands of high-risk people out there contacting their GPs, desperate to get a vaccine, would feel about knowing that a thousand doses were destroyed in April?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a very rare event in New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, and I would say that the people who are waiting for vaccines can be confident that New Zealand has one of the lowest vaccine dosage wastage rates in the world. The World Health Organization says that countries should plan for a 10-15 percent wastage rate of their vaccines, and New Zealand sits at under 2 percent wastage.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct that for a 49-day period in September and October, the Ministry of Health model says we need to vaccinate 75,000 people per day, and is he confident the roll-out will scale up to that level of vaccinations per day?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The vaccine roll-out model has continued to be refined as we’ve understood more about both what we can expect in terms of deliveries, but also how we can make sure that we are rolling out the vaccine in a sustainable way. Work has been undertaken, since the model was first mooted, with district health boards to try and smooth demand during that latter part of the year, so that we don’t end up with big peaks and troughs. As a result, the average should be, for a sustained period of time, around 50,000 a day. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be unders and overs within that. We know, at the moment, we have lower vaccination rates, for example, in the weekends; we tend to reach the peak vaccination rates around the middle of the week. Mondays can often be a bit slower; Fridays are often the best day. So there’ll be unders and overs within that, but we will be averaging, for a sustained period of time, 50,000 doses a day, and that is how we will get to the population coverage that we’re aiming for.

Chris Bishop: In light of that answer, will he instruct the Ministry of Health to update the model publicly available on the Ministry of Health website—because at the moment, the model simply shows that between September and October, we will have to do 75,000 doses per day?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The vaccine model will be updated at the appropriate time. One of the things that will determine that, of course, is further guidance on vaccine deliveries. We’ll get further information in July as to what we’re expecting to have delivered in August and September.

Question No. 6—Housing (Public Housing)

6. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she agree with the Minister of Housing’s statement, “I think there are a number of really good landlords and I think we all meet them when we’re out and about—but certainly, with some landlords as there is in any sector of society—yes, there is more need for compassion.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Yes, and I also agree with the Minister when she said that the Government is not relying on compassion to deal with the housing crisis and has also reformed tenancy laws to ensure they are fit for the 21st century.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe the Government is a compassionate landlord when only 11,000 of its 68,000 homes meet the healthy homes standards?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question. Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities advises me that, yes, 11,345 of their homes currently meet the healthy homes standards. However, they are not required to complete their target until much later, and that is because they have a portfolio of 66,000. And the other reason is that we intend to spread the demand for building materials and trades across the time period and allow for sufficient time for private landlords to complete their obligations under the healthy homes standards.

Brooke van Velden: How can the Minister of Housing demand compassion from private landlords, who must comply with healthy homes standards by 1 July, when 57,000 of its own homes don’t meet the same standards?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: To refer back to my previous answer, I don’t know that the member is aware of just how massive a task it is for Kāinga Ora to complete, and in order to not put pressure on the rest of the community, in terms of demand for building materials and trades, we have ensured that we spread the demand for that by allowing Kāinga Ora to take a little more time than other landlords to do so.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the Government has decided to exempt Kāinga Ora - owned properties from the tax changes to interest deductibility, and why is there one rule for private landlords and another one for the Government?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There have been no decisions made with that regard.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the Government is also consulting on whether that same rule should apply to other providers of community housing?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I am.

Brooke van Velden: Why can’t the Government meet the same standards they expect of private landlords?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We are wanting to ensure that our homes will meet the healthy homes standards. We have a huge portfolio of homes and we need to make sure that the work is done properly. The other thing that we do not want to do is to put pressure on material supplies that we will all need. We want to ensure that the homes are repaired to an appropriate standard. There is a huge portfolio of homes and we fully intend to ensure that these properties come up to standard as required.

Question No. 7—Trade and Export Growth

7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How has New Zealand contributed to APEC’s commitment to speeding up the cross-border flow of vaccines and related goods to fight the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): On Friday and Saturday, I chaired the annual APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade Meeting. One of our key objectives for the meeting was to demonstrate that APEC is responsive and relevant to the COVID-19 crisis. A key aspect of this was showing that trade can be a force for good, and, collectively, APEC Ministers delivered. The impact of the APEC trade Ministers’ agreement is that it will make the component parts of the supply chain flow more smoothly. I understand that for the likes of the Pfizer vaccine, some 286 component parts are sourced from over 80 companies in nearly 20 countries. So “anything that makes the production smoother and easier has to be good not only for New Zealand but for all APEC members, and those benefits should flow through into our Pacific neighbours, who we are supporting.” No one is safe from COVID-19 until we are all safe.

Naisi Chen: What other outcomes did you achieve from the APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade Meeting?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: For the first time in memory, every APEC economy was represented at ministerial level, underscoring the high level of political commitment to these issues. The meeting was also enriched by the presence of the World Trade Organization Director-General, Dr Okonjo-Iweala. We were therefore in a strong position to discuss and demonstrate our collective support for the World Trade Organization to modernise trade rules for the 21st century. We also discussed and agreed on the importance of promoting economic policies and growth that contribute to tackling climate change and other serious environmental challenges. Critically for Aotearoa New Zealand, APEC Ministers also took note of the initiatives that we have been driving in APEC to unlock the economic potential of indigenous people.

Naisi Chen: How does APEC fit into New Zealand’s Trade Recovery Strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The trade-led recovery strategy launched by Ministers in 2020 supports the Government’s wider five-point recovery plan. We find ourselves in an increasingly difficult trading environment. Globally, we are in a time of international turmoil and geopolitical uncertainty. Global supply chains are disrupted, and our exporters are facing rising offshore trade barriers and subsidies. It is for this reason that the Government is implementing the trade-led recovery strategy. The strategy includes 41 actions delivered by 11 agencies to support exporters. APEC is a key deliverable of this strategy as part of efforts to reinvigorate trade architecture and global economic institutions. In the face of concerning global trends, we are looking to use APEC to support open markets, resist protectionism, and generate sustainable growth.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement that the Government has “increased the public housing stock by 7,671 since we came into Government in 2017”; if so, why does the most recent Kāinga Ora managed stock quarterly report show that total managed stock is only 4,649 more than reported by Housing New Zealand in its September 2017 managed stock quarterly report?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, we have increased the public housing stock, by 7,671 since we came into Government. I can also confirm that since coming into Government, Kāinga Ora’s total managed stock has increased by 4,649 homes. I would note that Kāinga Ora’s managed stock is different to the public housing stock. Kāinga Ora’s managed stock is inclusive of State houses eligible for the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) funding alongside community group housing transitional housing that is owned by Kāinga Ora. The 902 houses leased to Ngāti Toa—public housing stock, on the other hand—includes all Kāinga Ora State housing stock as well as those owned or provided by community housing providers. So the 7,671 figure I provided is the change in the number of public housing places between 1 November 2017 and 30 April 2021. As at 1 November 2017, there was a total of 66,216 public housing places, and as at 30 April 2021, there was a total of 73,887 public housing places, a net change of 7,671 places. I note that we have used the smaller of two figures—if we had summed the two numbers the member is talking about, that would have been a net change of 9,773 houses.

Andrew Bayly: Well, I’m confused.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something the Minister’s not responsible for.

Nicola Willis: Well, can the Minister simply confirm that according to reports published by Housing New Zealand and Kāinga Ora, the number of State rentals in September 2017 was 61,323, and, as of March this year, that number is 64,106—a difference of just 2,783; and how can she possibly reconcile those facts with her exaggerated claims of additional houses.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to provide the member—

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume her seat. I’m going to let the member ask the question again without the pejorative comment in it. The member’s very lucky.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that according to reports published by Housing New Zealand and Kāinga Ora, the number of State rentals in September 2017 was 61,323, and, as of March this year, that number is just 64,106—a difference of 2,783; and how can she possibly reconcile those facts with her claim of 7,000 additional houses?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I gave a very fulsome primary answer. The member is confused, and if she’d like a briefing on the data sets, I’m happy to arrange for her to be walked through that. But the data set that the member is talking about is Kāinga Ora - owned property. She’s talking about the State rentals in there. What we are talking about is the number of public housing places that are provided, which, of course, also includes public housing places that receive IRRS funding, which are provided by community housing providers (“CHiPS”). Since we came into Government, 5,124 further “CHiP” places have been provided, so I think the member will find, if she looks at the relevant data sets, that all the numbers add up. We are proud that we are building more public houses in this country than has been built in a generation.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that she signed off on Kāinga Ora targeting the sale of $37 million worth of State houses in the 2020-21 financial year, and can she update the House on whether they met their target?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve been through this many times in this House. Kāinga Ora advises me that the total value of public housing properties that it has sold—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s colleague asked a question, all right? I’m assuming the point of it is to have an answer, and not to have an answer which is drowned out from members on my left.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am advised that between 1 September 2017 until 30 November 2020, there were 191 State houses that were sold over this period. This is because they were homes that were no longer fit for purpose, and is a tiny fraction. The value of these sales was $63,879,920. I would note that between the financial years 2014-15 and 2016-17, 1,300 State houses were sold for a total of over $204 million.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the Government has demolished more than 2,000 State houses, and plans to demolish at least 3,000 more in the next three years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I certainly can. That’s because this is a Government that is investing in the redevelopment of those State houses. We are a Government that has actually funded the addition of actually intensifying those areas. That is how we are building more State houses than any Government in a generation.

Nicola Willis: Why did she agree to the transfer of 902 properties out of the State housing rental stock for management by Ngāti Toa, and how is that any different from National’s policy of transferring houses to community housing providers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is a unique arrangement—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to remind members of discussions that we’ve had recently that have led to potential fairly gross disorder, and I’m going to require this answer to be heard in silence.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is a unique arrangement and the first of its kind, that, actually, Kāinga Ora has retained ownership of those properties; they are leased to Ngāti Toa. This is part of what partnership in a modern—[Interruption]—New Zealand looks like.

SPEAKER: Order! There will be two additional questions for the National Party as a result of the interjection to my right.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that this year’s housing budget puts aside $360 million specifically “to provide for expenses incurred as part of the sale of land and dwellings”, and why is that?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This was a question that the member asked at an Estimates hearing yesterday and was given a very fulsome answer around what this is. When you are an agency that is actively adding to the housing stock and there are transactions that go through, and also in terms of when there is also the appropriation as it purports to KiwiBuild, that this is a technical, financial requirement of the Public Finance Act, in terms of the sale of the KiwiBuild houses that were always meant to be sold—this is not about the sale of State houses.

Nicola Willis: Is it correct that the Government’s State house waiting list is growing around four times as fast as the Government is building houses?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are well aware of the size of our public housing waiting list, and it’s an issue that we are working to resolve. As we constantly remind the Opposition, if they had built State houses instead of selling them off, and built at the rate that we were, we would have 15,000 more public housing places in this country. We are the first Government in many decades to be adding to the number that we are. But we acknowledge, on this side of the House, that there is still plenty of work to do, but we are committed to doing it.

Question No. 9—Small Business

9. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: What is the Government doing to support digital training and advice for small businesses?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): We are backing small businesses as the economy recovers. Budget 2021’s biggest focus was on securing the economic recovery while continuing to keep people safe. Specifically in my small business portfolio, Budget 2021 set aside $44 million over two years for a new initiative to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It will provide business training courses for 60,000 SMEs and further support another 30,000 SMEs through digital advisory services as part of the Digital Boost programme. This new initiative will enable small businesses to recover from the global economic impact of COVID-19 and take advantage of new opportunities through e-commerce. Digital commerce also contributes to higher wages, higher productivity, and a lower-carbon economy—

SPEAKER: Order! The member has answered the question.

Hon STUART NASH: It’s half as long as Megan’s one.

Tāmati Coffey: How is the Government working with business to drive wider uptake of digital tools and technologies?

