Thursday, 12 August 2021

THURSDAY, 12 AUGUST 2021

THURSDAY, 12 AUGUST 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní, mo tataki ange 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-e-'Otua, 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū, ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'aló pē 'e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ka ko homau fakamo'uí, 'Emeni.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday 24 August. In that week, the Estimates debate will continue, with appearances by three Ministers. Legislation to be considered will include second readings of the Water Services Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill, and the committee stage of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The remaining stages of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill will be completed on Thursday, 26 August, and Wednesday, 25 August will be a member’s day.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House for that update. Bearing in mind that we now have just 18 Government bills on the Order Paper and that number 18 is the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, are we to expect that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill will soon receive its second reading in the House?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, the member doesn’t count the bills that are currently before select committee that are due to be reported back.

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

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

SPEAKER: No papers have been presented; no bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Brenda Tairi requesting that the House reinstate Jesus’ name back into the parliamentary prayer

petition of Lydia Tait requesting that the House urge the Government to build a new secondary school in Christchurch’s southwest area of Halswell

petition of the New Zealand National Party requesting that the House urge the Government to provide for 500 MIQ spaces each fortnight to bring skilled migrant workers before the commencement of calving season.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Jo Bethell

reports of the Health Committee on the petition of Diana Ayling and the petition of Marsha Mackie

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.

SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The resurgence support payment was triggered in June, following an Australian traveller coming to Wellington with COVID-19 and the subsequent alert level rise to alert level 2. This is the payment that assists businesses with one-off costs during these alert level rises. I can say the latest and almost final report for the resurgence support payment shows that 4,146 applications were received, with $6.61 million being paid out.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, today the Government set out its plan to reconnect New Zealanders to the world, which will mean that the economy can continue to operate and recover strongly. It does include, as part of the announcement today, the setting up of a pilot as we move towards investigating the way in which different border settings can work and work towards the establishment of low-, medium-, and high-risk pathways into the country from 2022. The pilot—or the trial, there’s a self-quarantine one for the medium-risk pathway. This will include a small number of people being able to use different forms of isolation, and this will be done by working with businesses and their employees to ensure we get a good understanding of how such a system can work.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on the impact of the construction sector on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One important indicator of construction activity is concrete production, and Stats New Zealand reports that concrete production rose 12.6 percent in the three months to June, compared with the previous quarter, and for the year production is up 46 percent, along with a number of other indicators that show the construction sector’s confidence in the recovery that we’re experiencing—including the Government’s moves to increase the supply of housing and the $57.3 billion investment in infrastructure.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does her Government’s commitment to “overhauling the welfare system” include ensuring low-income communities are supported to deal with the effects and costs of climate change; if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government’s welfare overhaul is an ongoing commitment to a welfare system that ensures that all New Zealanders in need are able to have an adequate income, are treated with respect and dignity, and are able to participate meaningfully in their communities. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group acknowledged that a number of factors, including climate change, will substantially change the nature of work in the long term and increase the risk of adverse impacts, including labour market displacement. Key recommendations by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group to address this were centred around revamping active labour market policies across Government to make them more coherent and effective, and strengthening the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers. MSD are also working to assess the impacts of the emissions reduction plan on employment and the income support system.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with India Logan-Riley, co-founder of Te Ara Whatu, who said that “A truly just transition would involve transforming the economic system and reckoning with colonisation. But raising core benefits is a step towards that just transition.”; if so, does she commit to further increases to core benefits beyond what was announced in this year’s Budget?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I hear the quote from that particular member, but I have not seen the context in which that was said or any of the additional commentary around that, so I don’t want to go too far into that. However, I will remind the member that we have moved quickly to raise benefits, last year by $25, and this year again—they will go up again next April. We did move to index benefits. Going back to the primary question also, it’s important, on top of income support, that we look at support for employment, and that includes employment that is available at the moment and employment that will be available moving forward into the future as well.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What, if anything, does the Minister for Social Development and Employment do to help people find decent and meaningful employment with a living wage that will allow families to transition to a low-carbon economy?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s not just about me as Minister, it’s about all of us as a Government, and we’ve been very focused on this, particularly in light of COVID. We have a number of active labour market policies in place, many of them we have discussed in this House: Mana in Mahi; Apprenticeship Boost; our Māori trades training, and a further expansion of that and He Poutama Rangatahiwas announced yesterday; and there is more. Much of the work that we’re doing in the active labour market policy space is to support people to upskill and train so that they can get into more secure, more stable work and work that is better paid—the trades and construction are two of those areas where we’ve had a particular focus. We are working with our tripartite partners to continue to bolster and flesh out the work we’re doing in the active labour market policy space to look for gaps, because we do, as a Government, want to do more here.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Mana in Mahi scheme guarantee workers at least a living wage?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Mahi in Mahi scheme in itself doesn’t, but it does provide people with a pathway to sustainable employment, and that is what we’re looking at. If we think about the areas of investment that we have put money into—apprenticeships and trades being the one that’s front of mind—people can earn decent livings in those particular areas. And so we are very much focused on ensuring that people can get into sustainable, well-paid work, and I think our Government’s track record over the last 3½ to four years proves that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she encouraged her Cabinet colleagues to speed up the trials of public transport subsidies for people on community services cards?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It is not yet an active policy; however, a community connect pilot is going to be trialling half price public transport fares in Auckland for all community service cardholders. The trial will aim to reduce emissions and air pollution by easing congestion, as well as improve transport equity, particularly for low-income earners. It will begin in July 2022 and will be for three years, and, if successful, we will consider expanding it. It is a part of the Minister of Transport’s, Minister Wood’s, $31 billion investment into Auckland’s transport infrastructure, and an exciting project to be part of.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she advocate for a clean energy industry training plan that will connect young rangatahi into work for clean energy careers through the Ministry of Social Development?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can you repeat the question. I didn’t hear the end of that, sorry.

Ricardo Menéndez March: So the question is: will she advocate for a clean energy industry training plan that will connect young rangitahi into training for clean energy careers through MSD?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Not just through MSD but across Government.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Has he reassessed any of his spending plans, since Statistics NZ reported inflation is 3.3 percent, and most banks are now predicting swift increases in interest rates over the next year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government constantly assesses the investments it makes as New Zealand’s economic recovery from COVID-19 continues at a faster rate than other countries due to the success of our public health measures and economic plan. With regard to the member’s reference to the inflation rate, I would note that Stats New Zealand’s latest report is that annual Consumers Price Index inflation was 3.3 percent in the year to June 2021. I would also point out Stats New Zealand’s comment, “Part of the annual increase was attributable to the fact it is measured against the June 2020 quarter, a period impacted by the COVID lockdown where some prices fell.” This 3.3 rate compares to the OECD one of 3.8 percent to May this year.

Andrew Bayly: Is he concerned by ANZ predicting that New Zealand is about to experience the “most aggressive interest rate [rises] since 2004”, and, if so, has the Government identified what low quality spending it can cut to help prevent this?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In reference to the first part of the member’s question, I’d note that Stats New Zealand has not reported that most banks are now predicting swift increases in interest rates over the next year. The retail banks are forecasting the official cash rate (OCR) to be between 1.3 percent and 1.8 percent in a year’s time. In September 2017, the OCR was 1.75 percent, so the forecasts are showing that interest rates are back to where they were under the previous Government.

Andrew Bayly: Does he think that all of the big-spending initiatives announced by the Government over the last 18 months are still necessary, given the surge in the cost of living and predicted aggressive interest rate rises?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think that the Government’s response to COVID-19 to make sure that we kept people in jobs—that we invested in strong public services—was exactly the right response. If the member is advocating large-scale cuts in health and education, well that would be typical of the National Party, but I don’t think it’s wise.

Andrew Bayly: Does he still believe monetary and fiscal policy should work together, and, if so, will he follow the Reserve Bank’s lead and reduce the wasteful spending that’s driving up the cost of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Andrew Bayly: What advice, if any, has he received on the impact faster than expected increases in interest rates will have on the ability of thousands of New Zealand homeowners with mortgages who have to pay their mortgages over the coming years and months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I said in earlier answers, what happens with interest rates has not yet happened. In terms of the Reserve Bank, that is the Reserve Bank’s decision. I have been very clear over the last year and a half that everybody who takes on mortgage debt needs to be aware that interest rates do move up and down over time.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that the biggest drivers of the increase in Government spending, such as responding to COVID-19, keeping New Zealanders in work, and rebuilding our run-down infrastructure amount to wasteful spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t, and that’s the very point I was making in my earlier answer to Mr Bayly. If the National Party is now proposing cuts in all of those things, I think New Zealanders will be very interested to hear that.

Andrew Bayly: What advice, if any, has he received about the impact aggressive interest increases in the mortgage rates will have on the costs passed on to renters or the ability of first-home buyers to afford to take out a mortgage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be aware of the actions of the Reserve Bank in regard to that, including their consultation around loan-to-value-ratio changes and debt-to-income ratios. On this side of the House, we’re getting on with building more houses, and, obviously, we’ve taken the action that we have when it comes to interest deductibility.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about support for Community Housing Providers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, along with Minister Henare, I announced that the Government will bring forward funding for community housing providers (“CHiPS”) to deliver housing faster. By front-loading payments, we’re bringing forward some of the money we already provide to “CHiPS” over the course of a 25-year contract. We have responded to a simple request from the sector that will make a difference to the number of new-build houses that “CHiPS” can bring on, and it builds on our trusted, progressive partnership relationship that we have with them. Early-stage payments will help ensure a pathway for newer or smaller community housing providers, including many Māori and iwi providers, to enable capacity growth in their organisations and improve housing outcomes.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Will this change lead to more new build developments coming from the community housing sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. This greater funding flexibility builds on our progressive partnership approach with the “CHiPS”, that is focused on increasing the supply of new, warm, and dry housing. I’ve made my expectations clear to the sector that we need to increase the pipeline of new affordable housing by demonstrating additionality, limiting redirects or buy-ins, and having a preference for houses that the “CHiPS” themselves will own. Since we came into office, we have seen the number of new builds by community housing providers increase from 37 new builds in 2017-18 to 656 in the most recent financial year. We’ve also increased financial support to the sector with funding provided to “CHiPS”, transitional housing providers, and other housing support service providers, increasing from $95 million in the 2016-17 financial year to over $400 million in the 2020-21 financial year alone.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will this enable the bringing on of new housing supplies sooner?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Community housing providers will be able to bring on new housing supply quicker by front-loading payments, while still receiving the same level of support that they would over the lifetime of a project. Initial assessment of current opportunities by Housing and Urban Development officials have identified six individual projects, with approximately 200 places in priority locations where early-stage funding will be the thing that makes them viable. We will have greater certainty around the number of additional projects as we discuss early-stage funding with the sector.

Nicola Willis: Why has she allowed Government housing agencies to hire more officials—a grand total of 1,205 additional housing officials—than they have funded newly built houses from community housing providers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I know that when you have to rebuild the ability of a Government to actually (a) realise there is a housing crisis and (b) do something about it—in answer to the member’s question: why have I allowed them to hire staff? It’s because we needed to build some houses.

Hon Peeni Henare: What was the response of the community housing providers when asked what the number one barrier is in allowing them to get on with the job to support our families?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Particularly our smaller and newer community housing providers, particularly Māori and iwi community housing providers, and Pasifika providers—instead having access to that money earlier and upfront will make projects that would not be viable viable.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Will the Government administer 8,016,768 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine by the week of 21 November 2021 as set out in the Ministry of Health’s “Original cumulative vaccinations model”, and does he have confidence in the vaccine roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I have full confidence in the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine, which continues to deliver doses ahead of plan. The number of doses delivered at any given time will in part depend on the number of people coming forward to have the vaccine, and there have been some changes to the model since February. I’m confident that all eligible New Zealanders will have the opportunity to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by the end of this year. This morning, the Prime Minister and I announced when different population groups will be eligible. Fifty-plus will be open from Friday, 13 August; 40-plus from Wednesday, 18 August; 30-plus from Wednesday, 25 August; and then, from 1 September, all eligible New Zealanders will be able to book their vaccines.

Chris Bishop: Is it the Government’s expectation that 8,016,768 doses of Pfizer vaccine will be delivered or administered by 21 November, which is roughly 91 percent of the eligible population of 4.38 million?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I said, there have been some relatively small changes to the model since it was released in February. The model in February assumed the first big deliveries of the Pfizer vaccine would arrive at the beginning of July, and, as we know, they didn’t arrive until the middle of July. So some of those numbers have moved around a bit, but as I said, the aim is to ensure that all eligible New Zealanders have the chance to be vaccinated by the end of the year, and we’re absolutely on track to do that.

