Tuesday, 28 September 2021
Volume 754
Sitting date: 28 September 2021
TUESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2021
TUESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
karakia/prayers
karakia/prayers
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.
[Allow peace to prevail over us once again. Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of John Dennison, requesting that the House initiate an investigation into the competency of the South Wairarapa District Council
petition of Wendy Baker, requesting that the House inquire into the implementation by territorial authorities of the Dog Control Act 1997
petition of Santiago Gonzalez Novillo, requesting that the House urge the Minister of Immigration to split skilled migrant category and residence from work residency applications into two separate and independent queues, and resource them appropriately.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK: Annual reports of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and KiwiSaver.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Allan Halse, the petition of Joanna Bissett-Clark, and the petition of Louise Clunie
reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Anu Kaloti and the petition of Tyra Gabb
report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 10) Amendment Order 2021
report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Ruby Powell.
SPEAKER: The inquiry and the report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill, introduction
COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. What reports has he received on the resilience of the New Zealand economy to the impacts of COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s science and health - led approach has been reflected in the latest employment figures. Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted filled jobs grew 0.7 percent in August compared with a month earlier. The number of jobs is now 3.9 percent above the same time last year. Westpac bank commented, “That strength came despite the country being under a COVID-19 lockdown for the last two weeks of the month”. As we’ve seen on past occasions, the wage subsidy scheme plays an important role in keeping workers attached to their jobs, with the adjustment more likely occurring through reduction in hours worked. We know that the impact of COVID-19 has been uneven and we will continue to work with affected sectors to support them in these uncertain times.
Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the resilience in the jobs market?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s plan to secure our recovery has been reflected in New Zealanders’ perceptions of the jobs market. Last week, the quarterly Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Index rose 1.8 points to 105.7 in September, as people felt optimistic about their job prospects despite the lockdown. Confidence was mixed across the country, though, with a solid gain in Auckland and Northland and some declines in more tourism-heavy regions such as Nelson, Marlborough, and the West Coast. Perceptions of current job opportunities rose strongly, with the balance of households now seeing jobs as plentiful. Westpac notes that this survey question has tended to be a useful leading indicator of unemployment, and supports its view that unemployment will actually drop below 4 percent in the coming quarters.
Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the Government’s debt-servicing costs as a result of COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I am aware of an alarmist and erroneous report that we are carrying too much debt in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that our debt-servicing costs are set to overwhelm the Budget. I would like to reassure the House and particularly members on the other side that this is not the case. Under this Government, our net debt is well below what was forecast when COVID struck last year and, indeed, below many of the countries we compare ourselves with in the OECD. Under the careful stewardship of this Government, core Crown finance costs have fallen as a percentage of GDP from 1.5 percent, on average, between 2011 and 2017, to 1 percent from 2018 to 2021, and, in fact, the Treasury forecast that this would fall even further over the next four years. Our debt-servicing costs are set to remain lower than countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What comfort will that data on jobs be for the 8,067 people who have gone on to jobseeker support since 18 August—the last lockdown—and does he agree that the longer the lockdown goes on, the greater the number of jobs lost will be?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The comfort that those people who have lost their jobs can take is that the last time New Zealand went through a lockdown period, the economy rebounded quickly and decisively, and more people have gone into work and we’ve ended up with unemployment at 4 percent—one of the lowest rates in the OECD. It is always difficult for people when they lose their jobs, but this Government will support them back into work.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the progress being made on the Government’s reconnecting New Zealand framework for reopening borders and moving to an individualised, risk-based model for quarantine-free travel. In August, we announced a phased approach to reopening the borders, with the aim of establishing new testing and vaccine checking systems in the first quarter of 2022. This week, Cabinet confirmed that from 4 October, Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers from Vanuatu can begin arriving into New Zealand, and from 12 October, quarantine-free travel for RSE workers from Samoa and Tonga will begin. This will provide much-needed certainty for our growers as they gear up for summer and autumn harvesting. This week, expressions of interest will open for the business self-isolation pilot. The pilot will test the systems and identify areas where further work is required to scale up the approach as we look forward to 2022.
Hon Judith Collins: Will Kiwis overseas be able to come home for Christmas under her Government’s border plan?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, as they are already able to do. We have released, in recent weeks, enough rooms for an additional 5,000 individuals from over 100 different countries, and this evening there is another release of well over 3,000 rooms across the October, November, and December period. Unfortunately, at the time this year when we had rooms available—which, if I recall correctly, was around the middle of the year, particularly around June; there were rooms available and vacant—that was not the time when there was high demand. I understand people wish to come home for summer and Christmas, and I encourage those who wish to do so to jump online tonight and to seek some of those more than 3,000 vouchers available.