Hon STUART NASH: Our aspiration is for New Zealand to have the most digitally enabled small business sector in the world. Last month, a new public-private partnership was launched to improve access to digital technology and training for small businesses. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has launched the Digital Boost initiative to bring the private sector on board. Organisations make a public commitment to support small businesses, workers, or communities with free or discounted goods, services, advice, or training. One of the companies at the launch, Google, said there was “enormous opportunity” if digital transformation is embraced and that “$46.6 billion worth of economic value could be gained by 2030 if we do this right”. Other agencies, Xero and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, estimate real GDP could increase between $3.5 billion and $6.2 billion if there was just 20 percent increase in the uptake of cloud computing alone.

SPEAKER: The member answered that question and about three others.

Tāmati Coffey: What response has he seen from small businesses for wider training and advisory support, especially in regional Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: In the member’s own area of Rotorua/Bay of Plenty there has been a strong uptake of Government-funded COVID business support for training and advice. The member, who owns a successful small business himself in Rotorua, will know of the Regional Business Partner programme, which utilises established networks like chambers of commerce and economic development agencies, and this has been active. More than 1,000 small businesses in the Bay of Plenty have accessed the Government-funded voucher system for specialist advice and training across a range of disciplines. Support worth $2.8 million has been rolled out to Bay of Plenty businesses through this voucher system. The global pandemic is still our biggest threat, but we are well placed to deal with it through initiatives like free digital training and advice.

Hon Todd McClay: Does the Minister really believe that the digital training will outweigh the significant cost imposed on small businesses by his Government through sharp increases to the minimum wage, doubling of sick leave costs—

SPEAKER: OK. That’s two now.

Hon Todd McClay: But he had three.

SPEAKER: He might have given three answers, but he didn’t have two questions.

Hon STUART NASH: There are many initiatives this Government is implementing to help small businesses. This is but one of them.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister of Defence: What, if anything, is he doing to resolve waiting times of up to 140 working days veterans face in seeking medical records and medal entitlement information?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I want to begin by acknowledging all ex-servicemen and -women and the pride they bring our country. I’m advised that most requests for a copy of a veteran’s medical files are treated as urgent and processed within 10 working days when received through Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand. Understanding the definition of a veteran is outlined in the Act and given priority. The reason some take up to 140 days can be due to the nature of the request, complexity of the situation, the requestor, or because the request is unclear in its purpose. I’m further advised that any request relating to a funeral or terminal illness is prioritised.

Chris Penk: What are the implications for veterans who are subjected to such lengthy wait times in terms of accessing health services and other entitlements?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Can I reiterate that if, for the purposes of a medical entitlement, a requestor has been clear in their request, they are given priority in the queue and a response, I’ve been advised, will be processed within 10 working days.

Chris Penk: Does the Minister intend to introduce or support legislation that would re-establish a time frame for the Government to provide important information such as medical records to veterans?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to requests that are made for the purposes of claiming medical entitlements, as has been made clear in questions that have been responded to by the Minister, there are 10 working days in which the request is processed. There is a triage process. It is a manual process, and that is critical to ensuring that the nature of the response is relative to what the request is for, because the same unit also deals with requests for medal entitlements.

Chris Penk: Point of order. My question was in relation to the reintroduction of a statutory time frame as opposed to the operational aspect of how requests are handled currently.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: At present, I’m not aware that there’s any legislation pending.

Chris Penk: Does the Minister think that this situation aligns with the sentiments of the Prime Minister at Anzac Day about sharing recognition and respect with all who have served our country on this most special day?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: If I understand the nature of that question, which may well be in relation to requests for information in relation to medals, as the Minister made clear in written question No. 19836, a requestor can expect to receive a response within 10 to 140 working days. Often, time varies with the complexity of the applications that are being processed.

Chris Penk: What is the Minister’s response to veterans who perceive that this Government pays lip service to veterans’ issues on Anzac Day but is uninterested in issues affecting them the other 364 days a year?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I reject the premise of that question. In fact, Veterans’ Affairs have engaged in regional conversations with veterans around the services that they provide to veterans.

Question No. 11—Rural Communities

11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Rural Communities: What advice has he requested or received on the impact Significant Natural Areas will have on rural communities?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Communities): I’ve received several pieces of advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries over the last years as the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity continues to be developed. The national policy statement is not yet finalised and the impacts on rural communities will continue to be a consideration for Ministers as we work on finalising it.

Mark Cameron: Has he heard from rural communities on the adverse impacts Significant Natural Areas could have on the use and value of their property?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes I have received correspondence and talked with constituents in my area where they believe there will be an adverse impact on their communities. I’ve also spoken to many people from rural communities who live in those areas, because they want to see that indigenous biodiversity retained and protected. And so there’s a healthy discussion taking place and we’ll manage this process very carefully.

Mark Cameron: What does he say to farmers such as one in Tasman who found out through a letter from the council that their entire 600 acre property—which has been in his family for 100 years—has been designated a Significant Natural Area?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can’t really comment on the individual property, other than to congratulate his family, I guess, for protecting that biodiversity. Can I suggest that if they have remained on the property for that long, I’d suggest they have a very good business model that has enabled them to protect the biodiversity and continue to farm or run a horticulture operation. Can I say that councils around the country have taken different approaches to how they identify and notify—not all those approaches have been sound. That’s one of the very issues we’re trying to address so that the obligation laid down in the Resource Management Act of 1991—that obligation to protect these areas has not been implemented by the vast majority of councils around the country; that’s what Government is taking action on.

Hon David Bennett: Will he confirm his statement in select committee this morning that there could be compensation to affected farmers in certain circumstances?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What I said at the select committee is that if there’s a proven loss of value, then discussion needs to occur to ensure some fairness. There are a number of properties in my particular patch and all around the country where that’s a fair discussion that needs to occur—there are no prejudged outcomes of that.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister satisfied that the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity will address concerns such as those raised in the Far North by ensuring councils’ processes involve meaningful engagement with Māori?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: In summary, yes. We have to ensure that there’s proper consultation and engagement with iwi, with landowners and, indeed, that’s the process we’re working through.

Mark Cameron: Will he advocate as Minister for Rural Communities for compensation for farmers for any loss of use of their land from Significant Natural Areas?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I said at the select committee, we have to ensure fairness in this process. There’s a lot of, I guess, subjective judgment over valuations before and after and what might be a fair compensation claim—those things we’re going to work through carefully.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcement has he made about work visas?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): This morning, I announced changes to onshore visas that will provide employers and visa holders with more certainty. Around 10,000 working holiday visas and Supplementary Seasonal Employment, or SSE, work visas that were due to expire between June and December will now be extended for another six months to help manage ongoing labour shortages while New Zealand’s COVID-19 border restrictions remain in place. This will provide employers with an assurance that they can continue to access the current onshore workforce to help fill roles.

Tangi Utikere: How will these changes provide employers and visa holders with more certainty?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: These changes will provide certainty to workers and their employers. Those workers on working holiday and SSE visas can stay and work in New Zealand for the foreseeable future. We’ve also announced well-signalled changes to essential skill visa conditions, which has allowed us to stage our way back to pre-COVID settings. All of these workers have been filling jobs since our border closed, which has severely limited our ability to bring in new tranches of working holiday and SSE workers, so providing this certainty to workers and their employees now will take some pressure off the sectors that they are working in.

Tangi Utikere: Why has the Government taken this action?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has taken a pragmatic approach to these situations to ensure that we are well positioned for the economic recovery, within the limits that our border closures put on us. While we’re taking these pragmatic measures in the short term, we are consistently encouraging sectors and employers to think about how they make the shift work and look for ways to recruit New Zealanders before returning to temporary migrant workers.

Erica Stanford: How does the Minister explain, on the one hand, announcing in his immigration reset speech a plan to drastically reduce our reliance on low- and mid-skilled labour, and then, less than a month later, announcing an extension to working holiday visa holders and an extension to the duration of low-skilled work visas from six to 12 months; and does he understand that businesses need certainty, not mixed messages?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member might know that the border is closed at the moment, so in order to assist businesses to deal with short-term shortages, I think it’s a positive thing that we’ve extended the working holiday visas. As I have said at the end of my previous supplementary answer, we’ve also sent messages that, in the long term, we should learn a lesson from COVID, and those sectors that have traditionally relied on migrant labour, who are now facing shortages in their sectors, should look at training opportunities to make sure New Zealanders could potentially fill those jobs in the future.

Bills

Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 8 June.

Clauses 1 to 9

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. Members who are leaving should do so swiftly, please. Thank you.

The House is in committee for further consideration of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that clauses 1 to 9 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment replacing clause 6A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 9 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The committee has further considered the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The National Party have the first call. I call Melissa Lee.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to support this bill in the second reading. Having actually sat through the select committee process, sometimes members have to reflect back on how far ago we have actually discussed this bill and how many people participated in the select committee process in terms of our submissions. This Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill was referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee of the 52nd Parliament on 27 May 2020. The committee called for the submissions and there were, in fact, 11 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard oral evidence from four submitters at a hearing by video conference and we received advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and I thank them for the process that has taken place. I think when this bill continued on in the 53rd Parliament, the committee tried to re-open the submission process because we felt that, given the distance in time from the time of the last Parliament to this one, we thought perhaps that there might be more people interested in the subject matter and perhaps submit more. But we didn’t have too many people interested, so we just basically continued on.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gas Act of 1992 to provide and enhance information disclosure requirements for the gas market and to ensure that settings around the enforcement and penalties are suitably robust. The bill does not actually make substantive changes in itself but amends the framework to expand the scope of regulation-making powers. A number of changes require gas industry participants to report forecasts of supply and demand of gas reserves and I know that there were some concerns in terms of commercial sensitivities from some of the submitters who were not very happy if disclosure actually meant that competitors could potentially have information that they would actually like to keep not public because it would mean that they might end up not being competitive. This is also reflected in the response to the 2018 Pohokura outage.

One of the issues with the Pohokura outage—it wasn’t an issue of lack of information but an issue of lack of gas, actually. But this bill will allow New Zealand to understand just how bad the situation is in terms of this Labour Government decision to ban gas exploration in Taranaki. But I digress, the gas crisis is, in fact, the direct result of the policy implementation by this Government and it is, effectively, decimating a whole district, actually—a whole area of Taranaki which actually relies on the gas exploration business, a lot of supply and support businesses that support the people who are in that industry—and I think that we will actually see the impact of their decision going forward into the future, because we are short on gas. We are going to be running out of gas because we stopped exploration. The other thing is that we are importing more coal from overseas and our carbon footprint is going to be bigger as a result of the decision of this Government.

Maureen Pugh: It is bigger.

MELISSA LEE: Yes, Maureen Pugh. You are right. It is absolutely bigger.

Business actually needs certainty. They need good regulation, good policy, to make sure that they can plan for the future, and sometimes they don’t actually have that—particularly in the gas industry sector—and I feel devastated for those people who are involved in that industry. It is estimated we need $100 million of investment per year just to keep the production levels that we currently have. This has dried up and we have seen gas production fall 40 percent in three years. This has resulted in job losses at Methanex and timber mills. New Zealand Steel have reduced production and, as I said, we’re using more coal and Huntly gas station is burning four times as much coal—and that is definitely a humungous increase in the greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the framework in which this bill actually works in terms of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill—the responsibility of the businesses involved in their duties is something that we actually support and I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this, the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. It has been a privilege to be on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee as we have worked our way through this. Now, firstly, I want to thank the previous Government—the previous Parliament, should I say; the 52nd Parliament, who began this work. That was before my time, and I’ve had the pleasure of coming on board and getting involved to learn, to understand, but also to work on behalf of my constituents in my electorate, where this is personal. I want to say a big thankyou, also, to the Hon Dr Megan Woods, our Minister who has brought this piece of legislation to the House, and to my select committee colleagues who have been part of forming this, taking it to select committee, and hearing the submissions, as it has moved through the parliamentary process.