Chris Bishop: Well, OK. Is the spreadsheet that is on the Ministry of Health website, that is pointed to every week by the Government, that says that on 21 November 2021, 8,016,768 cumulative doses of vaccinations will be delivered—is that spreadsheet still accurate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The model overall is still accurate, but there can be some changes in timing, week from week. For example, as I indicated, the overall effect of us not getting the larger doses of vaccines until towards the middle to end of July, as opposed to at the beginning of July, has an overall impact on the cumulative numbers in some weeks of up to 200,000 to 300,000. But overall, we will still be tracking against that model.

Chris Bishop: So, bearing in mind that there might be some movement around the middle of the roll-out between now and November, is it correct that the Government’s expectation is that by 21 November, just over 8 million cumulative doses of vaccinations will be delivered around New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s expectation is that by the end of the year, all New Zealanders who are eligible will have the opportunity to have both doses of their vaccine.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct that after Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s meeting with port CEOs on Tuesday this week, the Government moved to allow all port workers to get vaccinated, if they want one, and not just those interacting with ships, and why hasn’t this been the case since February?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Group one, the first people eligible to get the vaccine, included front-line port workers. That included all of the people that we were being questioned about earlier in the week, who have been on and off ships. What is happening now, as we move through group three and into group four, is that more people are becoming eligible, including those who work at the ports who are not in front-line roles.

Chris Bishop: Why has the Government not ordered any Pfizer booster shots for 2022 and 2023 when the CEO of Pfizer has said that orders will be made on a “first come, first served” basis and slow orders means slow delivery?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It doesn’t come close to either the question or any of the supplementary answers.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The primary had two legs, and it included confidence in the vaccine roll-out. That’s not specific to first vaccine roll-outs; that is a continuous process. I think questions about booster vaccines for 2022 are well within the primary.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m ruling it’s not. The second part of the question must have a relationship to the first or it would have been ruled out. You can’t ask two questions. They are not two separate questions. There is a question and an additional leg to it. They cannot be different questions.

Chris Bishop: Well, point of order. Firstly, the primary question was accepted as being within order. Is it now the case that questions about vaccine delivery in 2022 is not counted as being part of the vaccine roll-out?

SPEAKER: Not when it’s written down; not when it’s a supplementary part to a question which is relatively limited. The member’s been here for a long time. He should know that. I’ll just make it absolutely straight: primary questions can have two legs, but you cannot have two separate questions.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, if this is going to be ongoing, the member will be outgoing.

Chris Bishop: I just—

SPEAKER: A point of order, unrelated, from Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: No, it is related.

SPEAKER: The member will sit down, then, because I’m not going to hear it.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government delivering more pathways into mahi for job seekers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yesterday, I announced a total of $24.1 million to support job seekers on pathways into employment, education, and training. We’re investing $18.4 million in Māori trades and training and $5.6 million in He Poutama Rangatahi. These two programmes focus on providing bespoke wraparound support, pastoral care, and free employment training. Yesterday’s announcement accelerates our efforts to fill demand for skilled workers, improve employment, social, and whānau outcomes, and support businesses to grow and take on apprentices.

Arena Williams: Who will benefit from the latest tranche of investment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The latest tranche of funding will help prepare over 800 more people for the workforce. Māori are also set to benefit from the boost to Māori trades and training. While there are many elements that make this programme successful, one particular and integral part is the wraparound support that is offered from a te ao Māori world view. It’s something that is not common across many employment programmes but as we look to support more Māori into jobs and lift incomes, it must be front of mind for employers and the workforce, as it is for Government.

Arena Williams: What feedback has she seen on the announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Helmut Modlik, chief executive of Ngāti Toa, applauded the Government for its “authentic, sincere willingness” to do better in the Māori unemployment space and to “not just accept the inequalities are entrenched and immovable”. Aspiring tradesman George Fermanis also said these initiatives will help rangatahi get the support they need. He said, “For the iwi it’s a good family base way of knowing each other and being supportive of one another in everything, so when I make mistakes they will be able to lift me up back on my feet.”

Question No. 7—Energy and Resources

7. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will she apologise to Genesis Energy for her statement that Genesis made a “commercial decision” when it came to how much generation to have online on Monday night, and what are the terms of reference, if any, for the review she has instructed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to undertake?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In answer to the first part of the question, no. In answer to the second part of the question, the terms of reference are currently being finalised along with an inquirer. It is my expectation that this inquiry will be under way as early as next week. The focus of the review will be on the matters that have been raised this week, including communications with industry, stakeholders, and the public; escalation communications; whether Transpower’s alert system is fit for purpose; and Transpower’s modelling tool. The review will also focus on whether other generation could have been brought online, scheduling and risk margins, and whether there is adequate standby generation or other resources to reduce risk.

Barbara Kuriger: Will the review consider time lines, and, if so, has she discussed with David Clark, Minister for State Owned Enterprises, when he received the 7.10 p.m. grid emergency notice and why he did not give her a call to alert her?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I indicated, when I listed out what the terms of reference would be, that communications and escalation communications would certainly be part of the review. That is something that I want to look seriously at. As has been indicated on my behalf in this House yesterday, I have had an apology from Transpower for the communications that occurred on Monday night.

Barbara Kuriger: So, in review of the time line, when was the first time she was alerted to the fact that at 1.02 p.m., Transpower issued a warning that there were insufficient generation offers for the evening peak?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have also indicated throughout the week, I was alerted around 8.30 p.m. from a text from my press secretary. As soon as I received that text, I gave Alison Andrew, the CE of Transpower, a call. She then gave me a briefing on all the alerts for the day.

Barbara Kuriger: Does she expect her Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) review to agree with Dr Deborah Russell, who said yesterday in the House, in regards to 28,000 houses being without power, “stuff happens—stuff happens. … Staff go home in the evenings”?

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s not what she said.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is actually a serious—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I’ve just had some interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister alleging that statements made were inaccurate as part of the question. If they were inaccurate and they were deliberately put in as part of supplementary questions, that is not a matter he should be raising by way of interjection.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, this is a serious review of a very serious occurrence that occurred on Monday night. As I have indicated to the member, the time line of communications will be included in the review, including escalation communications, particularly when it occurs after nine. If the member is asking me if I expect members of my office will sit checking their emails every minute to see if an email has come in after hours, the answer is no. I expect more of agencies in escalation communications. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A former Minister of energy and a member who may or may not have interjected yesterday are being very loud. They will be quiet.

Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order. I was misquoted. It was a selective quote.

SPEAKER: No, no. That is not a point of order. The member may seek leave to make a personal explanation in order to say, “The member said this, and I actually said that.” And if she does that, I will put it to the House, but the member can’t just argue by way of point of order.

Dr Deborah Russell: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: In relation to the matter that was raised?

Dr Deborah Russell: In relation to the matter at hand.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Dr Deborah Russell: The member misquoted me. I did reference staff going home in the evenings, but it’s quite separate from the words “stuff happens—stuff happens”. It was only a selective quote of different parts of the speech.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s made it absolutely clear. [Interruption] Order! Order! I just say to members here that the fact that Dr Russell has done that has probably helped the member for Taranaki - King Country quite a lot.

Barbara Kuriger: Will the MBIE review consider findings of the Transpower white paper she received in 2018 that stated New Zealand’s exposure to supply shortages in winter and dry years is expected to double by 2030, and can she name one measure the Government is taking that will reduce the risk of winter blackouts this decade?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I answered the member in the answer to the primary question, when she asked me what the terms of reference would be, and I indicated whether there is adequate standby generation or other resources to reduce risk, I think this indicates that that will be covered in the review that happens. But I do remind the member: it was not a lack of physical generation capacity that caused the blackout on Monday night. We know that there was between 500 and 600 megawatts of capacity that was not utilised and not brought in that was compounded by the fact that there were errors in the modelling tool from Transpower that led to more load being shed than was required.

Barbara Kuriger: Will the MBIE review consider the Government’s decision to not allow OMV to pursue promising initial drilling results at its Toutouwai-1 as its workers were not considered essential during COVID lockdowns, and does she now consider gas exploration to be an essential service for the country?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, the review will not cover that. During level 4 lockdown, we allowed a number of industries that were critical to keep New Zealand going but also to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID to continue. I think that what we did in terms of the energy sector and what we did allow to be critical industries was in the best interests of New Zealand. But if the member is now wanting to relitigate what we did to keep New Zealanders safe and to keep COVID out, I think she is conflating some very serious issues.

Question No. 8—Education

8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent progress has she seen in education on implementing Recommendation 36 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education): The royal commission’s Recommendation 36 falls within the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and asks us to invest in opportunities for young New Zealanders to learn about how we can value ethnic and religious diversity, conflict resolution, and self-regulation. We have made great progress in a number of areas to realise this aspiration, including the successful delivery of the learning hubs model in Christchurch to support ethnic families in the education system, investing over $5 million into social and emotional learning programmes, such as self-regulation skills in early learning and primary schools, strengthening evidence-based bullying and prevention responses in schools, and providing quality teaching resources and professional development for teachers so our classrooms are safe and inclusive learning environments.

Ibrahim Omer: How has the learning hubs model in Christchurch contributed to achieving Recommendation 36?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to work with the victims of those affected by the March terror attacks, the Government funded Learning Community Hubs in Christchurch help families to connect and engage with their school communities. This initially started as a 10-week pilot programme and was so successful we now have seven Learning Community Hubs in Christchurch, supporting 158 families across 18 ethnicities. When I visited a hub, parents and children were overwhelmingly positive about how the hubs have helped families thrive in the education system and increased their sense of belonging. Parents say their involvement with the hub has improved their relationships with their local school and encouraged more engagement with their child’s learning, such as through reading time at home. Teachers and students have also benefited through this collaborative and inclusive approach.

Ibrahim Omer: What further plans are there for the learning hubs model?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Based off the success of the learning hubs model in Christchurch, we are rolling the programme out to Auckland and Wellington later this year. Support will be available through the learning hubs, and this will include delivering Reading Together to support children to improve their literacy skills, academic mentoring for students, information around internet safety, parent education workshops to provide an overview of the New Zealand education system, and assistance in understanding career pathways for young people. These are all practical ways this Government is responding to Recommendation 36, by investing in opportunities for young New Zealanders and supporting our ethnic communities to feel included and valued in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, because since establishing the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, our Government is delivering the largest public housing build programme in a generation, implementing the Homelessness Action Plan, supporting Māori housing aspirations through a dedicated Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation work stream and record investment for Māori housing in this year’s Budget, transforming suburbs across Auckland and Porirua through the large-scale projects, and supporting first-home buyers through KiwiBuild; progressive homeownership, including a dedicated pathway for iwi Māori providers; first-home loans and grants; rolling out the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund; and much, much more.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she have confidence in the emergency and transitional housing programme, given that suppliers are providing unhealthy accommodation—in the words of one of my constituents, “rat-infested rooms that are damp, rooms without adequate heating, rooms with bedbugs and rotten furniture and mould.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do have confidence in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. I think it’s really important for the member to realise that there are several ways in which motels are offered. One is through the long-term contracted motels that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development provides, and then there is the more ad hoc hotel accommodation that is provided through emergency special needs housing grants. Now, as we’ve discussed before, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not have the ability to do long-term contracting of motel units. That is why the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is working in partnership with the MSD, so that we can transition—in Rotorua, for example—to where we can have longer-term contracted. We can have more wraparound services and ensure that quality standards are being adhered to.

Rawiri Waititi: What screening protocols and measures are used to ensure that emergency and transitional housing suppliers are providing safe and healthy accommodation for vulnerable whānau, and why are emergency and transitional housing providers exempt from the healthy homes standard?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In terms of the long-term contracts that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is putting into place in terms of our transitional housing places, there is a lot of work with providers to ensure that they are suitable, not only from a physical point of view but that also we have the capacity to put in place the wraparound services. So it’s not just the warm part of the healthy homes standard; it is also that we can provide those wraparound services.

Rawiri Waititi: Has the Minister received any reports relating to the mistreatment and discrimination of our vulnerable whānau by emergency and transitional housing suppliers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. I do note that that member has written to me about a case that he is dealing with in his electorate office, which I’m more than happy to discuss with him, but I would like to respect the privacy of the individual in this House.

Nicola Willis: Does she have confidence that each of the 1,205 new staff hired across the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora are there to—and I quote her earlier statement—“build some houses”, and, if so, how many of those new staff have trade certificates?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I have confidence in those staff. I think the member is being ridiculous. In just the same way, we don’t have everyone in our Ministry of Education with a current teaching certificate.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t addressed. It wasn’t the confidence in the staff, but the staff’s ability to build houses, and that wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: The very first word was “Yes”—it’s answered. I should’ve stopped her at that point.