Hon Judith Collins: Of the 30,000 New Zealanders seeking to come home for Christmas, how many of them will be able to do so without having to go through the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) lottery?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not how I would frame the MIQ booking system, but we had roughly 12,000 individuals who, up into that period, will be able to access New Zealand in the lead-up to summer. But it is clear that that seems to be where people are generally aiming, because in the last release, the rooms that were the last to go, that took a couple of hours before they were booked, were the most immediate ones, so the ones that were available in September were the last ones to go, and the ones that were available around December and January were amongst the first. So it is clear that there’s really high demand, and the highest demand regions are Australia first and UK second. So it gives you a bit of a sense of where people’s needs are. But when it comes to the self-isolation pilot, we’ll be running that through October through to December. The work has been done so that then, in 2022, once we have more vaccinated New Zealanders, we’ll be in a position to use that more broadly, and we’re also investigating the possibility of shortened isolation periods as well.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen suggestions that we should both not be picking and choosing who can come back into the country whilst also imposing a greater degree of prioritisation on those who have access to managed isolation spaces?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I have. I believe the member may be referring to a former member of this House, but to be clear, I cannot necessarily attribute that to the strategy of the National Party or not, so I’ll leave that, as a suggestion, where it lies, albeit a contradictory one.
Hon Judith Collins: What is the criteria for her to announce a change to level 2 for Auckland next week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same criteria that we’ve used all the way through: taking a very close look at whether or not we have good containment, whether or not we have unlinked cases that suggest we have a wider outbreak that still may not yet have been manifest, and our ability to safely move through the alert levels. One thing I would draw a distinction between: we are not in the same position as Australia who, for instance, are easing restrictions based on vaccines. We do still have an outbreak here in Auckland that means there is not widespread undetected community transmission, and that has enabled us to ease restrictions, but we’ll continue to focus on doing so safely.
Hon Judith Collins: When will she release the most recent health advice that has informed the Cabinet decisions about alert levels during the most recent outbreak?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We actually verbally give a read out on that advice on the day that it’s provided. Dr Bloomfield is always asked what advice he provides, and he provides it. And so, for the last decision—despite, I do recall, the member trying to assert that we took a different decision to the advice that was provided around the alert level change; that was not correct—it is very rare for us to do anything markedly different than the advice that we receive from Health. But, otherwise, my recollection is that, as part of all our proactive releases, the written advice gets released, but, again, as I say, on the day, we often give that verbal report of what we’ve been advised by the director-general.
Hon Judith Collins: Why is the rest of the country outside Auckland still in level 2?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because there is an outbreak of Delta in Auckland.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she have a plan to keep Delta in Auckland away from, say, Invercargill that doesn’t involve the South Island being in level 2?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, hopefully, it involves that member being regularly tested.
Hon Judith Collins: Being what?
SPEAKER: I am not going to ask the Prime Minister to repeat it.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she think that the South Island finds that comment from her particularly funny while they’re stuck in level 2 and they haven’t seen COVID-19 for almost a year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was plainly a reference to those who have been in Auckland who may be able to travel as an essential worker being regularly tested, because that is part of our regime now—that those who may have the ability to move around other parts of the country, to reduce the risk to those other parts of the country, to have a seven-day testing cycle. So that is one of the measures we have in place, but as we’ve seen with, unfortunately, a case that we did have of someone who was a legitimate freight worker, where we had a case where that individual was found to have travelled into the Bay of Plenty, not every system will capture everything, which is why we continue to have the rest of the country in a cautious state to ensure that, if we do have the emergence of a case, rather than having to put that area, be it Invercargill or anywhere else, into a higher alert level, we give ourselves a better chance to be able to contact trace that without heightened restrictions. So I think most understand why we’re doing that, and if you ask, “Would you rather be in level 2 and be cautious, or run the risk of a case and going into a lockdown?”, I suspect many would opt for that cautious approach.
David Seymour: How frequently was waste water being tested in the Tauranga region under this cautious state? Was it daily, was it weekly, was it—
SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked his question.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So we had a positive on Thursday, 23 September. Prior to that, we had a not detected on Tuesday the 21st.
Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response
3. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements have been made on reconnecting New Zealand following COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, I announced new details of the Government’s self-isolation pilot, part of the reconnecting New Zealanders plan that we announced back in August. We are seeking expressions of interest from up to 150 people to participate in this pilot. It’s aimed at business travellers, allowing them to travel overseas on a short business trip and self-isolate in approved accommodation for 14 days from their return. The pilot will explore a new pathway of entry into New Zealand and it allows the Government to test operational readiness, identify areas where further work is required to scale up this approach, and provide valuable insights into our options for the future. The pilot’s a key step in our phased approach to reopening the border so that New Zealanders can reconnect with the world early next year.
Dr Gaurav Sharma: What other recent announcements have been made regarding self-isolating pilots?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yesterday, the Government announced further details of one-way quarantine-free travel arrangements with Vanuatu, Samoa, and Tonga. Recognised Seasonal Employment scheme (RSE) workers from Vanuatu can begin arriving into New Zealand from 4 October, and Samoan and Tongan workers can start arriving from 12 October, providing much-needed certainty for our growers as they gear up for summer and autumn harvesting. People arriving under this scheme must meet strict health conditions, including a requirement to be vaccinated with at least one dose pre-departure. They must complete a period of self-isolation on arrival and return negative COVID-19 tests at day zero and day five. Employers will be providing the self-isolation facilities. This commencement of quarantine-free travel for RSE workers forms another pilot scheme that will also test systems in preparation for a broader and safe reopening of our borders.