Now, I didn’t really want to get into it, but my colleague and member on the other side of the House, who I sit on the select committee with—Melissa Lee—just sort of forced me to go there because there is some misinformation going around, in around the fact that we’ve suddenly stopped exploration. Well, we haven’t stopped exploration. This bill isn’t a response to the announcement in 2018. We know there are a lot of other things that went on. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that the last time we discovered gas offshore was the year 2000, I believe. That’s the last time. It wasn’t that suddenly in 2018 we stopped and there was nothing left. But it has been hard to find already, which is a separate point. And then onshore, I think, off the top of my head, forgive me if I’m wrong, it was around 2006 that was the last time there was any kind of onshore discovery of gas. So for the member to say that because of the ban—that keeps getting thrown around here—that we have to bring this legislation in is incorrect. Putting an end to new permits offshore doesn’t affect this at all.

Then, I was encouraged this morning in select committee, we had the Minister Dr Megan Woods speaking about the energy sector, and, again, the “c” word keeps coming up in this House.

Angie Warren-Clark: Not the “c” word!

GLEN BENNETT: The “c” word does. It’s a bit disingenuous, again, this “c” word, because I know—

Barbara Kuriger: Just say the word “coal”.

GLEN BENNETT: It is a dirty word. And I know that member does—

Barbara Kuriger: The member can’t say the word “coal”.

GLEN BENNETT: “Coal”. I can say “coal” as much as I like.

Barbara Kuriger: Isn’t it embarrassing that the member can’t say it?

GLEN BENNETT: I’m not embarrassed at all, because, like I said, the Minister in select committee this morning was really upfront. In fact, as always, she owns this space, and talked around how “Yes, there is coal in use”, that’s why we as a Government are exploring our New Zealand battery options, because we have to transition, we must transition, and we will transition. We can either lead the world or we can stay in the coalmines of the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. But we are in the 21st century and we must move on. We need to find resilience, and hence why we are looking at the New Zealand Battery Project. But I am digressing from this bill because I felt like I had to in terms of what was just said across the other side of the House, which was incorrect.

The other thing, also, was around job losses. I am very sad that the Waitara Valley Methanex plant has been mothballed. That really does grieve me as the member for that area, because one job loss is too many. The previous speaker did talk about the job losses around oil and gas and how somehow this bill is responding to that—which, again, it isn’t. But we know, again, that Methanex, which is a great employer in my electorate, had to mothball it on several occasions in the last 20 years, as they always do.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I had the benefit of attending a wonderful dinner last night with Speaker Mallard, and we received the benefit of his advice on Speaker’s rulings. I’d just like to bring the attention of the House to 44/4: a member may not accuse another member of making a statement they know to be incorrect—in other words, making things up. I think that Mr Bennett did, in fact, accuse the former speaker from the National Party of making information up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not what I heard; a debating point is what I heard. I take a dim view of people interrupting other members who have a right to speak. Debate the points.

GLEN BENNETT: For me, it was, really, obviously, in terms of just trying to clarify some statements in this House while the masses watch on television and in the gallery.

Again, it was a pleasure to be in the select committee process—I think this was one of the first bills that I’ve worked through—and to be able to have the submissions from a number of submitters and several oral submitters to talk, and many of those were in the gas industry, so it was important to them. So we were able to hear some of the information, some of the issues they had, and also to take on board some ideas that they brought to this particular bill.

Now, this bill is here to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Act to provide for enhanced information, disclosure requirements for the gas market, and to ensure that settings around enforcement and penalties are substantially robust. Now, we need this; we need to ensure it is in place. And the previous member—and I know, as I rewatched some of the speakers earlier on, when this was first talked about, around the Pohokura site, in terms of the outage that we had there back in 2018, and in terms of our security when it comes to gas, and, of course, information to disclose and what penalties might be involved.

So this bill also seeks to clarify the current policy intent, that regulations made under the Act for arrangements relating to outages and other security of supply contingencies may apply across all industry participants and, also, to consumers—but, of course, not to domestic consumers.

So I think back to when we had our submissions in January, via Zoom, and to some of the concerns. I note here that there have been some proposed amendments and some information, and there was, obviously, the legislative scrutiny as well, and I feel that we’ve landed in a place where both sides of the House can agree. There are some things that we don’t agree on, but in terms of we need to ensure that this is here because the security of our gas supply is very, very important.

Now, the Gas Act has been around for a long time. And 1992 was my last year of high school—I know, you can’t believe it, you thought I was only starting school then; I was just finishing, actually! Careful, careful. So it has been around for a long time. I believe, back then, some of our climate discussions, some of our challenges around gas supply were probably a bit too far in the future for many. We should have had our eye on the challenges of gas security but, unfortunately, I’m not sure that this bill, particularly back then, was thinking in that space.

The Gas Act is the principle piece of legislation that regulates us, the Government of New Zealand and the natural gas industry. Looking at Part 4A of the Gas Act, it sets out the co-regulatory model for governance of the gas industry. This means that an approved industry body, that’s the Gas Industry Company, co-regulates the gas industry through making recommendations that secondary legislation be made by the Minister. This secondary legislation is referred to as a “gas governance arrangement”.

Now, I also want to note that the Gas Act also provides for gas governance rules to be made, rather than regulations, and that these can be made for all purposes that regulations can be made for. Rules are notified by the Minister in the New Zealand Gazette.

So, as a member of the select committee and bringing it back to the House again, today, for the second reading, I support this piece of legislation—

Barbara Kuriger: So hard to go home.

GLEN BENNETT: —and I know that, Barbara Kuriger, thank you, that you do as well—but we need to keep our eye on what is important, and this is ensuring that the information disclosure and penalties amendment bill of gas; this isn’t here to talk about the “c” word; it’s not here to talk about what people like to refer to as “the ban” because—

Barbara Kuriger: Say it, Mr Bennett, it is “coal”.

GLEN BENNETT: —I can say “coal” many a time, thank you, madam. It was a wonderful thing. We here, on this side of the House, support the fact that we need to ensure that companies in New Zealand are regulated, are ensuring the gas supply, that we keep the lights on, and that we transition—we transition away from coal—and we are committed to that. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Green Party. It is really, really important that we do have adequate regulation and the requirement for disclosure of information, and that that is properly enforced for areas that are strategically important to us, like aspects of our energy and electricity system.

I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by other speakers in this debate. I think this is really, really important, because I have seen discussion out there on Twitter and elsewhere about what’s happening with electricity prices right now and why we’ve increased imports of coal.

I think that, firstly, we’ve got to be very clear: the investment in infrastructure is something that has years and years, if not decades, of lag time, and there is no question that there’s no way that the policies of this Government have in any way contributed to the fact that we’re importing more coal this year. What it is directly due to—and I would find it hard to believe that the National members claiming this actually believe it, because they are intelligent adults and I’m sure they’re able to understand this—is that from the end of 2008 until the end of 2017, when the National Party was in Government, absolutely no planning or investment or incentives were put in place to transition us to sustainable renewable electricity. There was no long-term planning done, there was no framework put in place, and there was no direction sent by that Government that there would be a transition away from fossil fuels, until, of course, now, in 2020—

Barbara Kuriger: What about John Key’s cycleways?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That’s ridiculous. Those weren’t even about transport. The cycleways which the member is referring to were about tourism. They were about tourism, because they’re not actually in towns and cities—they’re about recreation. But, I mean, the Green Party supported it and worked with them on that, but the point is that the previous National Government’s entire economic development strategy was based on things that increased pollution and increased carbon emissions.

So we can take it from those members that they don’t actually believe in climate action. They don’t believe in climate change. There is a window of time that is running out for us to respond to climate change so that we can avoid an economic, health, and humanitarian catastrophe for ourselves and future generations. We only have nine years to drastically reduce emissions.

Barbara Kuriger: So we’re burning coal.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, it would have been much cheaper and easier and we would be much further ahead and advanced on this journey, and we would not have to be importing coal this year if the last National Government had done one single thing to set a direction of transition to renewable energy. But they did not, and so how dare they believe that voters are stupid enough to believe it when they claim that the Labour Government’s policies have anything to do with importing more coal during a dry year when we all know it takes many years to plan and build and develop the infrastructure that will enable us to have security of supply from a renewable source in a dry year. Yeah, we could have been 10 years advanced on that journey, thanks—no thanks—John Key’s National Government.

So then the most ridiculous thing that they’re claiming is that, somehow, sending a very clear signal to business and to the rest of the sectors of the economy that we are transitioning away from fossil fuels and, therefore, we’re not going to be releasing new permits for exploration for oil and gas offshore because we already know about more oil and gas than we can afford to burn and have a habitable climate and habitable planet. So it just seems kind of insane to be looking for more of something that we cannot actually afford to burn and have a habitable climate.

You would think anyone that understands basic maths, science, and physics would embrace this, and in most parts of the developed world, the right-wing Governments have embraced this knowledge of climate change and have worked on a transition. If we look at Germany, for example, they are well advanced in a transition and they have made significant progress, while the right-wing parties in New Zealand are in total denial about the fact that we actually need to change what we’re doing.

But, not only that, they had this lottery approach to economic development, where they’re like “I know how we can get some more money. Let’s go out there and invite all these companies around the world to come look for oil and gas offshore in our incredibly sensitive marine environments, and if they find some oil and gas, we can sell it and we’ll make some money out of it. That’s how we’ll get rich quick—that’s how we’ll get rich quick.”, except, what these guys don’t realise—and, I mean, they are pretty poorly informed on most issues, admittedly. My father-in-law is a petroleum geologist; in fact, so is his wife. They’re absolutely experts in this. They haven’t lived in New Zealand for 45 years, because they had to leave to get jobs after they got their PhDs in geology in the late 1970s, but they put in very informed submissions on the Government of the day’s plans on oil and gas exploration back when the National Party was in Government, in 2009 or 2010, I think. They said, “This crazy. These plans are absolutely crazy. We do not have the infrastructure.” They weren’t proposing even raising the level of royalties that would have made it worthwhile for New Zealand. Firstly, there were very poor chances of finding any oil and gas in deep water in New Zealand, and very low chances that it would be economic. It turns out that my in-laws were absolutely right: of course nothing was found over nine years of exploration.

But it’s completely ridiculous to assert that sending a signal in 2018 that we’re not releasing new permits for exploration has anything to do with a shortage of gas right now, because there is no way that if additional permits had been released in 2018 or 2019, we would have magically found a bunch of gas and had it up and ready for production by 2021. These are people who know absolutely nothing about the industry and make the most ridiculous statements. It just drives me crazy having to listen to it, because they take themselves so seriously.

OK, so let’s just go back to the actual facts about what’s happening here—all right. Almost 40 to 50 percent of our actual gas supply in New Zealand is used by Methanex and exported overseas for, let’s see—we have no royalties. I don’t believe we get any royalties from them. They pay almost no tax in New Zealand, and they employ fewer people than a supermarket. So how is this of benefit to New Zealand that a strategic asset, which is the gas that they’re using and then selling products overseas that don’t benefit New Zealanders—they barely pay tax in New Zealand—

Simon Court: About 80 percent of their products are used here.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. They barely employ people—

Simon Court: Paints, resins.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Oh, so we buy them back? Great! No.

If the strategic best use of that gas is in electricity production or in people’s households, we do have to ask ourselves the question: why is 40 to 50 percent of it going offshore to produce products that are not directly benefiting New Zealand?

So if we are going to address the climate crisis, we have to have a rational, costed plan for how to do that, and sending early signals to the industry makes sense. That’s what Barbara Kuriger said earlier in this debate: industry needs certainty. That’s exactly what the Government has given them, and absolutely we’re going to have catch up on the lost decade in which no policy was developed, no planning was prepared, for us to actually transition to sustainable renewable electricity.