Rawiri Waititi: What protections are available to our vulnerable whānau to address their concerns without “fear of being kicked out with nowhere to go” when many whānau in my electorate have consistently made complaints to my office about being issued two-day eviction notices?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Evictions are incredibly rare in transitional housing. Every attempt is made to put the right support around the individuals or the whānau that are in those facilities—and, as I say, incredibly rare. There of course is always the recourse that the member has brought a case that is in his electorate that he would like to discuss with me, and I’m more than willing to do that, but I do not want to get into the specifics of that individual case in this House.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As is the case with all new sections of State highway, Waka Kotahi assessed the potential for tolling the Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway. Tolling can be a useful tool that can help fund the construction and maintenance of new roads or significant upgrades to existing roads, so the Government will continue to look at it where it makes sense. However, earlier this week I was pleased to announce that this particular motorway project will not be tolled when it opens next week.

Marja Lubeck: What factor led to that decision?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There was strong community feedback about this particular issue with a large part of the affected community opposing the toll. This is a factor which I have to consider. I’ve listened and this was a factor that led me to declining the proposal. Another very important factor was the fact that commuters could be forced to pay two tolls, given the Northern Gateway is already tolled between Silverdale and Ōrewa. This is especially important since there is no southbound exit from the road before the Northern Gateway. I want to acknowledge the local List MP, Marja Lubeck, for raising these issues and advocating for her community.

Marja Lubeck: What feedback has he received on this decision?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve received some very good feedback from locals and stakeholders. The AA’s Northland district chair, Tracey Rissetto, congratulated the Government on this decision, saying, “With this decision out of the way, it now means Northlanders can look forward to the new road opening next year without having to worry about how expensive the tolls will be.” The AA’s Auckland district chair, Mark Yates, also commended the decision, saying, “The Minister of Transport has clearly listened to the strong community feedback on the Waka Kotahi tolling proposal”.

Question No. 11—Racing

11. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister for Racing: Is he satisfied with the operations of the TAB?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Racing): I genuinely thank the member for his question. I do have confidence in the TAB to carry out its operations. It is important to note that as Minister I am responsible for the legislative framework under which the TAB operates and appointments to its board. Operational matters are the responsibility of the TAB. If the member has concerns about the returns on his investments, I suggest he chats to the senior Government whip.

Damien Smith: So will the TAB be taking odds on the Government’s proposed Auckland cycle bridge construction, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do note that that would very much be an operational matter for the TAB, if they were to do that. But I—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. As someone who was actually on the select committee when the bill went through, I’m telling you it’s not an operational matter.

Damien Smith: Will he discuss with the TAB the opportunity to offer a multi-bet on whether the Auckland cycle bridge and the Auckland light rail will begin construction this decade?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Out of order.

Damien Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Minister just pointed out, he is responsible for the operation of the legislation and what sorts of bets the TAB actually can take. So as the odds for 1.6 million Aucklanders are—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat.

Damien Smith: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Minister is not responsible for that. There is legislation. The Parliament is responsible for legislation, and I don’t see any bill before us to change the legislation in order to allow the TAB to take that sort of bet along with a whole pile of others which involve political decisions.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order, Damien—oh, sorry, Rawiri Waititi. Is it a point of order?

Rawiri Waititi: I look very different to David Seymour, Mr Speaker. Did you call David Seymour, did you?

SPEAKER: Damien.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, Damien. No, no, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, you certainly don’t look like either of them.

Rawiri Waititi: Ha, Ha! I would be interested—

SPEAKER: Is this a point—

Rawiri Waititi: —to know the answer to that quinella, thank you.

Damien Smith: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat for a second. The member will resume his seat, and I’m just going to tell Rawiri Waititi that if he continues with that sort of irrelevant point of order, it may be that bookies but not the TAB will start taking odds about when I next throw him out.

Damien Smith: I refer to the Racing Industry Act 2020, where the responsibilities of the Minister to take odds are quite clear, and place bets—the question is: is the TAB refusing to—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m just going to warn the member now that if he is misleading the House as part of a supplementary question, as I think he is risking, he gets in quite serious trouble. Remember, he’s probably arguing with the last person in the House who sat on the select committee that allowed anything other than horse and dog racing betting by the TAB.

Damien Smith: Is the TAB refusing to take odds on the construction of the cycle bridge and Auckland light rail because no reasonable person would take it?

SPEAKER: Any further supplementaries? Right. Question No. 12, Tim van de Molen. [Interruption] Look, I called someone else. I sense an interest in the House in allowing Mr McAnulty to ask a question. I’m going to warn him that if it’s out of order, he goes. I think we’ll go for Tim van de Molen. [Interruption] Well, are we going to have the life history of this member now?

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, in particular I stand by my statement that “A report from Statistics New Zealand … shows the number of building consents has broken yet another record, with 44,299 new homes having been consented in the year ended June 2021—another all-time high. This is an increase of 18 percent from the June 2020 year, with 4,310 new dwellings consented in June alone. These figures demonstrate … how far we’ve come in the last year since facing the initial disruptions of COVID-19. We’ve responded to the sector uncertainty by investing in the sector to keep the momentum going to deliver the warm, dry, and safe homes that New Zealanders need.”

Tim van de Molen: Does she stand by her statement that she is considering limiting log exports to boost the domestic supply; if so, why?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by my comments that, ultimately, this is for suppliers to manage. Advice I’ve received from the Construction Sector Accord shows that some suppliers are already increasing structural timber production over the next six months, reducing exports, and moving stock from the South Island to the North Island where demand is higher. Additional wood-processing capacity has recently come online, including the opening of a new cross-laminated timber manufacturing plant in Rotorua. The Accord is working alongside industry to inform Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment guidance on product substitution information, raising awareness of alternative products, and reducing reliance on constrained building products.

Tim van de Molen: What advice, if any, did she receive from the trade Minister or officials about the implications on our trade obligations had she progressed with her intent to restrict log exports?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Can I confirm with that member that I stand by my comments that that is ultimately for suppliers to manage.

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member didn’t address the question. The Minister will address the question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have not had a conversation with the Minister for Trade and Export Growth because, ultimately, matters of export are for the suppliers to manage.

Tim van de Molen: Is it correct her own advisers told her that limiting log exports won’t materially help domestic structural timber supplies, as the bulk of logs exported from New Zealand would not be suitable for the structural timber?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can confirm is advice I’ve received that suppliers are already increasing structural timber production over the next six months and reducing exports and moving stock from the South to the North Island, where demand was high.

Tim van de Molen: What does she say to claims that there is a sufficient supply of logs for domestic use, but that the issue is a lack of processing capacity driven by increasing costs, such as the price of power—if you can get it?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’m clear that advice that I’ve received has advised me that additional wood-processing capacity has recently come online, as I’ve already said, including the opening of a cross-laminated timber manufacturing plant in Rotorua.

SPEAKER: That concludes the time for oral questions.

Hon David Bennett: Aw!

SPEAKER: Look, Mr Bennett. I know how much you love it, but if you keep this up you’re going to have a few fewer of them—especially if you groan while I’m on my feet. It does have a feeling, after only two weeks, of being like the last day of term.

Bills

Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

A brief background of why we’re here with this bill. The Teaching Council, as it is now known, was established by the last National Government under the name of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. It replaced a body, what was then called the Teachers Council. It had an expanded range of functions from the previous Teachers Council, and it was expected to move to a position where it would become self-sustaining through member contributions, through the contributions of the teaching profession. The last National Government expanded the functions of the council and also put additional funding in to manage the transition to those expanded functions, but with an expectation that, over time, the council would set new fees that would mean that it would be self-sustaining. Those subsidies from Government were due to come to an end shortly after this Government took office. We increased those subsidies to increase that transition time for the new council, and particularly in recognition of some of the changes that we made, including reinstating elections to that council. Therefore, those subsidies were due to be phasing out last year.

The council went through the fee-setting consultation. They decided that they wanted to affix a new fee that was based on a one-year fee rather than a three-year fee, and that they would adjust teacher registration to a one-year cycle rather than a three-year cycle in order to achieve that. That was then challenged by the Post Primary Teachers’ Association—the PPTA—who took that through court. What the court found was an anomaly in the legislation that was never intended by the last Government, who established the council, or by this Government, who transferred those provisions from the previous Education Act into the new Education and Training Act. The court found that the council was not able to affix a fee that covered all of its functions. It was only, by law, authorised to affix a fee that covered some of its functions. That was never Parliament’s intention. However, the court found that the new fee that the council had been intending to introduce, the one-year fee, was overturned.

The challenge that we were then faced with was that the fee that the council had to revert back to had also been established under the very same law that the new fee had been established by. Therefore, there was a question as to whether or not that existing fee was also established legitimately. So this bill, first of all, validates the previously collected fees, the fees that were collected under the National Government and the fees that have been collected under this Government, up and to the point where the higher fee was introduced. It also allows the council to keep the fees that it collected, the one-year fees that it collected, and offset those fees against the three-year cost of registration for those teachers who had gone through the one-year registration process during that intervening period, otherwise the council would be in a position where it would have to refund someone the one-year fee and then reinvoice them, effectively, for the three-year fee. It would potentially also lead to a position where most teachers in the country, if we didn’t pass this bill, were not currently registered, and that is something that I think we would all want to avoid.

The other thing that the bill does is it allows the council to move to an annual fee without having to change to a three-year registration. So they can retain the status quo of a three-year registration, meaning teachers won’t have to reregister every three years, but will, effectively, allow teachers to pay their fee in one-year instalments, which I think is something I hope the teaching profession will welcome.

I acknowledge that there are different views amongst the teaching profession about the council itself and the scope and functions of the council. Primary teachers are quite supportive of the current scope and function of the council, if we are to accept what their advocates and their representatives tell us. Secondary teachers are more sceptical. I want to indicate that the Government will be making other changes to the council in future legislation that responds to some of those concerns. One of the concerns is that the disciplinary functions that the council has are overly onerous, that there are matters going to the council’s full disciplinary tribunal process that could be dealt with through the complaints assessment committee in a more efficient way—still transparent, still robust, but more efficient—and thereby reducing the overall cost of the running of the council. We will be bringing some proposals forward to the Parliament in due course that will deal with that issue, because I think the teachers do have a legitimate point there.

We are also in conversations with the council about their leadership function and who should ultimately pay, what burden of that leadership function should sit with teacher registration fees versus whether Government should make a contribution to that, and we’ll continue to talk to them about that. So the council will now have an opportunity to set a new fee to cover their full costs, the costs of operating the council. They will, in the meantime, revert to the fee that existed before the court case, before the new one-year fee was overturned by the courts. That will be the fee that applies in the intervening period, and fees collected under that previous regime will all be validated by this legislation.

So it is an undesirable position for the Parliament to find itself in. It dates back prior to this Government, to the previous Government. I don’t think they intended this situation to emerge, nor did this Government. We have a responsibility, I think, as a Parliament to fix it and to fix it quickly so that the public, parents, students, and teachers can be confident that we’ve got a robust teacher registration regime in New Zealand, teachers can be confident that they are registered and that their registration fees that they’ve previously paid are valid, and also that those who are caught during this period, the one-year period, don’t have to go through the process of getting their money back and then paying more in order to get the three-year registration. So I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): How many times is the Minister of Education going to amend this education Act? He made a complete hash of it when he did the vocational education review. He then had to amend it for the early childhood education, and now he’s having to amend it because the Teaching Council lost their High Court case under the Education and Training Act 1989 for trying to increase fees for practising certificate renewals. He could have taken a leaf out of Sir Michael Cullen’s book, who said, “We won. You lost. Suck it up!” But, no, he puts retrospective legislation in place.

What does this Government do in their spare time? Do they sit around looking at where all our essential workers for the health and wellbeing of society are?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I’m going to make two points to the member. The first of all is that this is a very narrow bill—very narrow. She will address this bill. It’s a first reading; it’s not a wide-ranging debate. You don’t go on to other things. The second point: the member is reading her speech; she may not.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here are the facts—and I will read those because it comes from the facts of the court case, if I may, Mr Speaker. So the Post Primary Teachers’ Association took the case to the High Court and it was lost. The fees and the annual certification decisions were quashed at the beginning. They failed on five counts: they failed to consult, they failed to properly consider the merits of the annual certification, they misconstrued and misapplied key elements of the statutory regime, and it amounted to an unlawful tax. So they lost on five counts.

The Minister could have, at that stage, sucked it up, paid the money, and then gone on and thanked the teachers. The teachers who have done such an amazing job over lockdown: Zooming in with kids, bringing kids back up to speed—and we know that’s been really tough. We could have thanked them for dealing with all the non-teaching issues that kids have been bringing to them and caring for our young people, guiding them through these really challenging times, and we could have thanked them for doing a good job. But, no, instead, the Government is bringing in retrospective legislation to keep the fees that they had to pay unlawfully.

So that court ruling quite clearly said that it was unlawful for those fees to have been taken. Now, clearly, the Teaching Council does a really important job and, clearly, they now have a funding shortfall. But the Government has been prepared to spend money in lots of other areas: $785 million on an on-again and off-again walking and cycling bridge, half a billion on the first year of health reforms, $120 million on failed vocational education reforms—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to say “ditto”, and it’s the second warning.