Dr Gaurav Sharma: How do these announcements fit into the Government’s wider plan for reconnecting with the world?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These two pilots will be critical for reopening our borders, moving to an individualised risk - based model for quarantine-free travel. This individual risk - based approach requires new systems to be set up, including ongoing work on the development of a traveller health declaration system, investigating new testing technology for rapid testing on arrival at airports, and reliable pre-departure testing. Obviously, right now, getting vaccinated is the number one thing everybody can do to be protected against COVID-19, to help accelerate our economic recovery, to remove the need for lockdowns, and to safely allow New Zealand’s borders to begin to reopen.
Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his actions, if any, around hospital resources and waiting lists?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes, and, in particular, I stand by my action of telling the New Zealand Nurses Organisation conference earlier this month that “In 2015 and 2016, no money whatsoever was spent on building new hospital wards and facilities—not a cent.”
Dr Shane Reti: Why, as he stated in answer to written questions, was a request from Auckland DHB to build negative pressure rooms earlier this year, using $6 million that was underspent on a completed building project, rejected by health officials?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to, but funding was made available to DHBs for upgrades of facilities, including creating negative pressure rooms. Many of the DHBs took advantage of that; some did not. I’m not quite sure what, specifically in relation to Auckland DHB, he is referring to, but I have inspected the additional negative pressure spaces that Auckland DHB have created.
Dr Shane Reti: Did he receive a request from Auckland DHB to build extra negative pressure rooms?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I, as Minister, don’t receive those requests. Funding was made available, and it is for the ministry, in its engagement with DHBs, following through on the programme agreed to at the end of last year, following last year’s lockdowns, to make hospitals better prepared for treating COVID patients.
Dr Shane Reti: What action has he taken to address the backlog of in-patient procedures caused by the lockdown, and has the Government caught up with the backlog from last year’s lockdown?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government last year approved $282.5 million over a three-year period to deal with the backlog caused by lockdowns last year. We’ve also approved an additional $90 million in this year’s Budget to continue to assist DHBs with that work. The reality is, lockdowns and COVID outbreaks cause disruption and cause disruption to DHBs and hospitals; that will have continued in the most recent lockdown, and I’m confident that the ministry, in its engagement with DHBs, is closely monitoring what is happening and further assistance will be provided as required.
Dr Shane Reti: Is he confident then that he has done enough to prepare our hospitals for coronavirus?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can go back to what has been done since last year’s lockdowns and outbreaks. Since that time, the Ministry of Health has set up a dedicated group led by Russell Simpson, the CEO of Whanganui DHB, on a considerable programme of preparing our hospitals for future outbreaks and a new regime, as against a highly vaccinated population.
Question No. 5—ACC
5. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for ACC: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. What recent announcement has she made about improving health and equity outcomes for women?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for Food Safety) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Today, I announce that we’re proposing to amend ACC legislation to cover more injuries experienced by women during childbirth. This change will help up to 18,000 more women per year, who will be able to receive cover for maternal birth injuries. This important change is the first of its kind and a first step towards improving the gender balance, fairness, and equity of the ACC scheme.
Sarah Pallett: Why is this change important?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Eighty-five percent of women in New Zealand experience a form of birthing injury and, of these, 5 percent are severe enough to require ongoing treatment and care. Many birthing injuries—for example, bruising and tearing—share similar features to other physical injuries, such as accidents, that are covered by ACC, so it’s only fair that these injuries are covered too. This list of birthing injuries has been developed and tested with ACC and medical experts, including specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology.
Sarah Pallett: What feedback has she seen on today’s announcement?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The New Zealand College of Midwives have welcomed the change in an announcement saying, “We are very pleased to see that our feedback, along with that from many others in the sector, was taken seriously and ACC’s approach to this category will be reviewed.” And obstetrician and Auckland University lecturer Dr Michelle Wise said, “This enables women to have a whole other source of cover for things like physiotherapy, which is really important to get help to recover and [to minimise] symptoms.”
Question No. 6—Prime Minister
6. DAVID SEYMOUR (ACT—Epsom) to the Prime Minister: Ni hao. Does she stand by her statement that “Every New Zealander has had an opportunity to be vaccinated now”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I went on to say, “There will be some who may have access issues, and we’re actively reaching out, particularly to those who may be isolated or disabled, to overcome those barriers.” The Government is working with DHBs and health providers to increase vaccination rates across all our communities. This weekend, we reached another milestone, with more than 5 million vaccinations administered and 1.8 million New Zealanders being fully vaccinated. That represents nearly 44 percent of our eligible population. In Auckland, 82 percent of the eligible population have now had their first vaccine. I’ve said before, it’s not enough for the country as a whole to have high vaccination rates. We need to ensure a high uptake right across New Zealand. Our plan reconnecting New Zealand is all about building on our vaccine roll-out, though, to connect all New Zealanders to the world in a safe way.