So I’m just tired about hearing the very high-level talking points from the National Party and others who are totally disingenuous in their debating points, claiming that the Government is somehow responsible for a dry year and the fact that 10 years ago, when the UK had established its climate commission—no, more than 10 years ago. It was 2008. From the time the National Party was in Government, from 2009 to 2017, there was no climate commission, no evidence-based plan. In fact, they were just like “Let’s go full hog on increasing agriculture emissions, trying to look for oil and gas that wasn’t even there, that wouldn’t have been economic to produce, in the hopes that we get rich quick by producing more fossil fuels that will burn the planet.”

Clearly, my explanations are never going to get through to them. But I know the people watching at home understand that they’re not right, because just before me, we had the Labour member for New Plymouth speaking, and so, clearly, if New Plymouth was truly upset at the Labour Government—that’s why they elected a Labour MP.

So I think the National Party is deeply in denial about the level of just how popular they are, with one out of four voters, at most, having confidence in them. But I think that’s dropping quickly, the more they open their mouths and express their absolute ignorance about how we’re going to respond to climate change, and their total lack of care for those who are worse off in this country, and their ignorance about colonisation. That’s all I have to say.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Green member’s passion. However, I’m still not entirely clear whether they support this bill or not, but there was certainly a lot of information offered to the people who may be watching at home.

ACT opposes this bill unless certain changes are made to make it more effective and actually to deliver on the outcomes that the bill proposes to deliver. The purpose is apparently to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Act to provide for enhanced information disclosure. It assumes that there’s some problem with information disclosure with the current system, but I want to offer members an opportunity to have a look at some of the information that’s already being disclosed. But before I do, let’s just come back to the reason why this bill came before the House. It’s because there were a number of recent gas outages, primarily the 2018 outage that came as a surprise to some gas users, and certainly the Government, at the Pohokura station. We know that outages can affect gas availability and prices, and they also affect the electricity market, which relies on gas, because energy made with gas supplies about 20 percent of New Zealand’s energy.

Now, this regulation appears to be another example of Government overreach. Essentially, it’s an industry where the Government has already shown a record of reactionary and failed policy, driven by emotion, chasing clickbait and favourable headlines rather than actually delivering policies which benefit business and create jobs and make communities more sustainable. The Minister made some comments, or their delegate did, when this bill was introduced about whether ACT has a full tank or not. I can assure the Government that ACT is fuelled up and we are here for the long haul, and we are standing up for better regulations to make sure that businesses are able to deliver what they need to do for our economy and jobs for communities.

According to the Government, this bill does not provide any changes that impose immediate costs on business. However, there are costs likely to be imposed on industry and, therefore, consumers. This bill is actually a threat to industry. It is threatening those businesses which employ thousands of people and are already fulfilling their disclosure obligations. This bill ignores the fact that there is a voluntary regime that is working very, very effectively right now. That is why ACT is opposing this bill in its current form without the amendments that we’ve tabled—that’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41—which make sure that an adequate cost-benefit analysis is undertaken before any further regulations are made.

We took on board the feedback from stakeholders during the select committee process, to come up with this amendment, because the stakeholders were concerned, not just that they’re going to lose jobs and lose production and that their businesses are going to be affected; the stakeholders are concerned that gas supply issues are only going to get worse, and even though the Government claims that this gas information disclosure bill is designed to create more stability and provide more certainty, what we know is that the single-largest disruption to the gas supply industry is going to be due to the Government’s oil and gas ban. Whether that’s taking effect now, it is certainly the intention of the Government to eliminate gas as a fuel. They’ve started by eliminating exploration permits and we’ve seen every permit outside of Taranaki surrendered, and that’s where we’re going. So adding further regulation to ensure visibility on the supply side seems bizarre given the Government has signalled its intention they don’t want any supply at all.

So ACT believes that it’s a disingenuous bill and actually it’s a knee-jerk reaction to being caught on the hop only a short time after making their flawed, clickbait, headline-grabbing oil and gas exploration ban announcement that, lo and behold—lo and behold—there’s a gas shortage. Now, some may have tried to connect the two, and sometimes it’s difficult to connect bad Government policy to bad social and economic outcomes; sometimes it takes years before we see massive brain drains of people going to countries like Australia or just not bothering to come back to New Zealand even though it’s some kind of safe haven, some kind of oasis that we hear from the Government. So who knows how long it will take for their bad policy to kick in, but we certainly have a shortage of gas right now.

But look, in terms of what the stakeholders told us, some of them said they strongly support the bill, and of course that raised immediately the risk of commercial information being disclosed between market participants. Others said that there should be significant restrictions in place to make sure that commercially sensitive information is protected.

They also suggested there’s already a voluntary regulatory code, and I’ll give you an example of that. [Holds up a graph] Here is the voluntary information that tells Government and tells energy consumers and other producers how much gas is being used by businesses large and small. [Holds up another graph] Here is the current disclosure, and you can go on the Gas Industry Co. website and you can click and download this right now. This tells you when the next outage is going to be. Again, it’s very difficult to see why this piece of regulation is needed. [Holds up another graph] This also tells you how much gas is being stored right now in the Ahuroa field and the fact that a lot of gas is being stored to take care of our dry-year risk, this dry-year risk that the Government believes it actually needs to build a multibillion-dollar dam at Onslow, flooding a UNESCO-level wetland—the largest hydroelectric dam on what will no doubt become a very technically difficult construction site, and unlikely to be delivered within the lifetimes of any of the current members of this Parliament.

But that’s how much gas is currently being stored. This deals with the dry risk.

Hon Simon Bridges: Hmm, the gas chart.

SIMON COURT: This is a gas chart. It’s true that ACT is gassed up. We’re fuelled up. We’re here for the long haul. We do our research. We don’t come to this House and just make wild statements and wild guesses about the kind of policy that should be promoted by this House and should be passed.

So that’s why ACT has actually proposed amendments to this bill through our SOP 41, because ACT believes that when the Government makes laws, it should only make laws that are absolutely necessary. Where a business is demonstrating social responsibility and when they’re operating in an environmentally friendly way, in a transparent way, in an efficient way, and in a way that provides highly paid jobs in communities like Taranaki, supporting industries in places like New Plymouth, the Government should recognise that and recognise their value to the regions and to manufacturing in our major cities. ACT says the Government should leave those businesses alone. That’s what we say, and that’s why we’re opposing this bill unless our amendments are taken up.

So, with that, Mr Speaker, I will say thank you for showing me some flexibility today with the previous comment that I made. But I will finish by saying that the ACT Party opposes this bill unless the amendments as tabled under SOP 41 are made. Thank you very much.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you. I rise today to take a call on the second reading of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, which amends the Gas Act 1992. I’d like to begin my remarks today by acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, for her work to ensure that we get our regulatory settings right for our energy market. I know this is just one small part in our Government’s focus to make sure that we have a more sustainable and resilient energy sector.

Now, this bill was introduced to the House, and had its first reading, last term, before I was privileged to be elected as a member to this House. However, I understand this bill stems from work that started way back in 2018, when the Minister asked officials to determine if information disclosure arrangements in the gas market were sufficient and fit for purpose. It was off the back of concerns that were being raised about the prolonged gas outages at the Pohokura production stations, and I think it’s worth noting that that gas field provides 40 percent of our country’s natural gas supply. Combine that with the planned outage at Kupe and the dry spring conditions, leading to sustained high wholesale prices for electricity, and historic prices on the gas spot market. This is all combined to highlight the need to ensure that disclosure of information is timely, particularly when it may have significant downstream impacts, or potentially cause security of supply risks, as we’ve seen. A number of parties at the time voiced their concerns about the variation of the level of information that was being disclosed by gas market participants, particularly if this information—as I said—was going to have a significant impact downstream, including to businesses who may not be involved in the natural gas industry.

Coming back to the present day, this bill seeks to expand the scope of regulation-making powers, and it does this by amending section 43F of the Gas Act. This section sets out the scope of regulation-making powers, and the proposed changes will enable gas governance arrangements to be made that provide for a broad regime for sharing information, which will have a significant impact and which may contribute to the risk of critical gas shortages. The bill also clarifies that the existing policy intent, that regulations made under section 43F for arrangements relating to outages and other security of supply contingencies apply across all industry participants and consumers. This expanded ability to make regulations to enable governance arrangements that provide for the broad disclosure is important when you consider the context. That is, as a country, we’re currently experiencing a drier than average hydrological condition, so it’s very important that necessary information can be easily disclosed and communicated in a timely way, so that people have the ability to plan ahead accordingly. In addition to that, the official statistics on gas supply show that we have about 11 years of gas supply remaining, which hasn’t changed much for the past two decades, and that’s with further exploration continuing with existing permits. That’s why it’s crucial that we continue to explore and invest in alternative forms of renewable energy.

Now, as you may recall, I grew up in a small town in South Taranaki, in my electorate, called Waverley. It’s a great place, traditionally, for dairy, sheep, and beef farming, but recently we had a new farm spring up almost overnight. Between Waverley and Patea, we now have the Waipipi Wind Farm, which is a $277 million investment by Tilt Renewables, into constructing a 31-turbine windfarm across 7 hectares of prime South Taranaki coastal farmland. These turbines are the biggest turbines ever built in Aotearoa, being 4.3 megawatt machines standing at 160 metres tall with a 130 metre diameter rotor. It’s the first wind farm to be constructed in New Zealand on flat land, and this farm will produce enough clean energy each year to power about 65,000 houses, and save us the emission of roughly 250,000 tonnes of carbon. I confess, I quite enjoyed watching the construction progressing each time I drove up through the electorate last year, and on more than one occasion I was required to pull over and wait, as the blades were being transported past from New Plymouth on their way to the Waipipi Wind Farm—it was an impressive sight to see.

I also note that this bill makes changes to the Gas Act penalty regime. The bill amends the penalty regime for industry participants, by increasing the maximum civil penalty able 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 available to be currently issued by the Gas Rulings Panel, particularly for situations where there are a wide range of consumers that may be affected by a potential breach. The bill also creates a penalty for consumers who are not industry participants, who will now be subject to civil pecuniary penalty instead of criminal penalties if they breach gas governance arrangements. This will ensure equitable treatment between industry participants and consumers, and non-industry participant consumers. It will be used to deter breaches of regulation by these consumers, including 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.

I’d like to acknowledge as well the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who reviewed this bill and listened to a number of submissions. Following that process, I note that several important changes have been recommended by the committee to address some of the issues raised by those submitters, including a change that 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 ensure that appropriate incentives are in place for the industry to comply with orders from the panel. The bill represents a step forward in improving how information that may highlight the risk of critical gas shortages, or the potential significant price impacts from gas shortages, is released to the market.

I’m sure that no one would disagree that energy security is critical for supporting a productive, sustainable, and inclusive New Zealand economy. That’s why the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill is important. Because this bill ensures that appropriate regulatory requirements can be put in place for supporting security of supply and to improve outcomes for energy consumers. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, I call Joseph Mooney.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. The National Party supports this bill. The bill amends the Gas Act 1992 to provide for enhanced information disclosure requirements for the gas market and to ensure that settings around enforcement and penalties are suitably robust. However, the bill does not make substantive changes in and of itself but amends the framework to expand the scope of regulation-making powers. A number of the changes require gas industry participants to report forecasts of supply and demand of gas reserves. This is in response to the 2018 Pohokura outage, but it also can be linked to the Government’s decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration.

If enacted, the bill will clarify that the gas Government regulations could (a) specifically provide for arrangements relating to gas outages and other security of supply contingencies in relation to any markets for gas and (b) require data and information to be provided and disclosed for any industry participant or consumer. National supports more transparent disclosure around current, pending, or possible gas outages, but we need to remember why we are here. This bill is needed because New Zealand is fast entering a gas supply crisis. The Pohokura outage wasn’t an issue of a lack of information but, ultimately, an issue of a lack of gas. This bill will allow New Zealand to understand just how bad the situation Labour has put us in is—it’s why we support it.