PENNY SIMMONDS: —thank you, Mr Speaker—$20 million to develop new phonics early-reading books for teachers, with not one language, but two languages, that nobody else in the world has done. So plenty of money to spend on education and other matters when the Minister has chosen to, but not to pay the amount, the shortfall that is needed for the Teaching Council. So I felt the Minister has had to spend a lot of money on consultants with all the changes he has brought in and I felt that it was my duty to give him some free advice on this.

The amendment bill should be dropped. It is a waste of time and money. The Minister should do a Sir Michael Cullen—suck it up and pay the gap—because the Teaching Council has important work.

SPEAKER: Right. Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I have warned her twice about reading her speech. She has continued to read it. This speech is terminated.

I want to make it clear that I made it very clear earlier in the year that members are not to read their speeches, and while I don’t spend as much time possibly as I should during readings of the bill in the Chamber, it is something which I am adamant about. The Standing Orders were changed very deliberately, and I intend to enforce the rules.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Does the member want to table the rest of her speech?

PENNY SIMMONDS: I want to table my notes so you can see they’re just notes. I’m happy to table them for you to see.

SPEAKER: Well, the member wants the leave of the House to table her notes. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order, Simeon Brown. I hope the member is not going to make a rare misstep.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, no. I mean, it’s a pretty unreasonable thing for you to be saying that someone’s reading their speech when, clearly, they have just got notes, which they’re referring to as they give a speech. I mean, how are you—

SPEAKER: The member is now arguing with a ruling that I have made. I’m just saying that I’ve been around long enough to know or to at least make a judgment that when a person is constantly looking down, then that member gives the appearance of reading. People who refer to notes generally don’t have six or seven pages of them and turn over one—[Interruption] No, no, the member’s been shifting notes around. She knows. Next speech.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill. It’s an absolutely narrow bill, and there will be very little to add to the speech that we’ve already heard from the Minister, but I would like to elaborate a little bit more on what the Minister spoke about: the work that we did in our previous term with regard to giving teachers more independence when it comes to representation on their own body, the Teaching Council, as it now is. Our Government did that work, and, of course, as the Minister already foreshadowed, more of that work will be continuing in the next few months that we have ahead with regards to the way that the council operates, as the Minister outlined, because, as they did previously, the teachers raised a really legitimate point when they brought up these points.

Now, there are some facts and figures involved that I don’t want to get wrong, so I will be referring to the numbers as they were added up, because I don’t want to get that wrong. So prior to the change to the fees increase, these fees had not changed since 2010, and when they were changed in February 2021, the amount really changed from $220.80 for a three-year certificate to what became an annual certificate of $157. So that meant that a teacher would pay $471 over the period in total of annual fees, where, of course, previously it would have been $249.20 for the three years. Now, the recent High Court decision did challenge that decision, has brought it back to what the fees were previously, and that is exactly what this bill does.

So it is important to understand that this bill is not validating the quashed practising certificates, but what it does is it validates the payments that were received since 1 February 2020, because it would be quite a ludicrous exercise, in fact, if we were to get the teachers to pay a certain amount and then having to refund, and then the teachers having to pay a top-up on top. So this bill is really common sense. It saves a lot of time. But what I do look forward to, as chair of the Education and Workforce Committee that will be hearing submissions and working with my team on this bill, is that we hear from a wide variety of submitters on their views on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill is an outrage, and if a National Government introduced this bill, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) would be marching in the street. Every teacher in New Zealand deserves to understand exactly what this bill does. First of all, it gives the Teaching Council broader powers to set whatever fees it wants. Second of all, this bill retrospectively tidies up unlawful fee setting by the Teaching Council.

I have in front of me the High Court ruling that has led to this bill, and I would put to you that a Minister of Education who was on the ball of his education role would not be introducing this bill, but instead would be sitting down with the Teaching Council and saying, “Sort it out. You are not given a mandate to charge teachers whatever you want whenever you want to. That is not actually what the law allows you to do. Tighten your belt, because teachers around this country are already faced with extraordinary increases in living costs, and what they don’t deserve is to be given increases in their registration fees because you, the Teaching Council, are breaking the law.”

So, first, I want to congratulate the PPTA on having the courage to bring this case to court, because, actually, it’s not every day—is it, members of this House?—that the PPTA takes a Government entity to court. I think, actually, before it spends its union fees on taking anyone to court, it thinks carefully. I thank them for doing that, because this court ruling I have in front of me sets out very carefully exactly what it is that the Teaching Council have done unlawfully. It sets out how poorly they have behaved and it sets out all of the bad behaviour that the Minister of Education is just going to hide in the corner and fix up with this retrospective piece of legislation.

So let’s go through why we need this bill, because what the court found was that the Teaching Council broke the law because it failed to consult before imposing annual certification fees. So that’s the first thing the Minister of Education does with this bill—he says, “Look, they broke the law, that’s a bit tricky and embarrassing, but I’ll tidy it up with a little bill to cover their tracks.” The second thing that the High Court said was that “the Teaching Council failed to properly consider the merits of annual certification”. Then they said, in a very clear judgment, that they had misled the Minister on the payment by instalment idea—they had misled the Minister of Education. But, you know, don’t worry, he’s here to tidy it all up for them! Then, they said that they didn’t properly consider the pros and cons of annual certification. Then, they said that they imposed a blanket one-year period of certification inconsistently with the Act, and that they set an unlawful fee—and set an unlawful fee—which bundled together all of the costs of the council services.

Now, Mr Speaker, when I say this I’m going to look at my notes, because if I don’t look at my notes for this, you might think I’m exaggerating. But, actually, what the High Court said was that “the Teaching Council’s decision to set a fee for issuing a practising certificate amounted to an unlawful tax”, and that’s what the members on the opposite side of the House think that we should use Parliament’s time to validate. We should use Parliament’s time to validate Government quangos going off and setting unlawful taxes, and they expect this to all quietly happen on a Thursday afternoon in Parliament and not a teacher in New Zealand will notice. Well, I will tell the House this: when ratty little pieces of legislation are put through to put unlawful taxes on New Zealand teachers, New Zealand’s teachers will find out.

It is fair to say that it is not every day or every week in Parliament that the National Party finds itself in strong agreement with the PPTA. But I do want to quote the PPTA’s views on what is occurring in this House right now, because what the PPTA say is that they are concerned not only with the detail of the bill but what it says about the Teaching Council because they say they were “concerned that the Council had mandated annual certification without consulting the teaching profession.”—without consulting the teaching profession. So here we have the entity whose responsibility it is to represent that profession, to ensure its reputation is kept in good order, to certify those who are allowed to be members of that profession, and you have the union for that profession saying they didn’t even consult the teaching profession effectively, and that has been upheld by a court of law.

Now, I listened very carefully to Minister Hipkins’ speech because I waited to hear him say, “I’m disappointed in the Teaching Council.” Did he say that? Did he express any disappointment?

Stuart Smith: No.

NICOLA WILLIS: No. No, he didn’t express any disappointment.

I also listened very carefully because I waited for him to say that he was angry that he was going to have to introduce retrospective legislation—that he was disappointed that the entity hadn’t lived up to his expectations. Did I hear that anger? Did I hear that disappointment?

Stuart Smith: No.

NICOLA WILLIS: No, members of this House, I did not.

And I listened to the Minister of Education to hear something I think is pretty important, and that is an apology to New Zealand’s teachers for being subjected to an unlawful tax, because what sort of a Minister of Education are you if you say, “Look, teachers, it’s OK, there’s been an unlawful tax. The Teaching Council did it to you, but I’m here to make it all OK by making it lawful.”? Well, what a serious lack of responsibility, because I think the opportunity that the Minister had here with this court ruling was to say to the Teaching Council: “Sort it out. Pull your socks up. You cannot behave in this way, you can’t act in an arbitrary way without consultation, you can’t act in a way that operates outside the law, and you can’t charge too much for your fees.”

Now, what this bill also doesn’t do, and the Minister expressed this clearly in his speech, is it doesn’t deal with the fact that the Teaching Council has created for itself—and this Minister introduced legislation to empower it—a leadership function. Now, that leadership function that is empowered is costly, it’s costing a lot, and what I think teachers around the country will want to know is why in this bill are we not ensuring that the Teaching Council isn’t just going to empire-build on that leadership function and charge teachers for paying for it, because it does allow it. This bill widens the scope—we’ll quote its policy statement—it “broadens the Council’s … fee-setting powers”. That is what we are doing in this House today, and yet we aren’t at the same time being very directive to the council about the circumstances in which it can do that.

I return to the PPTA statement, because I think it’s important it is in the Hansard for this bill. Here we have the PPTA saying that they “welcome the Council’s announcement … that it will abide by the judgment”. Well, actually, what the Minister of Education has come in and said is: “Don’t worry, you don’t need to abide by the judgment.”, and that is what this bill does.

So I look forward to a select committee process in which the teaching unions, in which everyday teachers, in which those concerned with the professions in our classrooms, get up and submit and say that, actually, they don’t want to have to pay ever-escalating registration fees, that that cost actually matters to them; that every time they have to write that cheque, it’s money that isn’t in the household budget and it’s money that isn’t available for groceries; that when it gets higher and higher every year, it affects them; and that, actually, some of them find it pretty insulting when it goes up and up and yet they’re not seeing any improvement in the standards of their professional body. I look forward to them sharing that view, and I look forward to them at select committee also asking why it is that their professional body that is charged with ensuring they comply with the law is unable to comply with the law itself. I look forward to them putting to the Minister of Education that when he is setting standards for our education system, it is unacceptable to validate unlawful action by a professional body without even expressing an ounce of disappointment. This is a retrospective bill—

Simeon Brown: Outrageous.

NICOLA WILLIS: It is an outrageous validation of an unlawful tax. It is a bill that has been brought about because the PPTA was forced to bring the Teaching Council to court, and, actually, if the Minister of Education were anyone but the Minister for COVID recovery, there would be headlines on this. It is unacceptable and I am pleased that National will be opposing this bill.

SPEAKER: Before I call the next member on the bill, I have had time during the member’s speech to read the bill, and I want to make it clear that this bill is about the fees and not the certification periods. If members try running another argument down that line again—if I had read the bill before, I would have stopped the member. She was lucky I hadn’t. I have now, and it is a very narrow bill—even narrower than I thought from the Minister’s speech.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The previous member appears to be a little bit confused. She appears to be blaming the Minister for this bill, whereas I stand to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House.

Look, I think both sides of the House would acknowledge that there has been a legislative failure in this area. The Minister has brought an elegant solution to the House, you know, bringing about a solution that I expect our teachers will be very happy with.

On the topic of the fees, as we heard from the Minister, the Teaching Council decided to change the registration structure from a three-year to a one-year and we heard that the fees would change accordingly. While visiting staffrooms across my electorate as the MP for Hamilton East over the past few months, I certainly heard feedback from teachers who were not happy with the teachers’ council’s resolution. The teachers’ council is independent of Government, so I think that’s an important aspect for the previous speaker and others just to be aware of. Now, the teachers’ council made that decision. The teachers quite clearly expressed to me their disappointment with that decision. As a member of Parliament I fed that through to various channels that I thought needed to hear it, but it was a decision for the teachers’ council.

Now, as we’ve heard—and I don’t want to relitigate that—there’s been a court ruling, and so this piece of legislation is here to basically bring about a solution. The Minister outlined the solution. I’d like to finish by acknowledging the leadership of the Minister, the excellent Minister of Education, in bringing a solution to the House which I expect, as a former teacher, teachers will be happy with. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is opposing the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill. It has been rehearsed that the Teaching Council is the statutory body. It’s an independent statutory body. Not only does it handle the certification of teachers; it investigates teachers’ misconduct, handles professional complaints, and provides professional leadership. But this bill is retrospective. This bill will have an impact on teachers’ incomes.

There was a 30,000-signature petition expressing some concern, and there was an 11,000-signature petition calling for a review of the teachers’ council. I don’t often agree with Nicola Willis—but her point about there needing to be some consultation with teachers and also with the unions.

It is not good law when you have the Government making retrospective laws, which is one of the reasons that the Green Party is opposing it. Previously, because Government subsidised 60 percent of the teachers’ council costs in terms of doing that work around professional misconduct and providing leadership of the profession—and then, suddenly, as a result of that High Court decision, putting in place this bill to enable the teachers’ council to receive the fees that it charged, and to retrospectively validate the reception of those fees without having a good consultation exercise, we don’t think is appropriate. We are opposing the bill.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I’m standing on behalf of ACT to oppose this bill, and there are a few reasons for this. Teachers have faced many, many increases and more pressure within their workloads and the things they have to do in this year with COVID lockdown and with the pressures of mental health issues within schools. More and more is expected of them and it seems they are constantly having to fight to feel valued and appreciated. And when you are adding on to the costs of them to be registered, and half the teachers don’t even understand what the Teaching Council is there for, you can see why they resent paying this fee.