David Seymour: How can she stand by her statement that “Every New Zealander has … an opportunity to be vaccinated now” when those in group 4 have had only four weeks since 1 September and they have to wait six weeks for their second dose?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because at the time, the member was implying that there wasn’t enough vaccine available for someone to access the vaccine today if they would like to, and my response was that that was incorrect. We did have the supply. We have walk-ins, drive-throughs, the ability to be vaccinated today. If the member wished for me to extrapolate—that full vaccination, of course, would take a minimum of a 21-day delay between the first and second dose, and then another 14 days for full efficacy—I would have been happy to expand on that answer.
David Seymour: By what date does the Government consider every New Zealander will have had the chance to be double vaccinated?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, obviously, we now have availability and bookings available up and down the country. For the member’s edification, we also—I see he’s put it up as a new idea—actually already have 867 primary care sites and 325 non-primary care sites, so pharmacies and the like, where vaccines are available. So there are opportunities up and down the country. I think what you can see, though, from the vaccine numbers that we have at the moment is that like many other countries—some reached this point sooner than us—we’ve reached a point now where we now are having conversations with individuals around their, perhaps, reluctance to be vaccinated, and it is taking a bit of that extra effort from those on the ground to work with those who have as yet not accessed a vaccine, even though the availability is there.
David Seymour: Why were approximately half the pharmacies and half the GPs in Auckland still waiting to be on-boarded into the vaccine roll-out two weeks ago—that is, six months after the roll-out started?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A number have been on-boarded progressively as our supply has increased, but I don’t think there’s any suggestion that people aren’t able to access a vaccine quickly and easily at this point in the programme.
David Seymour: Will the Government consider its vaccine roll-out to be complete when every eligible New Zealander has had an opportunity to have both doses, where 90 percent of eligible New Zealanders have had an opportunity to have or have had both doses, or when 90 percent of eligible people in each ethnic group have had both doses?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve referred to 90-plus. So whilst we haven’t said we have this Government proclamation around a target, we have said that we want “The higher the better”. We’ve talked about 90-plus because, keep in mind, 90-plus of the current eligible population only equates to about 75 percent of New Zealanders, and we have seen in countries with even rates like that that they are continuing to have to use restrictions. We don’t want to use those, which is why the higher that we are in our vaccination rates, the fewer restrictions we see.
I can see the member’s point he’s trying to make. You are trying to make an assertion that once everyone’s had a chance, it then comes down to their personal responsibility. But with vaccination, it is just not going to work like that, because if an individual is vaccinated but they still want to be able to access healthcare, then that implies that we don’t have an overrun health workforce or overrun hospitals. It implies that you won’t have outbreaks somehow, but we know that that won’t be the case. If we have a proportion of New Zealanders who opt out, we will have outbreaks that will lead to restrictions, and that will impinge on everyone’s lives. So it is not a simple equation of “If you’ve just had a chance, then unfortunately game’s up and it’s all over for everyone.” It is not as simple as that. If only the world were that simple.
David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister just give the House and the New Zealand public a straightforward answer to the question: when will she define the vaccine programme or roll-out as being complete?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I did at the beginning of my answer. I said very clearly that we’re aiming for above 90 percent, because even that only equates to roughly 75 percent of New Zealanders. The higher we have our rates, the more likely it is that we’ll be able to live without having to have some of those restrictions that have impacted on our daily lives. We’ve also said we want to see good even spread. If you have large pockets of, for instance, young people who are unvaccinated or, indeed, large pockets of towns, you will see heavy impacts in those areas, because you don’t have an even spread of vaccine.
Question No. 7—Finance
7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received, if any, on the economic impact on New Zealand businesses of the alert levels imposed across New Zealand since 18 August?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve received a steady stream of advice from many sources about the economic impact on New Zealand businesses under the alert levels, actually, since March last year but also since 18 August. I would test the Speaker’s patience if I listed each piece of that advice, but to give the member a flavour of what I’ve been receiving: underpinning all of this has been the continued advice that New Zealand’s alert level system has helped us maintain one of the strongest economies in the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with strong economic growth, low unemployment, and lower than expected debt. Just today, Statistics New Zealand released data showing the number of jobs in the economy rose by nearly 16,000, or 0.7 percent, across August. The advice we get continues to back our strategy since the start of COVID-19 that the best economic response is a strong public health response.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that the wage subsidy and resurgence support payments do little to help with fixed operating costs associated with running many businesses under Delta alert level 2 or 3?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a range of views expressed about the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support programme. What we do know is that the resurgence support programme is particularly focused on fixed costs because it does not in any way have to be linked to wage payments.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does he say to members of the accommodation and hospitality sectors who sought meetings with him to explain their plight, only to be passed on to the Minister of Tourism, who told them his diary is too full?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s question. I’ve met with representatives of the hospitality industry.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that if over 35,000 businesses who applied for the wage subsidy still hadn’t received it 35 days after New Zealand went into lockdown, there’s a strong likelihood that businesses will close and thousands of New Zealanders will lose their jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it’s important to note that around 91 percent of applications for the wage subsidy scheme are paid out within the three-day target that has been set. For those businesses who have not been able to have their application processed, there is now a strong programme of outward calling from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the Inland Revenue Department. As I’ve said in this House before, I strongly urge those who apply for these programmes to make sure that the details that they provide about their business are the same as those that are held by Inland Revenue if they’re applying to MSD. We continue to work with the agencies to do as much as possible to follow up on those cases.