It’s also important to state why we are here. This is a direct result of Labour’s 2018 oil and gas ban. When the gas ban was implemented, Minister Woods said, “Don’t worry, we have 100,000 square kilometres of gas exploration already permitted.” She said, “We have permits that go out for 30 years; the sky isn’t falling in.” What she didn’t say is that gas doesn’t come out of the ground by magic. Businesses need certainty to invest big sums of money, and they need to invest money in things called plant and equipment to get gas to our houses and factories and our electricity generation. Our trading partners have reduced emissions by using natural gas and turning off old coal-fed power stations and industrial heating. We instead are reducing significantly our supply of gas and discouraging investment in exploration of new gas fields.

In Otago, Beach Energy made a decision to abandon existing exploration permits off the South Island as a result of the Government’s oil and gas ban. And while the Government call it a just transition, the plan for the future was nothing but a short-sighted policy to appear as a leader on the global stage in climate transition. Officials warned the decision would cost billions in royalties, destroy thousands of jobs, and likely increase global emissions, yet the Prime Minister and energy Minister Megan Woods still ploughed ahead with ideological policy. This is something we need to be cautious of in this House. We do need gas; we don’t need hot air.

This Beach Energy decision to abandon the existing exploration permits effectively ended any offshore exploration outside of Taranaki. It is a blow to Otago’s economy and it will mean significant job losses. Gas exports could have also helped our recovery from the COVID-19 economic crisis. A significant gas find in the South Island would have allowed industries presently reliant on coal to transition to lower emissions fuel—which is what other countries are doing—while boosting New Zealand’s exports.

I note that in the last year alone New Zealand imported 1.1 million tonnes of coal, and we’re on track this year to import 2 million tonnes of coal, and a lot of that coal is what’s known as dirty coal. So instead of reducing our emissions profile, we are actually increasing it by short-sighted policies that don’t focus on the fundamentals.

I note that the previous speaker, Steph Lewis, spoke about the pride at seeing wind farms being built, and I certainly encourage the growth of wind farms, but we need to be conscious that this is a complex energy environment. Today alone, wind is operating at 10 percent of capacity, so we need to have an alternative energy supply, and this is why this bill is here, because we need to have gas to supplement our energy supply. So we need gas to reduce our energy profile, to reduce our emissions profile, and ensure that we can power our economy and make sure New Zealanders have electricity to turn on the lights.

So this is a small step that is required in the environment we find ourselves in, but I would encourage the Government to reconsider its short-sighted ban on the exploration of gas around New Zealand so that we don’t have to import dirty coal from other countries.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thanks, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand. I was a little bit confused with the last member’s speech and just wanted to make the comment—in fact, all of the members across the House who are voting for this bill, it didn’t sound like they were. They sound like they’re pretty much just against this bill at all. Anyhow, it would be really great to hear them actually speak—because they were involved in the creation of this legislation and are actually supposedly voting for it—around some of the positive aspects.

So anyway, I’m taking a short call on behalf—I’m covering the Māori Party slot here today, and I’m really surprised that the Māori Party aren’t here, given that they’re—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member should not mention the absence of anyone.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry, yes. Absolutely. They’ve chosen not to take a call, and I’m really sorry about that because I know that they certainly would’ve had lots to say on this issue, given that they’re so passionate about the Taranaki region. Nevertheless, sir.

So I’m particularly surprised to be speaking on this bill today. I have not sat on the select committee that was involved—

Hon Simon Bridges: The member should tell us what she knows about gas.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I know lots about gas. I’m a great barbecuer. Nevertheless, back to the speech I think.

So this bill is particularly around amending the principal Act, the Gas Act 1992. Look, it’s really in place to help with some assurance and security around supply and goes through a number of things to ensure that the gas governance regulations require data and information to be provided and disclosed by any industry participant and consumer. And it goes through a number of things that must be disclosed or discussed. So these are about the volume, the price, the forecasts of supply or demand, the info about actual or potential outages, the info about the risks to the security of supply, and information to help other industry participants and consumers make informed decisions. Now, I think that all of that’s really important, because I guess, as we move into a period of time where we are trying to move to 100 percent renewable energy, that we actually need to know what the supply looks like out there. We need to know what is coming up in the future. Apparently 11 years of supply is left, I’m not sure if that’s the case or not, but this bill puts that information right up the front, and we are still investing in this area. I sat, last term, on the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill 2018, and it was absolutely my pleasure to be there—

Hon Simon Bridges: I’m finding it hard to follow.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —looking at the new—the member is finding it hard to follow because he’s not usually here on a Thursday. He usually gets thrown out on a Thursday so he can go home early. That’s why the member is finding it so hard to follow. Have a cup of coffee, Simon Bridges—have a cup of coffee.

Hon Member: Lot of gas over that side of the room.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Lot of gas. So it was a real pleasure to sit on that bill and to understand that—

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s she doing sitting on the bill?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —as a Government, we’re moving forward—

Hon Simon Bridges: Get off the bill. Leave the bill alone.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —around looking towards some alternative. I think it’s Thursday afternoon, and the member needs his nap.

Hon Simon Bridges: I’m waiting for a valedictory.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The member is waiting for a valedictory, yes, as are we all. So I think probably, on that note, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m just trying to find my notes. There’s some comedians in the House today. But can I say it’s a privilege and honour to always take a call in the House and as a newbie, like I said the other night, get used to and learn when we get into the House what we’re doing and how to speak. Really good to have members like Simon Bridges on the other side of the House to role model that to us, and we can hopefully pick up those tips—

Hon Simon Bridges: Hey, I’m helping you get to 10 minutes.

TERISA NGOBI: Kia ora. Oh, thank you. Make sure you heckle heaps so I can make sure you get into my speech.

Hon Simon Bridges: I can be 2½ minutes of this speech.

TERISA NGOBI: Well, that’s fantastic. That’s what we want and that’s as much as I needed to filibuster, so that’s great, Simon Bridges, thank you. That’s working together across parties—fantastic.

So, as I said, it’s a privilege and an honour to take a call on the Gas—

Barbara Kuriger: Filibustering with hot gas!

TERISA NGOBI: Well, and you too, Barbara Kuriger—another good mentor to be able to help me fill in my 10 minutes’ time, so kia ora for that.

So yes, a great privilege to take a call on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill—jump in whenever you like, Simon Bridges and Barbara Kuriger. First of all I just want to thank the Hon Megan Woods for championing this bill forward, and of course the 52nd Parliament that we know Simon Bridges and Barbara Kuriger were part of, but I wasn’t obviously. So I wasn’t part of the select committee either.

Hon Member: They missed out.

TERISA NGOBI: Yes, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I’m still not part of that but absolutely support the work that they’re doing—amazing mahi they’re doing—so thank you for that. Also just to thank, I think, the 11 submitters that did submit on this bill. So while I wasn’t on that select committee, my understanding is that this bill looks to strengthen the regulation-making powers, as has been said before, in the Gas Act, provide and enhance information disclosure requirements for the gas market, and ensure that settings around enforcement and penalties are suitable and strong.

I read about, and was obviously affected by, the outage in 2019 at Pohokura gasfield, which I believe holds up to about 40 percent of our natural gas supply, and they were prolonged and actually coincided with other gas outages and gasfields at that time. And also during that really dry time as well. We know that this led then to record natural gas spot market and wholesale prices, which emphasises the need to regulate settings regarding disclosure of important information to the market. So—

Barbara Kuriger: The member and her Government are making it go away and now they want to measure it.

TERISA NGOBI: Oh, OK. I don’t know if I’ll take that into consideration, Barbara Kuriger, but thank you for another couple of seconds. So we did hear from those 11 submitters and also acknowledge that there were some concerns by some of the industry, and that was around they felt that the regulation-making powers went beyond what was required and were heavy-handed—I believe was the language used at that time. And while we hear those concerns, we also believe that this legislative regime is set up appropriately to consider non-regulatory options before we impose any further regulatory options. And we again go back to the fact that we need to have the powers to make sure that we don’t have another episode like 2019.

Some of the other submitters, though, were for this bill; for example, Mercury, who were in strong support for this bill. They said “In the absence of one or more significant upstream exploration discoveries, natural gas in New Zealand will become increasingly scarce over the next decade. As identified by the Interim Climate Change Committee [at the time], these remaining gas reserves are critical if we are to become a low carbon economy as it is the most efficient bridging fuel available to support the electrification of transport and process heat.”

Barbara Kuriger: Now, that’s true.

TERISA NGOBI: Oh good, so that is correct! And that is from Mercury. And they also go on to say, “Natural gas may be required further out than this in the absence of a alternative solution to New Zealand’s electricity dry year risk”. And again going back to the outage in 2019, that’s what we are trying to avoid. So really good to be able to have Mercury support that also.

We also, just quickly, had Transpower—and this isn’t as long—that also agreed with the amendments to the regulation-making powers. They say that it was “necessary for gas governance on matters that may have a significant downstream impact on, or may contribute to, the risk of critical gas shortage.”, which we know that there is. And they supported the regulatory-making powers of disclosure for production and shortage outage proposed in clause 9(3), inserting new section 43F(2)(e), which is “providing, in relation to wholesale or any other markets for gas, for arrangements relating to outages and other security of supply risks, including imposing requirements in connection with those matters on any industry participant or consumer (other than a domestic consumer.” Then the market information proposed in new section 43F(2)(f): “providing for the provision and disclosure of data and information by any industry participant or consumer (other than domestic consumer).”

So again, that brings me back to why this bill is so important and also the amendments in that Gas Act which will ensure the regulatory requirements and ensure that transparency and that disclosure of information is strong and is right.

Hon Member: Really important.

TERISA NGOBI: Absolutely. And this bill also made some changes to the Gas Act’s penalty charges. So it took it, from my understanding, from $20,000 to $200,000, and hopefully that will act as a real preventative. In that, the penalty regime for the industry participants increasing the maximum civil pecuniary penalty able to be imposed by the Gas Rulings Panel for breaches of gas governance regulations—and again, like I said, it’s from $20,000 going to $200,000.

Barbara Kuriger: Why is the Government filibustering its own legislation?

TERISA NGOBI: Oh, look, I’m not just filibustering, because it’s been good to be able to have your input as well, Barbara Kuriger, but it is important. We know that there’s a limit—

Barbara Kuriger: Is there not enough work?

TERISA NGOBI: Well, look, I know a little bit about gas. This is what I do know. [Interruption] Well, I’ve got children, that’s the first thing. But, secondly—

Simon Court: There’s gas in Ōtaki.

TERISA NGOBI: Well, when I was in England actually, Simon Court—when I was in England that was the first time I ever cooked with gas.

Hon Members: Oh!

TERISA NGOBI: Yes, yes it was. I can’t say that I was a fan straight away. It took me a little while to get used to it, but I understand now the need for it.

Hon Member: It’s the best.

TERISA NGOBI: Well, yes, but I also understand the limitations now that we have. We are not just going to be going—you know, just—

Simon Court: Simply the best—better than all the rest.

TERISA NGOBI: I think—was it 2006 the last time that gas was discovered, Simon Court? So, you know, we have to be, I guess, tapu or scarce with our use of gas and how we’re using it. And it’s also making sure that we regulate that market too, to make sure that again when things like 2019 happened—that there are penalties around that and that they can’t hold on to the gas that is so scarce already. So that’s part of the purpose of this, Simon Court.

Barbara Kuriger: They’re sharing it right now.

TERISA NGOBI: Oh, am I?

Barbara Kuriger: To keep the lights on.

TERISA NGOBI: That’s right. It’s about keeping the lights on, I know. And we’re going to—

Barbara Kuriger: They’re sharing it right now with this Government to keep the lights on.