I spoke to multiple teachers to ask them, you know, how they feel with this situation, and not one of them could tell me what the council was there for and what the council did for them. And the ones that did kind of said they wished that the council would just be there for disciplinary action and registration and leave the rest out of it, because, to them, they feel like this is giving the council an open cheque book to do whatever they like, and the teachers will be there to pay the bill.

I just had a little bit of a look at what the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association had said. They’re saying that “Teachers understand the need to have a registration body that ensures the profession retains [a] high standard [but] They need their council to be cost effective and they need to trust … it will work for teachers [and] not against them.”

It feels like there is no stability, and teachers have no idea what is going to come next. If we just allowed councils to do whatever they like and they know the teachers will foot the bill, I cannot see how this is good law. So we oppose the bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. From what I’ve read and from what I understand, it is a very small and tight piece of legislation that simply validates the fees that were previously paid by teachers to the Teaching Council. So what we heard from the Minister was that there’d been no change in the fees since 2010, and more recently the fees had been changed from what was a three-year payment that teachers made when they were renewing their registration and they did it that way, then it was moved to an annual payment for teachers to pay with an increase in cost. And we know what the subsequent issues have been since then and through the findings of the court.

What it does, as I’ve said, is it validates the fees that have previously been paid and it means that for those who have paid their fees since February 2021, rather than the council having to refund the additional amount of fees back to teachers and then teachers then turn around the next year and pay their annual fees, it just allows them to hold on to that and, I guess, basically credit a bit towards each teacher’s next instalment of their fees. So I don’t think there’s much more to say on this. It’s a very tight bill, so I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I just want to take a quick call just to re-emphasise the points made by my colleagues that the National Party stands very strongly alongside our friends in the Greens in opposition to this bill—

Simeon Brown: And the ACT Party.

NICOLA GRIGG: And hopefully the ACT Party too—sorry, I wasn’t quite listening. Look, this is a tight bill, as has been traversed across the House already, regarding fees. I’m sure, if I remember rightly, when this Government was formed, it said it wouldn’t introduce any new taxes. Well, you can call it a fee, but, effectively, it is actually a tax. It is another cost being foisted on hard-working New Zealanders, just when the cost of housing’s going up; fuel’s going up; electricity—if you can get it!—is going up; and I see Stats New Zealand today is also saying that the cost of food is going up.

But what strikes me as utterly extraordinary is that we are here legislating—well, we’re not; they are—for a retrospective fee increase that a High Court declared was illegal. I mean, this Government is riding roughshod over court declarations. If that’s not arrogant, then I don’t know what is. With your leave, Mr Speaker, I would like to read out an email, if I may, that I received from a teacher in Christchurch a couple of days ago. I think Dr Webb should probably take note of this, because this person is a constituent of his. “Last night, I received this unbelievable email from the New Zealand teachers’ council, who have convinced Chris Hipkins to change the law, allowing them to charge the fees they want and potentially go to yearly registration. This was after the council lost in court. So now the Government seeks to change legislation, fast-tracked according to the PPTA. The fees after the law change will also be backdated and additional money sought from teachers.” This person goes on to say that staff across schools across New Zealand are feeling deeply unappreciated by this Labour Government. I’d also add to that teachers, midwives, doctors, nurses, farmers—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the bill.

NICOLA GRIGG: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I was actually just winding up, other than just to re-emphasise—

SPEAKER: Winding me up or winding your speech up?

NICOLA GRIGG: I beg your pardon. I was winding my commentary up, Mr Speaker. Ha! Just wanted to place on the record that this is not small change. These fees are significant. They are big. They are going from $220 every three years to $157 every year. That, to us on this side of the House, is totally unacceptable.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this terrible piece of legislation, the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill. Members on the other side who are getting up and saying how proud they are—I heard Jamie Strange from Hamilton saying this is an elegant solution, an elegant solution, to be passing retrospective legislation to impose a tax, an unlawful tax, on to teachers. The High Court ruling said that the Teaching Council decision to set a fee for issuing a practising certificate amounted to an unlawful tax. They should be hanging their heads in shame, but no. They come into this House and they call this an “elegant solution”. Hear Jamie Strange—how proud he is of his Minister to be introducing retrospective legislation. This legislation is retrospective. This legislation is, basically, trying to turn back the tide—turn back the tide—on a case which the Teaching Council has lost.

We have to remember that this is the Government that said they were going to turn the Teaching Council into a representative body which was representing teachers, last Parliament passing legislation where they were saying they were going to give democracy back to the Teaching Council. Well, here we are where we’ve got this Government running roughshod over teachers, imposing fees on teachers, imposing unlawful taxes on to teachers, increasing costs on our teachers, and then passing legislation, clause 5, which says the Teaching Council fees and costs may, basically, set whatever they like, because one of the things the High Court found was that the Teaching Council failed to consult before imposing annual certification. So let’s not worry about consultation; let’s just put clause 5 in there, which lets them do whatever they like.

I’m looking forward to hearing from the submitters on this piece, which is around do the teachers unions—are they happy with the fact that the Teaching Council, under clause 5, is essentially going to be able to just put in place whatever fee structure they want, over whatever time frame they like, and whatever way they like? [Interruption] Well, is there a select committee process? I hope there is, because, actually, this needs to go to a select committee—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member should listen to the speeches at the beginning.

SIMEON BROWN: Absolutely—absolutely. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, look, I look forward to the submissions from the teachers unions and the teachers on that exact point, because, actually, are teachers going to be happy with the Teaching Council being able to, essentially, set fees and costs in whatever way or fashion that they feel like? Because that is what clause 5 reads, to me. I’m sure they’re going to have very, very strong views over that and what seems to be taking away the ability for actual, proper consultation to be taking place, and the consultation—because, actually, what this is about is the Teaching Council effectively being able to fund their affairs. Actually, if it’s a democratic institution, which is what this Government in the last Parliament said the Teaching Council should be, where teachers should be in control and they should be able to run it, why would this Government now take away the ability for that consultation to be taking place?

This High Court found the Teaching Council wasn’t acting in accordance with the law. This High Court case found that they were failing to consult when setting fees. So what’s the Government’s response to that? “Well, actually, maybe they just shouldn’t have to consult at all. We’ll just take away any consultation.” What’s the need for consultation? Because apparently, according to this Government, the Teaching Council knows best. The Teaching Council knows exactly what the fees should be, what time period they should be, and, actually, who cares about what the teachers think about how much the fees should be and how the governance and the affairs of the Teaching Council should be run and what that money should be going towards?

This legislation is a massive overreach, not only retrospective—retrospective legislation from this Government. This is retrospective in the fact that it’s overriding a High Court case but then going the next step and saying, “Well, actually, we’re not only going to override the court case, but the fact that they were having to consult in the first place—we don’t really like that, and we’re just going to get rid of that requirement into the future.” Well, that’s unacceptable, and I think our teachers up and down the country are going to have a lot to say on that very point, because they can see what is going to come if the Teaching Council, because of what they’ve already tried to do, running roughshod over teachers—if they’ve already tried once, pass this legislation and you will see more and more of the Teaching Council imposing its own views on a whole range of issues and a whole range of matters, and that is something which is incredibly concerning.

This is a Government which stands up and says that they’re kind and caring. Well, it’s not kind and caring to get rid of the consultation requirements, which the teachers of New Zealand should have in place and should be able to have their say on what a body, which this Government says should be their body—well, it’s not theirs any more. This is Chris Hipkins’ Teaching Council so that Chris Hipkins can effectively run roughshod over the teachers, and I think this is something which is completely unacceptable. I’m proud to be on the side of the House where we’re saying, “No, we’re not going to accept this retrospective legislation. We’re not going to accept the Government just coming in and undoing a High Court case just because they feel like it, and then, basically, saying, ‘Well, actually, the teachers’ council was right all along. We’re going to get rid of the consultation requirements.’ ”

So I’m proud to be on the side of the House where we’re saying no to this piece of legislation, and my message to teachers and to the teachers unions and the organisations up and down this country and to parents is to make sure they have their say, because this is probably the last time they’ll ever be able to. We oppose this piece of legislation.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’d just like to use my short call—I think the reasons for this legislation being introduced have been clearly outlined by previous speakers, including the Minister, and so I’d just like to address some of the concerns raised by the other side.

One of the speakers on the other side alleged that this legislation was going to introduce an unlawful tax. Now, the finding of unlawful tax came about in the High Court judgment, which I have also read. The High Court judgment said that it was an unlawful tax. This bill does not implement an unlawful tax; this bill allows the previous fees structure to be implemented in order to give certainty to teachers and educators and to the Teaching Council. It is not the same thing. It is not the same thing as introducing an unlawful tax. So we are not introducing an unlawful tax; we are sorting out a situation following a court case, which sometimes happens. It sometimes happens. Sometimes legislation needs to be brought in after cases are brought, similar to a judicial review.

The other side has also said it’s retrospective. It is retrospective, and the Minister said that. The reason it is retrospective is because, if we did not introduce this piece of legislation, the Teaching Council would need to go through an extremely long, lengthy period involving almost every single teacher in the country, organising refunds and then asking for additional payments.

Simeon Brown: What’s wrong with that?

CAMILLA BELICH: I’ll tell you what is wrong with that. It takes our teachers away from their important work as educators and sorts out a more simple solution to allow them to continue with their work. So that is why we have that element in the bill.

They’ve also alleged, quite amazingly, that it’s a new tax. This is not a new tax. It is quite common for professional bodies to require a fee when they are regulating the profession that they are a part of. It happens in many, many different contexts, and it does not amount to a tax. And, in fact, the Teaching Council has been charging an amount not changed, I believe, since 2010. So that is why we’re introducing it in that way.

Also, it does not allow the Teaching Council to do whatever they like, and the reason is that judicial review functions exist for every single law that is passed in this House, and when that is not followed—the letter of the law is not followed—they are allowed to challenge it in judicial review. And so therefore this is a common-sense response to an issue which has been raised, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I would take this call, in light of the fact that Te Paati Māori has chosen not to take their call, and support the excellent contribution of Camilla Belich, who points out that it’s absolutely normal for a professional body to charge its members fully for all of the services it provides. And by a quirk of the law, there are only limited functions that could be charged for here and this is a simple tidy up. I’m surprised the National Party is taking that position, because it’s a position which existed under its own watch. It’s a simple tidy up. And as for the retrospectivity, they might want to read a bit more carefully, because it only relates to the ability to hold on to the money and credit it to a new fee rather than going through a complex refund process.

Nicola Grigg: A new fee, like a new tax?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: If Mrs Grigg were to read the bill and the departmental disclosure statement, it would go a long way to improving her speeches. I commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take this short call in support of this bill. But first, can I acknowledge the speakers in this part of the House, who very articulately pointed out the importance of this bill. Now, previously I’ve heard the members on the other side of the House complaining about how many times this Minister has to make amendments. This is a hard-working Minister. When you work hard, you do things, you change things, you amend things—that’s what the hard-working Ministers, that’s what the hard-working people do. So just like my colleague Jamie Strange, I’d like to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House.

This bill is narrow in scope. It actually doesn’t do any of the things that the people on the other side said it would, because they are scaremongering. This bill validates the previous fees. It retrospectively validates the fees that existed before the court fees. This is a very important point—this is the point that they keep ignoring. It’s not a retrospective fee increase. Two different things: this bill is not about addressing matters that need an urgent response. It does not attempt to resolve every possible legislative issue relating to the Teaching Council—

Maureen Pugh: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wonder about the consistency in the rulings around reading speeches.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Is the member serious in raising that? The member knows that it is absolutely out of order and disorderly for her to do that, and if she doesn’t know, she should read her Standing Orders.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. I seek leave if the member on the other side would like to table his notes.

SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

Simeon Brown withdrew from the Chamber.

IBRAHIM OMER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A lot has been said about this bill. I’m not going to focus on what has been said already, but I just wanted to clarify that this bill does none of the things that members on the other side said it would, because it’s two things: it’s confusing—they are playing scaremongering shamefully and I look forward to having this bill in our select committee, chaired by our amazing chair, Marja Lubeck. We are willing to engage with submitters, because we have nothing to hide. We have nothing to be scared of. We are willing to engage with every submitter, with respect. Finally, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to the Education and Workforce Committee

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196(1)(b) and (c).

The reasons for asking the House to agree to a shortened select committee process are fundamentally the same as the reasons why the bill is needed at all. First, the Teaching Council is expected to be fully self-funded through the ability given to the council by the Education and Training Act 2020 to fix fees to cover the costs of its funding. Secondly, the High Court judgment of February this year limited the council’s ability to do this, plunging it into financial uncertainty. It is essential for the council, school system, and the teaching profession that this period of uncertainty is brought to a rapid end—something that only the quick enactment of this bill can do, and the quick turn-around.