Question No. 8—Health
8. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has he made on the progress of the Health and Disability System Review reforms?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week, my colleague Peeni Henare and I announced the appointments of an outstanding group of people with extensive and wide-ranging governance and health experience to the interim boards for Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. I was pleased to announce that Rob Campbell has been appointed as the chair of Health New Zealand, and Sharon Shea and Tipa Mahuta as co-chairs of the Māori Health Authority. The board of Health New Zealand will also include the Hon Amy Adams, Cassandra Crowley, the Hon Vui Mark Gosche, Dame Karen Poutasi, Vanessa Stoddart, Dr Curtis Walker, and Sharon Shea. As well as the co-chairs of the Māori Health Authority, the board of that organisation will also comprise Dr Sue Crengle, Dr Mataroria Lyndon, Lady Tureiti Moxon, Fiona Pimm, Awerangi Tamihere, and Dr Chris Tooley.
Dr Liz Craig: What do these announcements mean for the future of the health sector?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government is building a truly national health system, to provide consistent, high-quality services right across the country. This is another step towards fixing the health system so it works for everyone. Health New Zealand will bring together the country’s 20 district health boards, a workforce of about 80,000 people, an annual operating budget of $20 billion, and an asset base of about $24 billion. The Māori Health Authority will work alongside Health New Zealand with a joint role in developing system plans and commissioning for primary and community services, and will commission kaupapa Māori services. The Māori Health Authority will also work alongside the Ministry of Health to develop strategies and policies that work for Māori.
Dr Liz Craig: What do these appointments mean for New Zealanders?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The members of the new boards share a dedication to improve the country’s health and wellbeing, with a strong community focus. I’m confident our new health entities are in the best possible hands to drive this long-overdue transformation. This marks a significant milestone in progress towards a more equitable health system. The future health system that we’re developing will mean that New Zealanders will be able to have equitable access to healthcare, to live longer with the best possible quality of life, no matter who they are or where they live.
Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions in response to COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes, in particular my ongoing statement that this Government will continue to improve the COVID-19 response by keeping an open mind to new innovation or advancement that could help in the fight against the virus. We operate a model of continual improvement, which means that as new science and technology comes to light, we incorporate these into our response, and that’s allowed us to keep New Zealanders safe whilst maintaining as many freedoms as possible. Strong control of the virus within New Zealand will ensure that we maintain the economic and social stability, freedoms, and health outcomes that our team of 5 million have earned with our elimination approach.
Chris Bishop: Has he seen the photos of US President Joe Biden receiving his first booster shot in the last 24 hours, and why has New Zealand still not ordered any booster vaccine doses?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is simply not true—the latter part of the statement is simply not true. We have got available to us a portfolio of vaccines over the next year, and we continue to add to that portfolio.
Chris Bishop: Why did New Zealand only start to record the vaccination status of people entering managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) on August 23 this year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that’s when we started to record the vaccination status of people entering MIQ. Up until that point, and even now, it’s still largely an interesting piece of information but it isn’t necessarily telling us a lot. There is still risk associated with those people, including those who have been vaccinated.
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statements on the Government’s purchasing of the Pfizer vaccine in light of the statement by Pfizer that accusations that New Zealand could have paid for earlier access to the vaccine are “incorrect and baseless”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I have consistently said, New Zealand has never had an option to pay more for doses in order to get access to them earlier. This is not Saudi sheep we’re talking about, and suggestions to the contrary suggest that big pharma has a higher ethical and moral threshold than some of the members opposite.
SPEAKER: I think the member in his final comment went—well, at least by implication, he went too far. The inference I took from it was a lack of moral standing on the part of the Opposition. The member can’t say that. He will withdraw and apologise.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, how can it be possible that the Minister stands by his statements when Chris Bishop has repeatedly said we could have got access to vaccine by paying for it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I simply refer everybody to the statements made by Pfizer: New Zealand has never—never—been offered the opportunity to get earlier access to vaccines. Pfizer have been operating a global allocation model to ensure that countries have equitable access to vaccines. They have worked constructively with us to supply vaccines as quickly as they have been able to, and we have also been able to bring extra doses into the country by purchasing them off other countries, and Pfizer have worked with us to help facilitate that.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why the Prime Minister’s first phone call with the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, was not until March 2021 this year, and is he aware of why she didn’t pick up the phone and call the Pfizer CEO in 2020, when we were negotiating the vaccine contracts?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I simply remind that member that the National Party late last year and early this year were demanding to know whether we were going to have access to AstraZeneca vaccines, because at that point that was the vaccine of choice for some of the members opposite, and they were arguing that we hadn’t done enough to secure access to that vaccine. The decision to increase the order for Pfizer was made early this year. Shortly after we made that decision, the Prime Minister made her call to Pfizer to see how quickly we could get those delivered.