TERISA NGOBI: Well, listen, the Government’s doing more than keeping the lights on for New Zealanders. It’s making sure that New Zealanders are able to keep their lights on by increasing benefits so people have enough money to pay for the lights on, and also this Government has also introduced winter energy payments so we’re able to afford to run our gas heater if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford one and you’re also able to make sure that you can pay the power bill if you’re able to, if you are on the benefit now, because of this Government with its winter energy payment. So yes, Barbara Kuriger, this Government is definitely helping New Zealanders to keep the lights on and it’s also making sure that it’s fair and that we don’t have another episode like 2019 and we’re making sure that we regulate the information that goes out and we make sure that we take care of the little gas that we’ve already got while we also take care of the rest of New Zealand. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to speak on this bill, the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. I have to confess I haven’t been on the select committee which has dealt with this bill, but, like all New Zealanders, I’m deeply concerned about the effective running of the gas industry, which, of course, has been thrown into chaos by this Government’s hasty oil and gas ban. Apparently, New Zealand is so rich—so rich—that we don’t need to look for oil and gas, and that comes as a surprise to people. There’s only two countries in the world that we’ve been able to find who think they are so rich that they don’t need to look for oil and gas. It’s us and one other place. I wonder whether people would know where the other country would be that is so—

Hon Simon Bridges: France.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: France. France is the one. But of course, the French have nuclear energy and a pipeline from Russia. But everybody else think it’s a reasonable idea to look for some stuff in order to get around, but we are so rich that we don’t need to.

Having said all that, the direct genesis of this bill was in relation to the Pohokura outage in 2018. That, as people who are tuning into this debate on their wirelesses back home will remember, was an outage of that oil rig in particular, which led to a shortage of gas supply and high electricity spot-market prices in 2018. There were complaints made at that time to the Electricity Authority, the regulatory body, which raised concerns about whether gas supply outages were being fully disclosed to the market. As a result of that, a policy decision was made by the Government—and we broadly supported it—to put out a discussion document across the sector to get an opinion about whether further transparency, information transparency, was required. That’s what this bill seeks to do: to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Act to provide for enhanced information disclosure.

Now, so far so good. That sounds all very well and good. We should do that. But then I asked—and we broadly support this bill, but there is widespread concern, however, across the sector about what is becoming very much the fashion within this Government. That is to say they come up with a bill which gives it the power to make regulations requiring all sorts of information in a particular industry, and when they pass their bills, they always give themselves plenty of opportunity to pass plenty of regulations. So they go broad, and the result of that is to give themselves every bit of room that they need to make whatever regulations they feel that they need to.

The problem with that is that the people who are trying to make a living in the sector look at that and say, “Oh, well, we don’t know what’s coming down the road next, and will this Government abuse that power?” They look across to Megan Woods. They look at Megan Woods, and they look at Kelvin Davis, and they think of Phil Twyford, and they look at Jacinda Ardern, and they think about the possibility of another UN speech coming up, and they worry—and they worry. They think of Judith Collins and—not Judith Collins. They think of Jacinda Ardern, and they think of a UN speech coming up, and they’re worried that she might do something else that will have a massive impact on their livelihood and their ability to make a living and create jobs and provide for their families and for the communities’ families.

That uncertainty, unfortunately, has been one of the things that this Government has introduced into our economy in a shocking way over the past few years, because who can make the capital or is going to be likely to make the capital investment that we need to grow our economy and to become more productive if we don’t know what’s coming down the track, if Megan Woods decides one day that she’s just going to impose a ban on your particular industry or that she’s going to require a whole lot more information—commercially sensitive information, potentially—to be disclosed? So it’s that uncertainty that fills the minds of many with dread.

We’ve seen another example of that. I was in the select committee yesterday on education. I’ll diverge very briefly from the topic, around early education, where, again, this Government has come in, in the dead of night, introducing urgent legislation, changing that sector dramatically, and the consequence of all that is that anybody investing in any sort of business in this country feels unnerved and wonders who’s going to be next to feel the cold, dark hand of this Government on their shoulder—

Hon Simon Bridges: Dark, hairy hand.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —dark, hairy, cold hand on their shoulder—in the middle of the night, imposing new regulations and new requirements, or telling them that they don’t like their business, and they don’t like it. Fundamentally, what we’ve just had in the last month is a Budget—a big-spending Budget, one of the biggest-spending Budgets in the history of this country. Nothing about—[Interruption] oh, and they applaud.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, why not? I mean, it takes enormous skill. It takes enormous skill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. Thank you. This is the second reading speech. I’ll ask the member to come back to the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Indeed, and it takes enormous skill to spend money wisely.

Anyway, so I looked for the regulatory impact statement on this bill, and it’s an interesting one. When you introduce legislation that imposes new regulations on particular industries, one of the disciplines that, thankfully, this Government has retained from the previous Government is that it’s supposed to go through a regulatory impact statement. So one of the basic sort of questions was: was there a regulatory impact statement to inform decisions around this bill? And the good news is there was. The second question is: if so, did the regulatory impact assessment team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of that regulatory impact statement? The answer to that was no. No, they didn’t.

Then they said that the regulatory impact statement identified above did not meet the threshold for receiving an independent opinion—it wasn’t anywhere substantial enough. And has any further analysis been offered for this bill? All we’ve seen is just another example of the Government coming in, putting out a discussion document, getting feedback from the stakeholders, they say “Yes, we agree that there should be some more information being made available.”, and they develop a voluntary code and it happens. All the information is being made available, but the Government decides they need to legislate anyway on top of that, and then they come in with very broad legislation which leaves that uncertainty within the broader sector about what’s coming next and how will their shoulder be tapped, in what way, for new information.

The only point of reference that I make to the previous decision around the banning of oil and gas explanation is the link between the two is this bald assertion that we’re so rich that we don’t need to look for oil and gas, and somehow we’re going to make a living in this country and we’re going to maintain the high living standards that we all aspire to in order to provide for our families, but every few months we’ll just chop off another limb of our economy, and everything will be fine. So oil and gas goes because we don’t really like that. International education goes because we don’t like that. We don’t really like the farmers, so we’ll give them the bum’s rush. We don’t like mining, so we’ll do that. And somehow—somehow—we’re going to still continue to make the living that we make.

So it’s the cavalier way in which the Government chops off arms of our economy that worries us, but, secondly, it’s the capricious way in which they make their decision making and announce it on the basis of no independent analysis. It’s that uncertainty around decision making that has that inhibiting effect on investment, because, ultimately, how do we make the economy more productive? It comes back to private sector investment as one of the great drivers of productivity increases. You only get improved productivity if people are prepared to invest, but who would feel confident to invest in a sector like this when, at any given moment, Megan Woods can hove into view and bring new regulation into place and change the rules and pull the carpet out from underneath you? That concern is what we’re worried about, and I can very much sympathise with the industry on that score.

But I’m conscious that time is racing by, and I haven’t had a chance to deal with some of the specifics in this electorate, but I will when I get a chance. One of the elements that I do want to draw attention to—oh dear, I’ve run out of time.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): This afternoon, we’ve heard many things on this bill that I did not expect to hear. This is the bill on gas information disclosure and penalties and we’re going to talk about what we’ve heard in this House but I’m only going to talk about the points that are related to this bill.

Could I say to the members opposite that they need to wake up and smell the roses because—do they know what—when we asked for submission on this bill, guess what? The major drivers in our economy—one of the biggest companies in our economy: Mercury—expressed strong support. Todd Energy and Nova Energy support amending the Gas Act of 1992. Vector generally agrees with the information disclosure and penalty provisions of the bill. There’s more: Firstgas Group endorses the information disclosure provisions of the bill. Haast Energy Trading overall supports the information disclosure. Transpower, emsTradepoint, Major Gas Users Group, Gas Industry Company, and Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand accept and support the overall direction of this bill. These are major players in our gas sector and they support this bill. Do you know what? This Government on this side of the House has worked hard to support the market. They’ve worked hard to build the infrastructure of this market so that the market can be the market—i.e., that it can actually run smoothly so that a market economy can happen and that we can actually compensate when failures happen in a market.

What happened in the market was the market did fail. We had an outage in 2018. We had an outage where people were left in the dark and the cold. There were companies that couldn’t actually operate. There was a huge cost on our economy. Those were significant failures of the market and what this bill is able to do is support the market so that the market can continue to function the way that it was designed, that way that it was supposed to. When markets fail, it costs the economy and let me tell the House that that cost was $2 million a day—$2 million a day of cost to the market, to the economy. Look, when we are talking we need to recover from COVID, when we need to grow the economy, we’ve got to stop avoiding costs like this to the economy, right? Two million dollars a day—that’s a huge cost and, not only that, but it actually puts other industries at risk. It’s not just about the energy sector but all we know that the energy sector is interconnected with all aspects of our community. We know that our health sector relies on it; our transport sector relies on it; our elderly in their homes, our children in their homes all rely on it. So that’s why we owe it to the people of New Zealand to have a properly regulated gas market so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of having clean energy, to make sure that we actually provide the amount of energy that is needed.

Today, I really was looking into this bill and I’ve really learnt another lesson in market economy. We all know that in a market there’s a supply and a demand side. In the supply side of the gas market, it’s the changes in our natural gas supply level and then, obviously, you have to peg that against the different changes in our export and import as well, but also our storage levels as well. When the storage level gets low and when the demand gets high, the fact is that affects our demand side of our gas market here in New Zealand—the economic growth, and we’ve all seen that in New Zealand; even in a post-COVID climate we’ve seen economic growth getting better. The weather—so when we have a dry year, and right now we’re seeing that there has been a drier than average period that we are going through right now, and also the cost of competing fuels and we’re seeing that with fossil fuels as well.

So we’re seeing that the market has to readjust and the market has to go—I remembered today during the debate, my colleague here, Glen Bennett, member for New Plymouth, has told us that the industry chases the money. That’s something we’ve heard in this debate and that is exactly what happens. The market chases the money and so when Government doesn’t provide the right infrastructure for the market, they just go to wherever the money is. But we know that doesn’t always work for everyone. It doesn’t work for the country of New Zealand, so we need to make sure that there is a regulation in place to make sure that this market is actually running smoothly.

We know that 26.5 percent of gas is used to generate electricity in our country so this has a follow-on effect, almost like a supply chain within our economy and within our energy market, where gas and the level of natural gas we have in the country actually affects our energy and our electricity prices. As this Government—and I want to recognise the Hon Julie Anne Genter here, who had a brilliant speech in this House this afternoon talking about the importance of waking up and smelling the roses in terms of the emergency we’re in in terms of our climate, in terms of the importance of looking after our natural resources—the importance that we need to have a just and an equitable transition into the economy or into our industry that’s based on clean energy, based on electricity. But we know here that gas is a very, very important fundamental crux to that—

Barbara Kuriger: So why ban it?

NAISI CHEN: So we need to make sure that the gas that we have in this country actually supports the electricity ambitions that we have for this country.

Barbara Kuriger: So fundamental the Government’s banned it.

NAISI CHEN: Can I just put on record that we are still right now looking at gas at the moment. We just have to go to the electorate of my colleague here—Angela Roberts, right—and we can see that the farmers in Tikorangi are still looking at gas and we know that we are still looking at the fission and the right mix within our economy, at how our energy should be supplied. So it’s very important, I think, that we find the right balance. We need to make sure that we look after this nation, the land that we stand on, the globe in terms of our carbon emissions, in terms of our clean energy. But at the same time we need to make sure that that transition to clean, green energy is just. And this is why we are passing through bills like this. It is to make sure that our infrastructure for our gas market is the right one. It’s to make sure that people actually disclose their supply levels to that we can actually plan ahead, and planning ahead and information, symmetrical information, is so important.

I feel like I’m going back to my economic study days where these things are the fundamentals of our economy—of the study of economics, where we have to look at the symmetrical information when the market fails; when we as a Government have to intervene to make sure the information is right, and make sure that we actually make good decisions for the future, that we can actually futureproof our energy sector to make sure that we are able to actually for outages to back up our electricity supply, to make sure that there won’t be increased price spikes, to make sure that we won’t have sudden $2 million a day losses in our economy because, God knows, that that is so absolutely detrimental to this economy if it ever happens, especially during a post-COVID phase.