It should be emphasised that this is not new policy. The structure, powers, and funding of the Teaching Council were the subject of submissions when the House and the Education and Workforce Committee were considering the Education and Training Bill last year. The principles that underpin these provisions of the principal Act have, therefore, been through the parliamentary process and do not need to be extensively revisited. The intention of this bill is simply to put into place what the House decided last year, having fully considered submissions on this issue.

To enable the Education and Workforce Committee to meet the deadline that we are setting, the motion also includes the usual range of permissions to meet at times outside the parameters normally allowed by Standing Orders. I want to wish the Education and Workforce Committee well in its work.

SPEAKER: The question is—

Nicola Willis: Mr—

SPEAKER: —the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.

Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, is this a debatable motion?

SPEAKER: It is.

Nicola Willis: Well, I seek the call.

SPEAKER: Well, why didn’t the member seek the call before—

Nicola Willis: I did seek the call, but you didn’t hear me. I was on my feet, seeking the call.

SPEAKER: All right. I will take the member’s word that she sought the call. I normally get an indication from around here if someone does as well, but go for it.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you. The previous speaker has put to this House that there should be a shortened period of consideration for this bill, and I stand to oppose that motion because it is my view that this is exactly the sort of issue that requires thorough examination by a select committee.

What we have here is a piece of legislation which seeks to retrospectively validate fee setting by the Teaching Council that has been found by the High Court to be unlawful. Now, the reason that the High Court was even hearing this case was that the teachers’ union, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, was so concerned by the fee-setting behaviour of the Teaching Council and was so unhappy with the lack of responsiveness or action taken by the Teaching Council when those concerns were raised that it took a motion to the High Court—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to interrupt the member. This is the narrowest of motions around the length of time and the circumstances in which this select committee should sit. Nothing to do with the substance of the bill is part of this motion.

NICOLA WILLIS: OK. So Mr Speaker, I thank you for your guidance. This is not a bill that should have a shortened process for hearing submissions, because, actually, every teacher in New Zealand should have the opportunity to submit on this bill, should they wish to. Because it actually affects more than 140,000 of them who currently pay registration fees. I’m concerned that a shortened period for this select committee will preclude submissions being heard to their fullest extent, will preclude the committee from seeking the views and guidance from the range of entities that may be affected by this decision, and, most importantly, what I’m concerned about here is that a shortened select committee process may remove the disinfectant that sunlight can provide when decisions of this sort of made.

A shortened select committee process, as members of this House are aware, means that there are fewer opportunities for members to diagnose why this has happened, fewer opportunities for submitters to bring forth their views on why it’s happened. I think this is a case where, actually, a select committee process that is thorough, that is full, that takes the full time period, would allow for the disinfectant that sunlight can provide.

In particular, what we know that a shortened process of the sort that the Minister outlined implies is it implies that there will be a shorter period between submissions being called and submissions being made. That is hard on submitters. It just means that they’ve got less time to get their thoughts together. It means if they hear—they might not hear for a week or two until after submissions have been called that they’re happening, and then they have to go and find the time to write them. And I put to you: the people who we want to submit on this bill are some of the very busiest people in the country. They are teachers who are spending a lot of time in the classroom, who are then spending time preparing for the classroom, who often have families of their own that keep them very busy. And what we are doing by allowing this motion to shorten the report-back period is we’re allowing for a much shorter time in which those submissions can be got together.

Then what we are doing, potentially, is we are shortening the period in which the committee can actually hear from submitters. And I’ve seen what that means. I’ve sat on select committees where, because you have a shorter period in which to hear submissions, you have to make some really tough calls about who can be heard and who can’t be heard. I’m concerned that this could lead to a situation where we don’t hear from people who are personally affected by having to pay a higher fee to the Teaching Council.

So I think it is incumbent on members of this House to see that democracy does its job, which includes putting sunlight on poor decision-making. A shorter report-back period curtails that opportunity, and I stand in opposition to it.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to a shortened select committee time. A normal select committee takes around six months. I have not heard anything today that would convince me why we should shorten a six-month select committee period down to one month.

Teachers are extremely busy people, and they should be respected; their views should be respected. They’re teaching our children every day. They’re also going home late at night, often writing up report cards, marking exams. There is not a huge amount of time for a teacher, within one month, to get their thoughts together to present them to Parliament and actually be able to have the opportunity to be heard in person if that’s what they wish to do. I think this shows the arrogance of the Government, trying to rush through yet again another law. We’ve heard from the Teaching Council. Well, where have they heard from the teachers who will be affected by this? We need to be ensuring that the teachers, who are the main people who will be affected by this law change, who will be forking out hundreds of dollars more every three years—they need their perspectives heard.

We also need to have the perspectives laid out. Do teachers believe that there will be any more benefits that they’ll get from an increase in costs? Is there any point to the law? Not just the teachers’ council perspective should be considered. And that is why we actually want people to engage in lawmaking. That’s the only way that we have better public policy in New Zealand—that we actually engage and allow people who are affected by laws to come in here and share their perspectives. That is what we expect of our democracy: that people are able to engage in the parliamentary process and not have laws rushed upon them where they are being imposed with new costs and they haven’t actually been able to have their say.

That is why the ACT Party stands in opposition to a shortened select committee period. We believe it would be antidemocratic. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): We stand in opposition of the shortened select committee process. As we’ve already heard from our Green Party colleague, there has been significant interest in this. There has been a petition already from the teachers—a significant number of teachers—Eugenie Sage was able to tell us. During this shortened period, every teacher will be teaching. There is no holiday period in that shortened time. So we are expecting our teachers to not only do their job, and we know it’s a very big job. They work long hours, and we are expecting them to put their time into their submissions without even their break period to do it. There will be exams coming up. And we know how much heightened interest there is around this. It’s like adding insult to injury. They weren’t consulted on the first time. That was one of the five findings that the High Court had—they weren’t consulted on. So we’re not going to allow them time to be consulted with this time either. To me, it’s an absolute insult to our teachers to say they have taken a case to the High Court, they have won, it has been found that they weren’t consulted with, and so now, retrospective legislation is going to be put through and they won’t have time to be consulted with again. It’s absolutely insulting to our teachers to do that. So we oppose that shortened consultation period.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): I present a legislative statement on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a second time.

Reform of the regulatory regime applying to Crown pastoral land is indeed timely. In recent years, there has been increasing public concern about the management of Crown pastoral land by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand, particularly in relation to the loss of biodiversity and landscapes values on current and former Crown pastoral land over time. A review carried out by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in 2018 attributed much of this concern to unclear system outcomes, a lack of transparency and accountability, and limited understanding about the cumulative impacts of the commissioner’s decision making over time. There have also been concerns about the process of tenure review, which has resulted in much former Crown pastoral land being free-holded and some of it then being subject to more intensive farming—so concerns from a number of perspectives.

The Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill ends the tenure review process and sets clear outcomes for the Crown pastoral land regulatory system for the future. The bill requires decision makers to seek to maintain or enhance inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations—inherent values that are the ecological, landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values of the land—while providing for ongoing pastoral farming. The bill sets out how LINZ’s administration of Crown pastoral land will seek to achieve these outcomes by, firstly, providing direction to LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands on their roles and responsibilities as lessor and administrator of Crown pastoral land; secondly, explicitly recognising the relationship between the Crown and its Treaty partner and providing for this relationship; and thirdly, introducing measures to increase transparency, clarify accountability, and provide more public involvement.

The bill underpins the Government’s review that ongoing, sustainable, and responsible pastoral farming is the best way for this land to be managed. I recognise the passion with which leaseholders conduct their stewardship of these iconic properties. I also understand how valued the high country is to iwi and to all New Zealanders, and this is reflected in the Government’s decision to end tenure review and maintain the land as Crown pastoral leases for future generations.

The process of tenure review has run its course. Since the process commenced in 1998, many leaseholders who have wanted to have gone through the process. For those parties to whom a substantive proposal has been put, the process will continue. The remaining leaseholders will continue to operate their properties with perpetual right of renewal. The bill is intended to enshrine best practice and streamline some day-to-day farming activities. It amends the existing regulatory system under which leaseholders are already required to obtain landowner consent for many activities by classifying activities as permitted, discretionary, or prohibited. Certain low-impact farming activities will not require consents. Higher-impact activities will require consent from the Commissioner of Crown Lands under an improved process. Some activities, however, that have major impacts on the values of the high country will not be allowed.

Under the bill, LINZ will have a wider range of powers to address situations where leaseholders do not comply with their lease obligations. In particular, there are more proportionate enforcement tools that don’t require LINZ to take the more extreme step of court action, which is the only enforcement option available at present. These powers will not impact anyone doing the right thing, but they will ensure bottom lines are maintained and that there are appropriate mechanisms to address poor practice. For most leaseholders, the bill will not change the way they farm, because they already follow best practice to minimise the impact on the environment and manage pests and weeds, and, in many cases, that’s been an intergenerational effort. Leaseholders may at times still require consent from both LINZ and their local council under the Resource Management Act (RMA) just as they do now. It’s an important distinction to make, because the RMA applies to all land and is about environmental management, whereas the Crown Pastoral Land Act is about a leaseholder-landowner relationship.

The high level of interest in the future of this iconic land was evident in the 3,200 submissions received on the February 2019 discussion document leading up to this bill, and the 161 submissions received by the select committee. The Environment Committee considered the bill and heard submissions over the last few months. I have to thank them. The range of changes to the bill had been agreed by the majority of the committee, taking into account the feedback from leaseholders, from iwi, from interest groups, and the wider public. These changes include providing more appropriate recognition of the Crown’s obligations to its Treaty partner and mana whenua interests, and improving the clarity of the decision making and other processes set out in the bill. The changes also add some important safeguards for high country leaseholders, including providing for, firstly, greater use of farm plans for high country stations; secondly, more explicit provision for mitigation activities to be carried out in an emergency situation; and broader provision for commercial recreation permits.

Another change will enable the Commissioner of Crown Lands to consider the economic benefits associated with a proposed farming activity in cases where the viability of the lease is at risk. A further change was agreed to, which was intended to require public access to be considered when a lease is transferred. My primary concern is to ensure that leaseholders don’t unreasonably deny a reasonable request for access across a lease from time to time. I have had some feedback that the current clause as proposed has gone a little too far, and I am asking officials to prepare an amendment that will be tabled as a Supplementary Order Paper ahead of the committee of the whole House. The committee also agreed to provide for a smoother transition in the implementation of the bill, by providing more time to properly implement the legislation. This will mean that the repeal of tenure provisions will come into force the day after Royal assent, while the remainder of the provisions in the bill, which relate to amendments to the regulatory regime, will come into force six months after that.

LINZ will remain responsible for administering the 1.2 million hectares of Crown pastoral land. LINZ has recently taken a more hands-on approach, encouraged by the Minister, I have to say, including significantly increasing visits to pastoral leases to maintain a strong and effective connection with leaseholders. We need to know what is going on and the leaseholders need to know that we care. I expect LINZ will continue to work hard to build close and constructive working relationships with leaseholders, with iwi, and with other stakeholders. This will be an important part of implementing the proposed changes in the bill. These spectacular South Island properties are special places for all New Zealanders. This bill recognises the place of pastoral farming as a legitimate use of the land while protecting the importance of the unique values of our high country to New Zealand and New Zealanders.

I appreciate the time and effort put in by everyone who gave feedback on the discussion document and the bill. I want to specifically acknowledge all those who have made public submissions on this bill, and the work of the Environment Committee in considering these submissions and making recommendations on amendments to the bill. Thank you for your efforts and your commitment. I know that the Environment Committee made on-ground visits to high country lease properties. They took on board the wisdom and the guidance and the views of many people, of all those stakeholders, and I think the advice that came back through, and amendments to the bill, and advice to myself directly as the Minister, have made this legislation a far better piece of legislation that will be enduring and considers the interests of all stakeholders now and into the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This is a bill that is an attempt to be a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, to a problem that the Government has utterly failed to convince not only the leaseholders exists but the Parliament of New Zealand surely cannot be convinced by the Minister for Land Information’s speech just a few minutes ago.

Now, it’s important that we go back a little bit in history to understand the genesis of this piece of legislation. It was actually introduced into the 52nd Parliament by the then Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) Minister, the Hon Eugenie Sage, a Green Party Minister, who introduced it to the House, and then, of course, not long after the bill was introduced and referred to the House in July of 2020, there was a general election and the makeup of this Government that is currently in office changed significantly. The introducing Minister lost her ministerial warrant, but she was rewarded with the chairmanship of the Environment Committee, and now she has, sitting in that role, overseen the process to bring us to where we are today. Now, I accept that she was not in the chair during the hearing of submissions, but that was a token gesture to help placate what could only be seen as an ideologically driven philosophical approach to these 170-something high country pastoral farming families who are the victims of this unnecessary, unconvincing, and, frankly, insulting piece of legislation.