Nicole McKee: What actions is the Minister taking through COVID-19 orders to ensure that those caught up in firearms licensing delays are not forced to break the law?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t taken any particular action with regard to that, but if the member wants to have a conversation about it, then I’m happy to look at it.
Question No. 10—Local Government
10. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her comments on Three Waters reforms that “Pausing the reform discussion will not help to respond to the significant challenges facing councils”; if so, why?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Yes, because the case for change is compelling, well understood, and needs to be addressed. Doing nothing is simply not an option. To expect a responsible Government to ignore the evidence would be simply irresponsible. The proposed reforms focus on how this country can most efficiently and effectively deliver an investment of $120 billion to $185 billion over the next 30 years to transform water outcomes for all New Zealanders. Central and local government working together would make sense so taxpayers and ratepayers get the long-term benefits of a significant step change.
Rachel Brooking: What has she done to ensure that the local government sector are well informed and contributing to the Three Waters work programme?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: From the beginning, I’ve worked in good faith to define the nature, scale, and extent of the Three Waters challenge, and, while a complex issue, some councils have been well engaged and others have only recently joined the debate. We’ve engaged on problem definition, which is under-investment in waters infrastructure for at least the last decade. We’ve discovered the debt ceiling borrowing limit is a significant constraint and that on the whole, long-term plans (LTPs) have not funded infrastructure deficits sufficiently to keep up with maintenance, renewals, and growth. That’s why $710 million was invested from the COVID economic recovery fund to enable councils to bring forward maintenance and renewals forecast in their LTPs, supporting local jobs with local businesses. We’ve also worked together on commencing the companion conversation on the future for local government, which, at the request of the sector, is designed to ensure that the role and function of councils remain integral to achieving broader wellbeing outcomes for their communities.
Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough information to support the proposed Three Waters approach to reform?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and it is a challenging set of reforms and challenging to digest. Thirteen Cabinet papers have been proactively released through the three-year period, along with a number of critical reports. Overall, there are well over 100 documents on the Department of Internal Affairs’ website, including a huge range of papers on financial modelling, summaries of the extensive stakeholder engagement, and the overall case for change. Additionally, individual councils have spent their own resources to commission contestable advice, often because they were never in favour of reform or they wanted to remain outside of the solution that sought nationwide benefits for all ratepayer households. Sadly, the cost pressures looming for councils from higher health and environmental standards will mean ratepayers will bear the brunt if the status quo remains. That was never my intention, and the reforms are about a financially sustainable pathway with real benefits for ratepayers.
Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough time to engage with the community?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for that question. This is a complex reform process. Sadly, local elected leaders with very good information are asking their community to make a decision based on less information. I’d hoped that by working in partnership with local government, the conversation with the community would focus on key challenges with the current system so they understand why the discussion was under way. This commenced some three years ago. My expectation was to work in partnership with local government, and, to that end, right from the beginning I’ve maintained that a public ownership model that would safeguard against privatisation is the starting point. I’ve also undertaken to bring forward the positive working relationships that councils have with iwi, and we’ve identified ways in which equity and consumer benefits can be achieved through economic regulation. Importantly, we’ve also worked to ensure that there is sound transitional planning for workforce continuity for those in the sector. Sadly, while councils have received this information, the community has not, and we were going to work together to ensure that they did. I’m mindful that a partnership works both ways.
Barbara Kuriger: Will the Minister rule out making Three Waters reforms compulsory for councils; and, if not, why not?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ll rule in the fact that the case for change is compelling and well understood. We’ve moved well—[Interruption] should the members wish to hear the answer—past the starting point of not understanding the complexity and the scale of the challenge, to, actually, now the sector understanding that there is a significant challenge with huge costs looming on councils that we need to find a different way. The status quo will not work.
Mr Speaker, point of order. I seek leave to table a letter received from Water New Zealand, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, and the Association of Consulting Engineers expressing their continued support for the Three Waters reform.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I apologise for the lateness; the Minister popped in with her own point of order. The last question was not addressed. The question was around compulsion; she answered it with a case for change, and—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Have a good look at Speaker’s ruling 180/4. It is very clear.