I’m proud to endorse the new penalties that we have in this bill as well, that were mentioned during our select committee stage, increasing the $20,000 penalty into a $200k penalty as well so that we can actually regulate a market which largely burns the other players in a market, rather than criminal penalties that we had in the past.

We also looked at information disclosure and we note that there has been concerns about information and how it might be something that’s commercially sensitive. So we want to make sure that the market—the infrastructure is right for the market so they can actually disclosure feeling assured that this is for the benefit of all New Zealanders to make sure that all New Zealanders get the power supply to get the energy levels supply that they need, that they deserve to keep their good living standards here in this nation. I would also love to thank not only the Hon Megan Woods for actually introducing this bill into the House but also my colleagues on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and our great chair, Jamie Strange, who actually had to reopen submissions this side of the election just to make sure that we’ve captured every single voice out there and we did. [Interruption] That’s right. And obviously my good colleague here, Glen Bennett, and I see the members opposite, Barbara Kuriger and Melissa Lee—I think we’ve done great work on this bill and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) 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 POTO WILLIAMS: I move, That the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to acknowledge my colleagues the Hon Kris Faafoi and the Hon Dr David Clark for their work in guiding this bill thus far. The bill has been reported back by the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) with a majority recommendation that it be passed with amendment. I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the committee in the last term of Parliament for their careful consideration of the bill. The committee considered 59 submissions from industry groups and individuals covering a range of matters, and I’d like to thank those who spent time and effort in preparing their submission to the select committee. The majority of those submitters supported the policy intent of the bill, but the committee has recommended some important changes aimed at ensuring that the bill achieves its policy intent.

Before I go into the changes that the FEC recommended to the bill, I want to take a step back as to why we are here today. The purpose of this bill is to improve the conduct of financial institutions so that consumers are fairly treated. If consumers are treated fairly, this will help build trust and confidence in our financial sector. Financial institutions like banks and insurers are crucial to New Zealanders’ everyday lives, whether it’s things like saving for a rainy day, getting a mortgage, or getting insurance for your car. Financial products and services are typically complex and often high value, and there is often an imbalance of power between the financial institution and the customers they serve. This creates a particular and acute risk of harm to customers. When things go wrong with financial products or services, it can be catastrophic at the individual level and cause significant harm at the broader societal and economic level. It is vital that New Zealanders can trust these institutions.

In particular, during times when New Zealanders are feeling the financial impacts of COVID-19, this piece of legislation is important to ensure that banks, insurers, and non-bank deposit takers are serving the needs and interests of their customers. The bill fills a gap that exists in New Zealand’s current law in that there is currently no explicit law to regulate the general conduct of financial institutions. There have been several recent reviews that have highlighted this gap, including the reviews undertaken by the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand into the conduct and culture of banks and insurers. These reviews showed that there are weaknesses in the conduct and culture of institutions in New Zealand’s financial sector, particularly in respect of the governance and management of conduct risks and ensuring a focus of good customer outcomes. These weaknesses risk eroding customers’ trust in financial institutions, and it is therefore vital that we fix the gap in the law. The bill fixes this gap by establishing a new regulatory regime for the conduct of financial institutions.

I will now cover some key aspects of the bill and the work of the select committee on the bill. Fairness is essential to building trust in the financial sector, which is why the bill introduces a fair conduct principle—that is, for financial institutions to treat their customers fairly. The fair conduct principle lies at the heart of the bill. Some submitters requested further clarification of what it means to treat customers fairly. In response, the committee recommended inserting a non-exhaustive list of factors into the bill of what treating customers fairly can mean, and this includes “acting ethically, transparently, and in good faith; … assisting consumers to make informed decisions; and … not subjecting consumers to unfair pressure or tactics or undue influence.”

In order for the fair conduct principle to be operationalised, the bill requires financial institutions to have and maintain an effective fair conduct programme to turn the principle to concrete actions within their businesses. The conduct programme will require financial institutions to have policies, processes, systems, and controls in place that are designed to ensure they’re considering consumers’ interests and treating them fairly in all respects of their business and in their interactions with consumers. The select committee has recommended that minimum requirements for fair conduct programmes be clarified and included in the bill. This is in response to submitters’ feedback that leaving the detail of conduct programmes to regulations would leave the regime uncertain.

Incentives offered by financial institutions to their front-line sales staff or through their intermediaries can create conflicts between the interests of those who are selling or advising on products and services and the interests of consumers. These conflicts can cause sellers or advisers to prioritise their own interests over the interests of their customers in the pursuit of a reward, and this means that products or services can be mis-sold to—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just interrupt the member. I know this is not the main event for most people who are in the galleries, but there is still a requirement to be silent while you’re in the galleries, not murmurs of anticipation.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This means that products and services can be mis-sold to consumers. The first way the bill deals with risks associated with incentives is through the fair conduct programmes. There is an obligation on financial institutions to have effective processes for designing and managing the adverse effects of incentives on the interests of consumers. This will ensure that financial institutions are turning their mind to the risks that these incentives pose to good consumer outcomes and mitigating any adverse effects on consumers’ interests.

The second way the bill deals with incentives is via the creation of a regulation-making power which allows for the prohibition or regulation of particular incentives and practices. Cabinet has already agreed to prohibit incentives based on value or volume targets. I’d like to take a moment here to provide an example of what we mean by value- or volume-based sales targets and the potential harm of them. Say an adviser will receive a thousand-dollar bonus for selling 10 insurance policies. The conflict of interest for the adviser to sell an insurance policy at the start may well be very low. However, at the point where the adviser has sold nine policies and only needs one more to get the thousand-dollar bonus, the conflict of interest between the adviser and the consumer is high. At the point of sale, the adviser has their own interests to consider as well as the consumer’s. This conflict can lead to harm such as consumers having less favourable policy terms than before or consumers being sold products they didn’t need. People are still able to be remunerated for sales and advice. However, these two constraints will address particularly problematic, conflicted remuneration and ensure that risks to consumers are mitigated.

Some concerns were raised in select committee that this regulation-making power was too broad and could be used to ban all incentives or commissions. In response, the committee has recommended narrowing the range of intermediaries to which the incentive regulation-making power can apply and inserting a list of matters that the Minister must have regard to or be satisfied of before recommending regulations under this power.

Another concern raised at select committee was how the framework of the bill works in relation to the intermediaries of financial institutions. The committee recommended that intermediaries’ obligations in the bill be reduced by removing the duty for intermediaries to comply with financial institutions’ fair conduct programmes and removing the duty on financial institutions to ensure that intermediaries comply with their programme. The change will help to ensure that the new regime is not placing unnecessary compliance costs on intermediaries while also requiring financial institutions to take greater responsibility for customer outcomes regardless of the sales channel. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is currently publicly consulting on the intermediary provisions in the bill to ensure that the intermediaries’ obligations are right-sized and will work in practice.

In closing, I would like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee again for their careful consideration of the bill. This bill will ensure that customer rights are at the forefront of financial institutions’ activities and they are treated fairly. This will serve the interests of everyday consumers, help to build trust in the sector, and lift wellbeing across the board. I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I’m going to call Nicola Willis for a very short time.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): National opposes this bill. Yes, financial institutions, banks, insurers, and the like should have controls in place to ensure they are focused on the best interests of their customers, but this bill risks imposing a compliance-heavy, box-ticking exercise.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your indulgence to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith whose 30 years in this House have had a profound impact on the governance of our country. I first worked for Nick in 2003. He has been a source of wisdom and advice to me ever since, and I will miss him from this House. Farewell friend.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, it is my intention, at the conclusion of the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s valedictory speech, to move from the Chair, and that will indicate that the House adjourns until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 June. I’m doing it this way so that I don’t have to interrupt the celebrations that are occurring at the end of the speech. I now call on the Hon Dr Nick Smith to make his valedictory statement.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Last month I saw this quirky cafe sign that appealed to my nerdiness: that 31 years equates to a billion seconds. Bar a few thousand, it’s been a blast and an enormous privilege to be part of governing this amazing little country we share. My time here has had many ups and downs—in fact, as many as the southern mountains that I studied in my PhD thesis.

I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker; past and present National leaders from Jim Bolger to Judith Collins; all my parliamentary colleagues; and my family and friends in the gallery. I also want to acknowledge the many good MPs who post - election 2020 did not have this opportunity.

I came to this Parliament 30 years ago with a passion for enterprise, for science, and for nature. I wanted New Zealand to be prosperous, where hard work was valued, and where every Kiwi has the opportunity to succeed. One of my first duties as a 25-year-old MP was attending the Waimea College prize-giving, where I was dutifully asked to present the academic awards. All miked up, I made the standard congratulatory comments as each student crossed the stage: “Well done. Good effort.” It started to feel tedious, so I changed my message: “What uni are you thinking of attending?” I asked an attractive young woman, “What are you doing after school?” Quick as a flash and loud enough for everyone to hear, she responded, “It depends what you had in mind, young man.” I have since kept my congrats to the safe and boring in the hundred or so prize-givings I’ve attended since.

In my maiden speech I talked of a nation that had lost its confidence and its way. Our economy was a basket case with high unemployment, rampant inflation, and high debt. Our best and brightest were leaving in droves. I do not wish to diminish our current challenges, but we are a much better country today. I caution those in Government who wish to decry the reforms of that era when they’ve been the foundations for the much more successful and resilient nation we are today. I worry that this year’s Budget has public debt ballooning out to $200 billion and back up near 50 percent of GDP, as it was when I was first elected. Imposing the workplace policies of the 1970s is not the answer to the challenges of the 2020s.

I came to Parliament when the seniors were David Lange and Rob Muldoon. I will never forget Sir Robert gruffing at me in the lift: “So you’re a doctor. Are you one of the ones that make you well or are you one of the ones that make you sick?” Sir Robert would be much happier with our deputy, Dr Reti.

The luckiest fortune of my first term was the friendships I forged with what began as the under-30s caucus, but got branded the “brat pack”. Roger and Shirley Sowry, Bill and Mary English, Tony and Kara Ryall have become the closest of friends. Many wrongly assumed the strong friendships between the four of us meant that we agreed. We have been on opposite sides of many of National’s policy, conscience, and leadership debates. Our annual week-long shared holidays rotating between the upper and lower of the North and South Islands over 30 years have enabled us to enjoy watching our 16 children grow up together.

My first ministerial job was Conservation. I know all in this House would want to wish the current Minister Kiri Allan a full recovery. Conservation is the best job in the Cabinet room. To get it once is lucky; to get it twice is to be truly blessed. My appointment to the role was in the aftermath of the Cave Creek disaster. My job was to put in place the systems with director-general Hugh Logan to ensure the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) thousands of structures and facilities would be safe. We also established in 1999 a conservation ranger programme that has since trained over 600 to do the school DOC fieldwork professionally and safely.

My first big Nelson project was advocating for the Kahurangi National Park. We opened it in 1996 with Prime Minister Jim Bolger, Denis Marshall, and I tramping the journey between Mount Arthur and the Cobb Valley. It was a joy to mark the 25th anniversary this Easter with Denis and the key DOC staff involved by retracing the same route. The highlight was the noisy dawn chorus in the Cobb that was silent at the opening, a tribute to the pest control work of both DOC and volunteers. During my second stint as Minister, we did the Great Walks partnership with Air New Zealand, then led by Chris Luxon. That has helped enable takahē to return to this park after an absence of over 100 years. Another highlight in that portfolio was working with Lou Sanson to protect the Lords River on Stewart Island in 1998, then initiating the process for establishing the Rakiura National Park in 1999.