We heard, as we travelled around the countryside, submitters from far and wide. Many of the leaseholders came to speak to the select committee during our hearings in Wellington, in Queenstown, and in Christchurch, and they were amongst some of the most heartfelt submissions that I’ve heard in my time in Parliament. These were representatives of families who had farmed sensibly, pragmatically, with conservation and environmental values at their heart for several generations, and they were distraught, they were hurt, they were confused, and they were unconvinced by the need or the desire for why this Government would want to treat them so harshly, so poorly, and so insultingly.

Actually, no argument has been put forward by the Minister, by the Labour Government backbenchers who sat on the select committee, mostly mute, during the submissions, unable to address the concerns and issues raised by the leaseholders in any sensible way as to what was the motivation for this piece of legislation, other than one of envy and one of despising their way of life, their way of history, and their contribution to conservation and the environment in the high country. Frankly, it was an embarrassing and appalling display of mute silence from Government members who sat on the select committee.

We operate in this little democracy of ours here in New Zealand a unicameral system. We don’t have a federal system, we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have a Senate. We, in our own little way, have developed what we would hope would be a select committee process that provides the scrutiny and the analysis and the detailed, careful scrutiny of legislation. Well, submitter after submitter came and presented to the select committee, and none of their points that they raised in trying to convince the Government that they were farming well, that they were conserving land that would otherwise be the victim of uncontrolled pests, weeds, and wilding pines and the like—none of those arguments seemed to be in any way resonating with Government members.

So I come back to my original point: this seems to be a bill that is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. High country farmers, the leaseholders, can feel rightly upset and angry with the moves that this Government is making, because, at the heart of this piece of legislation, it undermines the generations of goodwill that have been established between the Crown and the leaseholders. It undermines the good work and the faith that they have invested, not only in terms of their emotion, their hard work, their blood, sweat, and toil but also millions, tens of millions, of dollars of improvement, enhancement, and careful, prudent management of the high country leases. I felt very, very sorry for those submitters who came and, in many cases, were emotional, understandably emotional, about the way that they were going to be treated under this piece of legislation, because at its core, it changes the relationship that they have entered into.

As one submitter said, it is, effectively, a treaty. These are people that entered into a treaty with the Crown. Does it sound familiar? They entered into a treaty with the Crown, and now the Crown is arbitrarily taking away those treaty rights that they entered into in good faith and changing them, changing them to be put in the place of quasi-criminals. An infringement regime will be put in place that means that someone will drive up the driveway or wherever it is to the high country pastoral lease homestead and issue them with a legal document telling them that they have been bad and evil and wrong in some way.

What used to happen was that there used to be a relationship of trust, good faith, and understanding between LINZ and the leaseholders. That’s all gone, and that’s, I think, a great sadness and a great pity. I think it’s a shame that something akin to 1.2 million hectares of our national landscape, something close to 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land area, that has been administered, managed, and carefully, prudently cared for by the 170-something high country leaseholders—that that undermining of those relationships, going back several generations in some cases, should be cast asunder so lightly and so carefree-ly by this Labour Government on the basis of ideology, nothing else; on the basis of ideology and envy. Well, I don’t think that’s good enough. I think it’s very sad. I think it’s a real shame, and I think that in future, a re-elected National-led Government is going to have to put to rights this piece of legislation. It’s just another piece of legislation of what is becoming a very long list of pieces of legislation that are going to have to be put to rights, but this is one that will need to be addressed.

The infringement regime is particularly offensive—particularly offensive—to the leaseholders. It’s a regime that is utterly and totally unnecessary and hasn’t been proven. It erodes at its very core the element of trust, respect, and goodwill that has existed to date and now that’s gone—cast aside, cast asunder, all for the benefit of an ideological, philosophical approach that simply doesn’t like the fact that there are pastoral leases in the high country and that, actually, they have been doing a very good job.

I want to acknowledge the very good work of the member the Hon Jacqui Dean, the member for Waitaki, who has been a strident, passionate advocate for the leaseholders. She has done an outstanding job, in my view, representing them not only in this Parliament, on the select committee, but actually collecting their views, their opinions, and their heartfelt messages of concern and frustration with this current Labour Government. I think that she’s done a very good job, and so has Nicola Grigg. These are hard-working, local, rural MPs with the interests of their constituents and the environment at their heart, and they can be proud of the work that they’ve done on behalf of the high country pastoral leaseholders. They have advocated strongly and will continue to do so through the course of this bill as it goes eventually to the committee of the whole House, where I’m interested to know that the Minister is going to introduce at least one Supplementary Order Paper, and maybe that’s good. So we’ll wait with semi-bated breath to see what that might be.

Maybe there is a glimmer of hope. Maybe there is a small glimmer of hope that some tiny resonance of common sense and logic has found its way through to the Beehive office of the Minister, and maybe we can hold out just a small glimmer of hope that a degree of logic and common sense will be applied, even if it is at the eleventh hour. We oppose this bill.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. It’s a great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill that both updates the legislation to allow for a new and improved consenting regime and gets rid of tenure review. I am lucky enough to live in the beautiful Dunedin and spend a lot of my time in Otago and Central Otago, as do my children, so this environment is a place where I’ve grown up and studied in and where my children spend a lot of time as well. So it’s a very important place and it’s good to be standing here in this House and talking about the South Island. Five percent of the country is high country land so that means it’s about 10 percent of the South Island. In any comments of the iconic nature of this, I’m going to be thinking of Otago but I acknowledge other members here will be thinking about their parts of Te Wai Pounamu.

Now, we had a lot of submissions from people about that iconic environment. So we heard from the Merino Company about the importance of being able to market to the world our sustainable farming practices in this area and how important that is to a lot of our iconic merino products. We heard from Ngāi Tahu about how important those land forms are to them. I note that the current legislation that we have that we are going to be replacing—or amending, rather—doesn’t deal with any Treaty issues, any mana whenua issues, so the bill updates that, and the changes that we made in select committee improved upon what was introduced.

Of course, the farmers who submitted, obviously they also care a great deal about this magnificent environment, as do other people who submitted: different environmental groups, different recreational groups—widespread acknowledgment of the beauty and importance of these places. As the Minister mentioned, we were lucky as a select committee to go and visit two of those farms. So we went to Branch Creek Station, just next to Cardrona ski field and Minaret Station on Lake Wānaka—both very beautiful places, and thank you to the leaseholders of those stations for enabling the select committee to come and ask some very detailed questions and to see how those places operated. I think that really helped inform our decision making, particularly in regard to new Schedule 1AB. We also travelled around the South Island, as the Hon Scott Simpson just mentioned. We went to both Queenstown and Christchurch to hear submissions. And, as he also mentioned, Eugenie Sage was not in the chair for hearing the submissions and I was privileged to be in that position where my recollection is that I heard from all members of the committee, and everyone from both sides was very engaged.

So what does this Act do? It starts now with outcomes in its purpose and a key mechanism of the Act is the idea of inherent values. So in the purpose section, new section 1A set out in clause 5, now we are to maintain or enhance inherent values and they are defined—and we spent a lot of time in select committee working on that provision. There were many submissions on it and there’s been some amendments from the select committee. We were also working on the consenting regime. We’ve heard from the Minister that there are now permitted, discretionary, and prohibited activities and where you find the detail of what these activities are is in new Schedule 1AB. It might not be the first place you would look if you’re looking at this bill, but that’s where they are and you’ll see, if you look at that, that there were a lot of changes made by the select committee. And a lot of that I would attribute to the time spent on those farms and engaging with all the different farmers that we spoke to in the submission process.

Another change that the select committee made was around the provision for farm plans and regulations for those. Farm plans are a hot topic at the moment. They are a reasonably new thing and people have different ideas of what farm plans might be at the moment. We heard that Beef + Lamb have some farm plans, but those aren’t always going to be appropriate for the high country. We know, of course, with changes in the Resource Management Act that there’s a need for farm plans to do with water. Because this is something that’s not quite settled at the moment, the changes to the bill are that there’s some time for regulations to be made about what will be in those farm plans and that they’re optional. There was very good support for this by the farming submitters in terms of that it should enable farmers, when they have got a range of activities that they need to consent for, that they can bundle them together and work through the issues with Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) all at once and in an efficient and useful way. We also heard about the importance of LINZ and leaseholders working together, and we’ve just heard the Minister say how important that is. And I note just last week at the Environmental Defence Society conference that two high country farmers both called Kate were there and with LINZ as well, speaking about the importance of this legislation.

The other thing that bill does is to get rid of tenure review. And, again, for people who are new to the bill, it’s good to then just look at clause 9, which says, “Part 2 repealed—Repeal Part 2.” It’s quite simple. That part commences the day after the bill gets Royal assent, whereas the provisions relating to things like the regulations, they commence in six months’ time. I’m interested, as the Hon Scott Simpson said, in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has said he’ll bring to the next stage in the House.

So, as we’ve heard already, we had a lot of really impassioned submissions from people who very much care about the environment. And I’d like to pause for a second to recall Jess, who, as I remember, was aged nine, and gave a very powerful submission to us about the importance of her home farm environment, where she is home schooled, and how much she cares about the environment generally. Unlike the previous speaker, I think that the select committee members all were very interested in this and made very good contributions and I’d like to think the clerks for their really constructive process in particularly organising those field trips. It’s an unusual thing for a select committee to do. So, on that note, and accepting that there are different views, I thank the House for its time and commend the bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is—I wouldn’t say a pleasure, but I am speaking on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. I’d like to begin by actually acknowledging the people in my electorate who are on Crown pastoral lease properties who, at the moment, up in the Awatere, are actually stuck. So the road to the Awatere from the heavy rain has been closed from slips, and those slips may take weeks or longer to clear, and with the snow that we’ve had recently, they can no longer get out via Hanmer Springs. They’re stuck in there at the moment, but they will be watching, perhaps not live, but they will either be recording it, because they’ll probably be out in the snow raking and doing things like that, or they’ll watch it online later. So they will be watching. They have a pretty good idea where this has gone and is going, but they’re very interested in it.

Like the previous speakers, and, in fact, the previous speaker Rachel Brooking, I would like to acknowledge the effort that the clerk of the committee went to to arrange that trip. It was quite a lot of work to do. Rebecca, who’s now left the committee, did a fantastic job, and I think it was pretty frustrating, not that she ever let us know that, but she had one go at it, and then it all fell through and she had to go back and do it all again. So I’d like to acknowledge that. The select committee’s loss, I think, is the Cabinet Office’s gain.

But that said, the bill itself—I don’t agree with it. I don’t like it. I think it’s been very well explored by my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson, but I’d like to put my personal view on it from the experience of going to Branch Creek Station, as we did as a committee down at Cardrona in the Cardrona Valley, and, I’m sorry, the lady’s name and their daughters that we met, their names escape me at the moment, but what an impassioned presentation we got from those two ladies. We were right adjacent to the Cardrona ski field, where we were looking at that property, and what, I think, members of the public and the other members of the House have to understand is the differences we had starkly pointed out to us and observed. At Branch Creek Station, if they stop farming it, it reverts to bracken and will become a fire risk, a massive—

Nicola Grigg: Wilding pines, rabbits, deer.

STUART SMITH: Yeah, wilding pines, all of those things. In contrast Minaret Station, which we went to later in the day, if they stop farming that, it reverts to fern—goes straight back to native. So I think there’s a view, particularly from some of the submitters, against the bill that the farming practices are adversely affecting iconic high country. I would argue, actually, the reverse—they are preserving it—and in Branch Creep Station, it was very evident from their management how they were controlling that bracken. That family are putting a heck of a lot of work into that. It’s a tough grind. They’re up for it, they’re not looking for sympathy, but they put their heart and soul into that property, and you can see, and it was really something to behold the passion from both of those ladies about the land itself, not just the farm and not their personal financial reward they get out of the property. That wasn’t it; it was their connection to the land, their connection to that environment, and how they were working as hard as they could to preserve that and, what’s more, to preserve that way of life. That I think speaks volumes to the passion of those people.

As I said, we then drove up to “The Neck”, which is between Lake Hāwea and Lake Wānaka, and we were met by Jonathan Wallis from Minaret Station, who transported us across the lake to Minaret. Minaret is completely cut off—it’s landlocked. There is a road there and there are vehicles, but they only operate on the property. The only way in or out is by boat or by air. So we saw a completely different environment: higher rainfall and an almost 100 percent deer farm, and large parts of the higher part of the property shut off. But the lower part—and some of it irrigated—where the fawns are weened, those paddocks start to get fern coming up through the grass, the sown pastures, just before they start to graze it off, because that’s what happens. It would completely be overtaken by fern if they stop farming it—so, completely different from the other property. It will revert to native if they stop farming, and I thought that was a very stark—and I know all of the members of the committee were quite taken by that day and the contrast between the two properties. Jonathan and his passion for rural New Zealand, the land, and they were also raising their lamb, feeding them on chicory and so on—Headwaters is the brand that they’re selling it under. I thought that was very interesting for us all, because, of course, you were there, Madam Speaker, but it was a fascinating day. And I thought, when we all got off and we had a long boat trip back into Wānaka and then a drive back to Queenstown, I don’t think I struck anyone. Everyone was very taken by it. We all had a very similar experience. It’s just a pity we see the bill in a quite different light. But I’ll leave that there and you can work that out yourself.