David Seymour: Point of order. This is a matter of enormous public interest. Now, 180/4 notwithstanding, I think it would be good for the House and this Parliament if the Minister could plainly address whether the Government will rule out legislation—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat now. I have warned the member previously for taking up rulings which I have made, which have been clear, and he is being argumentative to the point where he is trying to overturn a long history of Speakers’ rulings. If he wishes to make a change of that sort to the way this Parliament works, I suggest that he makes that suggestion to the Standing Orders Committee, because it is not going to be a ruling that I overturn on the floor of the House. I want to say to Michael Woodhouse, if he continues this argument I will regard him as being deliberately disorderly.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. My point of order had nothing to do with Speaker’s ruling 180/4.
SPEAKER: Well, that might be the member’s opinion; it’s not mine.
Question No. 11—ACC
11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Fakafetai lasi and xiexie, Mr Speaker. Is she confident the changes to ACC announced today will create comprehensive cover for all injuries resulting from childbirth?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: As I said in my response to the earlier question, 85 percent of women in New Zealand experience a birth injury and 5 percent of these are severe and require ongoing care. Under current legislation, most of these injuries are not covered by ACC despite sharing similar features to other physical injuries covered as accidents. That’s not fair, and it is why I have worked with ACC and medical experts on a list of birth injuries that will ensure up to 18,000 more women are covered each year. The list is intended to include all acute injuries to a birthing parent that results from the birth process.
Jan Logie: Is she concerned that a definitive list of birth injuries may result in situations where some birth injuries are covered but others are not, for arbitrary reasons?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Indeed, which is why the types of injuries that were covered were carefully considered and advice was sought, including from experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, on the types of injuries that can occur in the birth process. We agree that this is an important area: the matter of who is covered and not covered. As new legislation will be required to bring in these changes, there will be an opportunity to scrutinise this at the select committee.
Jan Logie: Why has she chosen to include uterine prolapse on the list of birth injuries that will now get ACC cover—which we’re grateful for—but not bladder prolapse, for example?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: My understanding of the rationale for uterine prolapse is that uterine prolapse is not an injury, it is the result of other injuries that are included on the list and that is why coverage could be received for uterine prolapse. If the member wants further advice on the matter of bladder prolapse, she may need to put that question in writing.
Jan Logie: So can the Minister confirm that she is open to expanding the list or adopting a broader definition or non-exhaustive list if further birth injuries are identified through the select committee process?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We have gone through a thorough process with experts in the area to make this list, and we expect that it will hold up to scrutiny through the select committee process.
Jan Logie: Will she ensure that the changes apply retrospectively so that a new parent who gave birth, say, two months ago, who may still be suffering from birth injuries, will also be eligible for cover and rehabilitation?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As the member will know from her time in Government, the legislation guidelines are clear that the starting point for all legislation is that it should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. Retrospective changes to ACC would make it extremely difficult to predict the volume of claims that would be made to ACC and balance the interest of ACC levy payers. There are exceptions to this rule, but Cabinet’s test for retrospective cover includes things like addressing a previous legal error or addressing a matter that is essential for public safety. While there have been some retrospective changes to ACC to correct errors, new categories of cover have not been created retrospectively, and doing so would create a dangerous precedent.
Jan Logie: Is the Minister comfortable with continuing to deny ACC cover to babies injured during birth when adults and children experiencing disability because of accident are covered?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The changes announced today are about fairness and improving equity and health outcomes for women. Extending cover to injuries suffered by babies during childbirth would mark a significant change to the nature of the cover under the scheme. It would also have an impact on the long-term sustainability of the scheme. Officials have estimated the cost of covering children injured during childbirth to be at least $375 million to $525 million per year. This number is only based on the number of babies who have severe brain injury at birth due to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which is just one type of injury suffered during childbirth.
Jan Logie: How will this approach that only intends to cover some physical injury, excluding injuries to pēpē and broader mental health, meet the needs of Māori whānau for holistic support?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The mental health issues caused by an injury that is covered by the scheme would be subject to cover, so that is addressed through the changes that we propose. I think in terms of the wider issues around the mental health of whānau around the time during and after childbirth, we as a Government know that that is an important area of work, and my colleague the Associate Minister of Health has added two items of work to the maternity action plan updated and released today. That includes one particular area of mental trauma after the loss of a child. That will be worked on first by research with those whānau and, secondly, by the development of a bereavement pathway. Secondly, we are doing much wider work in the area of stocktaking maternal mental health services to guide further strengthening of those services.
Question No. 12—Immigration
12. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding migrant health workers?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Talofa, Mr Speaker. Yes. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, the Government acknowledges that there has been an impact of the closed border on our wider immigration system, and this has caused difficulties for a number of migrants both onshore and offshore. The Government has taken a pragmatic approach to manage these impacts where possible—for example, critical health worker border exceptions, visa extensions for workers onshore, and class exceptions for family reunification for migrant health workers. We are close to giving both the migrant workers and their employers the certainty they require while our border settings remain tight.