Conserving a good chunk of our landmass for nature was the challenge of last century; the focus needs to shift seaward. I’m a strong supporter of New Zealand’s sustainable fishing industry, and I do not support the Greens’ call for a blanket ban on bottom trawling. It’s no more practical than prohibiting ploughing. But, just as on land, we need to set aside marine protected areas. The Marine Reserves Act was passed by National in 1971, but only one reserve was created by the time I came to Parliament in 1990. This was at Leigh and opened by then fisheries Minister Jim Bolger in 1977. I’ve worked hard all over New Zealand to expand that network. Making the Poor Knights a no-take marine reserve in 1998 was pretty controversial. When visiting the site near Tutukākā, I faced a barrage of protest from recreational fishers. I required a police escort after a death threat was made. I was confronted only a few years ago at Whangārei airport by a cheeky local who introduced himself rather unnervingly as the guy who had made the threat. He jocularly told me not to worry, as he now thought it was such a great idea that he would shoot anybody that would undo the reserve!

I’ve subsequently been involved in creating 17 marine reserves around New Zealand in special places like Kaikōura, Akaroa, Punakaiki, and the sub-Antarctic. I am disappointed the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, covering an area twice the landmass of New Zealand and 10 percent of our ocean, has not progressed. The commercial fishing there is negligible. The history of customary fishing is minimal. This is about New Zealand—Māori and Pākehā stepping up and doing our bit globally to better care for the world’s oceans. My original Government bill got through to the second reading stage and then, post-election 2017, transferred to Minister Parker but has since gone nowhere. I created a further member’s bill for the sanctuary that I’ll pass on to Scott Simpson. I urge progress on either or both bills.

Prime Minister Jenny Shipley added Corrections to my Conservation portfolio in 1998. I remember the Opposition interjecting that my only qualification for the job was being descended from convict stock compulsorily deported to Australia. Now, my 86-year-old father in Cairns would want me to put the record straight. Our ancestor Jeremiah Smith migrated to Australia in 1791 by choice. It was seven years in Australia or hanging! The Kiwi contingent of my family still think it would have been a difficult choice. Initiatives I took in Corrections were separate youth prisons, the introduction of random drug testing, and expanding drug and alcohol treatment. I remain, unapologetically, today an arch-conservative on drugs and alcohol. Substance abuse and addiction is at the heart of so much crime, hurt, and tragedy. I don’t buy this line that going soft and being more permissive will see less use and less harm. It’s not a choice of enforcement or treatment. We need to do more of both.

I’m also counting on my colleagues Simon Bridges and Michael Woodhouse to continue the campaign started with the Matthew Dow petition in Nelson to get on with random roadside drug testing. Every month of delay costs another six lives. I’m so relieved New Zealand rejected the legalisation and commercialisation of cannabis. Anybody that believes age limits work have not parented teenagers. There is a scourge of vaping sweeping through our intermediate and secondary schools that makes a joke of the regulated age limit. I also fear we’re being sold a pup on vaping with the claim it’s just a healthy replacement for smoking. We’re actually allowing another generation to become addicted to nicotine.

The 1990s were groundbreaking for Treaty settlements, and for a period I was the associate to Sir Douglas Graham during the historic Ngāi Tahu settlement. What was then considered radical became standard, as Chris Finlayson supercharged settlements during the Key years. My involvement was in the natural resources elements. It was particularly satisfying settling the eight Te Tau Ihu claims covering Nelson and Marlborough, completing the process in the South Island.

I’ve introduced 50 bills to this Parliament, and 45 have passed. Two members’ bills I’m particularly proud of are the Royal Society of New Zealand Act and the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act. Science and technology are key to improving productivity and our environment. I commend the Government and the country on the way that we have embraced the science associated with COVID. The cuts to science funds in Budget 2021 are short-sighted. I strongly endorse the ambitious plans of Judith Collins and Andrew Bayly to have our tech sector recharged.

I also want to challenge this Parliament, and particularly the Greens, on their reversion to biotechnology. The GE-free campaign was a con. None of the scary scenarios predicted 20 years ago have occurred. Our outdated laws are holding back opportunities for innovation on climate change and pests and weed control and also in health treatment.

The most satisfying chapter of my career was being part of the Key-English Government. We shared a vision of where we wanted to take New Zealand, and we built a strong relationship in policies in Opposition to work as a team. My work involved creating the Environmental Protection Authority and a fast-tracked but robust consenting process. This enabled us to get on with important projects like Waterview in Auckland, Transmission Gully in Wellington, and Christchurch’s Southern Motorway. I disagree with the Government’s aversion to building roads on the basis of climate change. The answer lies in changing what we drive on our roads, as well as investing in public transport.

Practical laws I’m particularly proud of are those requiring all rental homes to be insulated and to have working smoke alarms. The ACC portfolio was financially challenging, but our reforms got the scheme to be fully funded for the first time in its history.

The work of the Land and Water Forum enabled significant strides in improving water management, including the first legally binding national policy. We do need to lift our game on fresh water, but doing it with farmers and not to farmers will achieve far more. Water storage is part of the solution, and I’m pleased with the role I played in enabling the central plains scheme from Canterbury and the Waimea Community Dam in Nelson.

The last issue from the Key era, which I wish to note with a word of caution, is that of the Pike River Mine. John Key’s commitment in the days following that tragedy to do everything possible to recover those 29 brave men was genuine and compassionate. We were as gutted as the families and the nation to be told in 2016 that it could not be done. It was wrong, in 2017, for Labour to promise the recovery of those men when, by then, 800 pages of technical reports said it was not possible. I’m proud to have delivered on my commitment to Bernie Monk of the Paparoa Track and the Pike29 Memorial Walk. I hope we can find a way in the future to avoid national tragedies becoming political footballs.

There is an issue I got wrong. In 2013, I voted against gay marriage. The error is all the more personal, with my 20-year-old son being gay. I want to put on the record today my apology to New Zealand’s LGBT+ community. I pay tribute to Louisa Wall, Fran Wilde, and Amy Adams for their leadership that has improved the lives of my son and thousands of other New Zealanders. I also acknowledge Jenny Shipley’s courage as the first PM to attend a gay pride parade in 1999.

My greatest thanks this evening is to my wife, Linley. She is my rock, my soulmate, and my best friend. I also want to acknowledge my first wife, Cyndy, who supported me through six elections. She jokes that Linley got off lightly, having to only do five. Linley and I are very proud of our blended family of Hazel, Logan, Samantha, and Alex, who are in the gallery. I thank them, as sometimes this job has negative impacts on them. I also thank my wider family, including brother Albert and sister Margo, who have travelled from overseas.

I got good training for Parliament as a child. Each dinnertime, our dad would sit up like Mr Speaker and ask each of us eight children to give a report on our day. I am sure this and my mum’s passion for education influenced my three sisters, all of whom have made great contributions as teachers and principals. In later years when retired, dad campaigned full-time for weeks for each of my 10 successful campaigns. COVID proved a bad omen and kept him away in 2020.

The year I was born, he founded a small construction company. Learning to drive heavy trucks, bulldozers, and cranes was just part of my teenage life. I’m proud of the nationwide contribution my siblings have made to our nation’s infrastructure in each of their businesses, with projects like the wind turbines at Scott Base, the Arthur’s Pass viaduct, the Waikato water pipeline to Auckland, and dozens of bridges and walls around New Zealand. My brother Tim did not sleep for three days in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake so he could ensure that every one of his cranes was assisting the rescue effort. He booked to join us today but had to cancel yesterday due to doing emergency bridge repairs in Temuka. It will be good to re-join the family business, doing more and talking less. I’m looking forward to projects like the Turitea wind farm that will help us meet our Paris climate change commitments.

I must, secondly, thank the National Party, its board, and its volunteers. My Nelson electorate chairs, from Dan Strong, Dan Dolejs, John Sandstone, Russell Wilson, Graeme Sutton, to John Wares. My campaign chairs, Murray Borlase, Max Spence, Bill Dahlberg, Paul Matheson, Gary Stocker, Trevor Cameron, and an army of volunteers—too many to name. A special thankyou to those who helped found the Bluegreens in 1998, Guy Salmon and the late Sir Rob Fenwick. Enterprise and the environment must work together. I also acknowledge my Bluegreen buddies in caucus, like Maggie Barry, Nicky Wagner, Hon Jacqui Dean, Stuart Smith, Erica Stanford, and Nicola Willis.

Nelson has been a very special place to represent, and I congratulate my successor, Rachel Boyack. It’s the only seat in this Parliament that has retained the same name since 1854. I love Nelson’s entrepreneurial businesses, its stunning environment, its creative arts sector, its rich heritage, and its caring community. My greatest concern for Nelson’s future is the centralisation of core services like education and health, with the loss of local control of our polytechnic and health board. My experience as education Minister was that the closer the funding decisions were made to the children, the more likely they were made in the children’s interests. If more central Government was the answer, KiwiBuild would be a roaring success. I’ve enjoyed the constituency role of getting to know thousands of Nelsonians, often over difficult situations. It’s been a pleasure to help many, but also a disappointment where I could not. This grassroots work was invaluable in exposing the parts of Government that are not working and for advocating reform.

Throughout these three decades, I’ve been supported by numerous talented staff, many of whom have become lifelong friends—Cheryl Hill, who gave 26 years, and Nan Ward. It’s wonderful to see more than 20 of my former staff in the gallery. I sincerely thank every one of them, alongside the back-up staff, the Clerk’s office, select committees, library, travel office, cafe, and security teams, who make this place work.

Now, the Speaker and I have had our moments, but the worst thing—the worst thing—he’s ever inflicted on me was actually when he was trying to be kind. We were in Turkey on the Speaker’s tour, returning from the Gallipoli Peninsula back to Istanbul. The motorcade consisted of a car for the Speaker, as the head of delegation, a van of MPs and their partners, and motorbikes back and front. Linley and I got a bad tummy bug, and the Speaker took pity on us, offering us the flash Merc for the 400-kilometre return journey. It got complicated when the interpreter decided he had to go in the van with the head of delegation, leaving Linley and I with a driver who did not understand a word of English. My plight was trying to explain to a driver doing 130 kilometres per hour in an escorted motorcade that I was desperate to go to the loo! It was an excruciating three hours. When we finally arrived at Istanbul airport, I tore out of the car so quickly that I caused a security furore.

The thing that struck me most from the Speaker’s trip to Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Turkey is how well-intentioned Governments over time get tired and arrogant. Regular changes of Government are essential for a healthy democracy. Nor should we ever take for granted the importance of free speech and a politically neutral Public Service. I thank the press gallery—you can be a pain, but our democracy would be limp without you. I pay a final thankyou to the hundreds of dedicated public servants who have helped me in my work. My favourite are those hardy DOC field staff, out in the wet and cold in the most rugged corners of New Zealand, repairing tracks, killing pests, and protecting nests.

I want to conclude on four observations of how this place has changed over three decades. Firstly, it’s much more diverse, by age and gender and ethnicity, and that’s a great thing. My hope for the future is that we also diversify the skills mix in this House. The second change for the better is that Parliament is a healthier place, where you are far more likely today to meet your colleagues in the gym than in the bar. The most notable change for the worse is how lame select committees have become today. They’ve become perfunctory rubber stamps. Worthwhile inquiries are blocked. It’s got worse with the distraction of iPhones and laptops. Select committees need revamping to be more collegial, with Government and Opposition MPs genuinely holding Government departments to account for their spending and performance.

There is one last difference I celebrate in signing off from this 53rd Parliament. This morning I woke to the birdsong of tūī from my Hill Street flat, and, on my walk here, saw a beautiful kererū in Parliament’s trees, something you would have not seen or heard 30 years ago. It’s this stunning wildlife, whether you are Māori or European, Pasifika, Asian, or whatever, that helps define who we are as New Zealanders. May the birdsong for ever be heard here at Parliament and across our land, to remind us how blessed we are to call these islands home.

[Applause]

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.