Further to that, I took a drive up through the Awatere Valley after that to go and have another look at something completely different, which is in the Awatere Valley pastoral leases and how they are going to be impacted by this bill, and I was told I wasn’t allowed to take my four-wheel drive car, I had to take a ute, and I took a four-wheel drive ute for a legitimate use. We drove up the valley and what really became obvious in the Molesworth property next door to Muller Station and the way that they are being managed is the wilding pine issue, and this is where we have a problem. So the Department Of Conservation manages a large part of that upper valley, and we’ve got a significant wilding pine issue. Grazing merino wethers on those blocks that are exposed to the wilding pines—when those small little seedlings coming through, the merino wethers will eat that—they’ll eat that; cattle won’t. So they’ll eat that, they control them, and any that get away, that are missed by the stock—because once they get a little bit too big, they won’t eat it—they come in with a helicopter and spot-spray them. It’s such a vast area to cover; it’s the only way they can deal with it.

So we saw private enterprise pastoral lease farmers managing and doing a fantastic job of managing noxious weeds, and that’s what a wilding pine is, it’s a noxious weed. I can tell you, Madam Speaker—I know you’ve seen it for yourself—I could not believe, once we got close to Hanmer Springs, the absolute area overtaken by wilding pines was unbelievable, and it is on its way. It’s heading up—we could see on the next ridge over, trees just getting to the top of it. Once they get to the top, that seed rain will go a long way in the wind. They’re not quite there yet; they will get there in the next year or so, and they won’t stop till they get to Kaikōura. It is an environmental disaster. That is why I think this bill is so short-sighted. Leave the farmers to continue to do it.

What we’re imposing on them with this regime of rules is pernicious. If central planning worked, the Soviet empire would not have had a massive drop in agricultural production when the communists took over, and that’s exactly what happened. I’m not saying this is communist, but I’m drawing a parallel. It’s very close to it. Central planning does not work, and it’s absolutely the case, and that is what will happen. We’ll have all this rules regime, there’ll be reporting to some bureaucrat somewhere in Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) about how you’re going to be farming your property, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, no, no, you can’t do that.” It may well be the best practice for that particular property, and each one is different, like Branch Creek Station and like Minaret Station. Trying to impose what Minaret do on Branch Creek would not work, just as it wouldn’t the other way around.

We also went to the Lakes Station in Canterbury and Lake Taylor—quite different again. More akin to, I think, Branch Creek than the other properties that we went to, but, again, a different form of management is needed on that property, and I just don’t think LINZ will get that. I do not think they will get the nuances in between managing those different environments. It is a beautiful part of New Zealand, it is something that is engrained in our culture, and we all identify with it. Some of us have never been there; many of us have. I condemn this to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, and, in doing so, I’ll just make the point that the Environment Committee, which I am a member of, decided at the start of this new term of the Parliament to reinstate this particular bill. It has been interesting, as a new member of this House, to be part of a process where submissions were still called for through to the hearings and through to second reading. So I just thought I’d indicate that.

Like the speakers that have spoken before me, I also want to acknowledge the submitters that took the time to submit and those, also, that took the extra effort to speak to the select committee. We did hear from submitters in person here in Wellington but also in Christchurch and in Queenstown. I agree with Stuart Smith, the previous speaker, in that, yes, we had an opportunity as a select committee to visit the high country—parts, actually, Madam Speaker, of your own electorate in Queenstown—and, yes, Mr Smith and I, along with another colleague, shared a vehicle in terms of the trip, and it was a wonderful opportunity to see firsthand a wonderful part of the country. However, all things considered, where we’ve landed is that this bill is the way forward. It is a stunning part of the country that, actually, all New Zealanders should be able to have access to experience.

I want to acknowledge the hospitality from the High Country Accord and also the people from Land Information New Zealand, their advisers, and the committee staff, who made sure that, logistically, things were able to move smoothly. Can I also acknowledge the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking, who chaired those hearings, and also the chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who, actually, I think, is able to contribute to the work of the Environment Committee, and I want to acknowledge the role that she’s continued to play there.

There are a few things that I do want to just cover in my contribution to the House this afternoon. I was going to talk a little bit about public access considerations. And it was one thing, when we were on site in the high country, talking about the opportunity for members of the public, recreational users, to have free access to that part of Aotearoa New Zealand; however, I note that the Minister has indicated that he has asked officials, as part of the committee of the whole House process, to come back with some options around that. So I’ll wait until that particular point.

But I do want to just indicate that what we did hear, as a committee, from interested parties was the importance of iwi representation and involvement in the process. I mean, there are a number of additions to sections in the bill, largely in new sections 22B and 22D that will allow for continued opportunities for iwi representation alongside lessee and leaseholder representatives, as well, to participate in the consultation process around the framework in the former new section and the strategic intentions document in the latter. So that’s good. But there is also an opportunity—an obligation, I guess—for those documents to be published, and that aligns itself with, in the committee report, on the second page there, the bill seeking to “provide stronger and clearer accountability and transparency in the department’s administration of Crown pastoral land, with more public involvement.” So that is a fantastic step—this bill—and a change that has been introduced, and that flows through to new sections 100N and 100O. I do think it is part of the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principle of Te Tiriti, and so, in the bill, you will see that that has been captured as well.

There is, no doubt, a desire for transparency. Additions that have been made through the select committee process also ensure that that transparency by way of the commissioner and the decisions that he or she may make is publicly available as well.

My colleague Rachel Brooking has already touched on farm plans, and I know that, through the select committee, we did hear about farm plans and we heard about the journeys, I guess, that some submitters had embarked upon, that they continue to be a work in progress, that they are a tool, I guess, that is accepted by submitters and those within the industry. But the suggestion that they would form part of the primary legislation is actually not ideally placed; the better place for them is in the regulation so that there is some flux and flow and that they continue to be part of that wider tool kit within the legislative framework.

I want to just also touch on the new emergency provisions, because this was something that the select committee turned its mind to. In situations where a lessee or leaseholder, an occupier, may be required to undertake some emergency works in terms of clearing vegetation by a way of burning or, perhaps, disturbance of soil, that instead of requiring them to go and obtain a consent through the commissioner, that they could simply get on and do that work but not abrogate the responsibility to still achieve consent to do that, albeit retrospectively. I think that is actually a fair balance between allowing this work to be undertaken and also the responsibility on occupiers or lessees to none the less ensure that there is consent achieved.

The final point that I want to touch on is around the infringement process, because we had a lot of discussion around this. Sure, the Commissioner of Crown Lands still has an opportunity to take any alleged breaches by occupiers or lessees through to the District Court, but this new introduction of an infringement process, I think, actually is a sensible way forward because it introduces a new section 100GA, and I note from the National Party view in the select committee report that there was a suggestion that, actually, there should be a conversation first and that perhaps other options should be identified before an infringement is issued. What is proposed in the bill as it currently stands is no different to how other infringements would actually be issued. I don’t see the distinction between the two. So I am supportive of the new reference to the infringement process, noting that the commissioner still has an opportunity to directly go to the District Court if he or she chooses.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee, and I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m very pleased to stand and speak in support of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. It was indeed a privilege to introduce this bill as Minister for Land Information last term and then to serve on the select committee while it considered the submissions on the bill. The fact that there is a 15-page, quite detailed report explaining the differences between the bill as introduced and the bill as being reported back to the House, I think, highlights the huge work of submitters in providing the committee with some very substantial submissions, the work of Land Information New Zealand officials, the select committee secretariat, and also Parliamentary Counsel. So, like others, I would like to acknowledge all of that and also repeat the thanks that colleagues have given to the High Country Accord for organising the visit with the secretariat on Branch Creek Station and Minaret. And, I think, Stuart Smith’s comments at some length on that visit highlight the benefits when select committees actually get out into the field and hear from submitters in their own place on their own ground, and just the real practical insights that that gave us.

I would also like to acknowledge all of the leaseholders who made submissions and described their leases, their history on them, whether they’d been in the family, just some of the issues that they deal with, and the challenges that they deal with day to day. That gave us a really good background context for considering the legislation. But I do reject the statements by the Hon Scott Simpson that there was an ideological basis for this bill.

National’s concern is with the protection of property rights. One of the reasons for the bill was the quite significant public concern that the Crown interest, because the Crown is the owner of these 2.5 million hectares of South Island high country, the lack of protection of the Crown interest in the high country, and the quite extensive regulatory review that Land Information New Zealand did, highlighting problems with the existing statutory regime, the fact that it was perceived as largely process driven, that it didn’t have clear outcomes, the major concerns about tenure review, and the fact that the Crown interest was not being protected there—were part of the reasons for the bill.

We heard from Dr Bill Lee of Manaaki Whenua in support of Forest & Bird, and it was just he highlighted particularly that wider public interest in high country lands on pastoral leases; the mosaic of vegetation; the significance of the species, because they’re often quite distinctive species like the Brachaspis robustus, the grasshopper; the huge ecosystem-services values that the high country provides to downstream users in terms of harvesting water, for example; and the use that folk downstream make of that. So protecting these upper catchment areas, ensuring that inherent values are sustained, benefits all of us, both in terms of carbon capture, source stability, and that harvesting of water. So the discretionary consent regime, which the bill significantly changes and which the select committee is suggesting be improved further, is a critical part of safeguarding inherent values, the Crown’s interest, and the public interest in the sustainable management of this land while providing for a secure long-term future for pastoral farming.

There were some submitters and some in this House who have argued that we just leave it all to the leaseholders, that there hasn’t been any evidence of degradation in the high country, and, I think, Federated Farmers argued that. I would remind members of the evidence that was presented by Dr Lee and others that even in the Mackenzie Basin alone, 68,000 hectares of indigenous vegetation, over 22 percent of the floor of the basin, was completely changed, destroying the indigenous character of that, between 1990 and 2017. Dr Lee had some very compelling maps just showing the major change with very bright-green areas that had highlighted that conversion. So, again, some clarity around inherent values, how they are to be managed, how the discretionary consent process is to be managed are at the heart of this bill in order to ensure that those values are sustained long term.

The bill also ends tenure review. And the public concern about that was that large areas of land which had been free-holded through tenure review were being intensively developed, and the loss, again, of that landscape, character and indigenous vegetation. Dr Ann Brower in her submission highlighted that, in net terms, the Crown had paid across some $57 million as at 2017, while disposing of more land, some 436,000 hectares being free-holded with 371,842 hectares becoming conservation land. So more land being free-holded, yet, in net terms, the Crown paid out net $57 million to leaseholders. That inequity and the fact that the Crown was not getting a good outcome through the tenure review process is again another reason for ending it.

As one former pastoral lessee who had been through tenure review—Dr Gerry McSweeney—noted leaseholders had had 20 years to decide whether they wanted to go through tenure review. It is now time that it ends. And as Dr McSweeney also highlighted, just the increasing diversification in the high country now earning more from mānuka honey on that property near Arthur’s Pass than from annual calf sales.

Natural landscapes and nature are really the defining feature of the high country and how those lands are managed. So, with the changes in this bill, I think it will significantly improve that, along with the fact that Land Information New Zealand is no longer working through third-party organisations, consultants; it is much more actively involved in working with leaseholders.

Now, Stuart Smith talked about the wilding conifer problem. That cannot just be left to leaseholders. Certainly, in their leases they have a responsibility to keep leases free of pests and weeds. But it has been the Crown in a partnership which has invested over $100 million over four years in tackling the weed tree, the wilding conifer threat. Some of that money, quite a chunk of it, is being invested on pastoral lease land, and that is supported by leaseholders. So that is what this bill is also about.

Points made by others that I’d just also like to underline: a much better commitment to the Treaty partnership and giving effect to Treaty principles in the bill, and the select committee strengthened that; the infringement offences, which did cause some concern amongst the leaseholding community, are a standard feature of most legislation. It is an ability to go in—rather than with a neutron bomb of going to the High Court implementing proceedings—with a fines procedure where there may have been an activity like burning, cultivation undertaken without the requisite discretionary consent under the Act.

Similarly, just with concerns around things like offsetting, some submitters wanted this. This is not part of this bill because of that overall concern to actually ensure that we sustain the inherent values of pastoral lease lands and we have a better regime which ensures that pastoral farming can continue, but that those inherent values are much more to the fore in decisions about what sort of activities should take place, given that the pastoral lease provides for a right of pasturage and quiet enjoyment, but not of cultivation, burning, and destruction of biodiversity. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I support the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): With apologies to the member, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 August.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.