Nicola Willis: What is his response to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who have written to him warning that nurses are leaving New Zealand because they are “made to feel unwelcome” by an immigration system that keeps them in a permanent state of temporariness?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I would say to that organisation that one of the first actions that the Government did was to make sure we did allow critical health workers into the country to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic by ensuring that there was a border exception for critical health workers, and, as I’ve said in my primary answer, we are very close to giving both migrants and their employers the certainty that they would need around their long-term future here in New Zealand.
Nicola Willis: Has the Minister of Health met with him to seek an immigration solution for addressing New Zealand’s shortage of ICU nurses, given their vital role in our COVID response?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: A number of my ministerial colleagues have expressed issues and challenges that their sectors have. As I have pointed out to a number of questioners from the Opposition, instead of taking a sector by sector approach, the Government is looking at a comprehensive solution to the problems that some of those migrants face.
Nicola Willis: How can he be confident that the critical healthcare worker border exception is addressing ICU nurse shortages when he has admitted that Immigration New Zealand is not collecting data on how many ICU nurses enter New Zealand?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m confident that the border exception is meeting the needs in terms of the flow of critical health workers in. I understand that between August of last year and mid-September of this year, close to 7,000 critical health workers and their dependants were able to come into New Zealand to fill some of those positions.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that one of the reasons the Government is having to rely on border exceptions for critical health workers is because in the decade before the Government took office, insufficient attention had been given to health workforce planning and training enough people to fill the jobs that are available?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I understand that that member is accurate in his description of the situation.
COVID-19 ORDERS
Approval
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 9) 2021
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 10) 2021.
First, by way of background, as we do when we confirm these orders, under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, as the responsible Minister, I am able to issue a variety of orders that compel people to do things or to not do things depending on the situation as part of our overall public health response when it comes to dealing with COVID-19. The orders that I issue, if they are not confirmed by a motion in the House, are revoked after a certain time frame. I therefore have to put the motion down on the Order Paper for those orders to be confirmed. That motion and the relevant orders are then referred to the Regulations Review Committee, who scrutinise my use of the power that I am given under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. They have the ability to raise issues both with me as the Minister responsible and also with the House, a. And so we are now dealing with a motion to confirm three of the orders that have now been scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee under that particular process.
I would note that the orders that we are talking about here are all amendment orders. There are, basically, two reasons why I amend orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. The first is that many of these orders have been put in place in a hurry, and there will undoubtedly be improvements that can be made, corrections that need to be made to them, further refinements, and so on. So, yes, there are a number of amendments that fall into that category. The second, of course, is that the situation is constantly changing and constantly evolving, and, as a result, we often need to constantly amend these orders. We’re not confirming any alert level orders made in this particular batch of approvals, but alert level orders are a really good example of where we need to constantly move and adapt and change, depending on the circumstances in front of us.
So there are three orders that we’re confirming today, and I’ll quickly run through those. The first is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 9). This is the second air border order that’s been put in place, and this one’s already been amended nine times. This set of amendments removes “Australia” and references to Australia, particularly when it comes to talking about quarantine-free travel, on the basis that there are no longer any quarantine-free flights from Australia to New Zealand. It does not preclude us reintroducing quarantine-free travel with Australia in the future. That order came into force at 11.59 p.m. back on 11 August.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 10) of 2021: this particular amendment added Fiji and Indonesia to the list of very high-risk countries. By being designated as a very high-risk country, it means that we are significantly limiting the number of people who can travel from that country to New Zealand. We’re narrowing that down to only New Zealand citizens who are returning home, and it does provide for some new or expanded exemptions, which include the dependent children of New Zealand citizens who are coming home; persons transiting through New Zealand while travelling from Fiji to another destination outside of New Zealand, recognising that at the moment, New Zealand is, effectively, the only regular gateway to and from Fiji; and people involved in medical transfers from Fiji to New Zealand.
The order also removes Fiji from the list of low-risk designations for the purposes of quarantine-free travel. That has an implication for aircrew members who have undertaken any flight to or from Fiji in the 14-day period before their arrival in New Zealand on a quarantine-free flight, and that means that they must have a negative result for COVID-19 before they come. That order came into force at 11.59 p.m. on 15 August.
The final order is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 3). This order amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order to allow people who are required to undergo regular COVID-19 surveillance testing and medical examination to elect to undergo regular saliva testing as an alternative to the nasal pharyngeal swabs that they currently have to take. The order also sets out the duties for the people who make that choice, as well as the record-keeping duties for the people who are conducting the business undertaking with respect to those particular people.
The Regulations Review Committee did raise an issue with regard to this particular order. They were concerned around the clarity around the frequency of the testing requirement, recognising that saliva testing will need to be more frequent than the nasal pharyngeal swabs. I’ve considered closely the feedback from the Regulations Review Committee. I am comfortable that the order is clear and that there isn’t ambiguity there, but as we continue to refine and test the orders, we will look and see whether there is simpler language that could be used in future orders just to remove any potential suggestion that that’s not clear. So that particular order came into force at 11.59 p.m. on 11 August 2021.
Finally, I just want to thank all those who were involved in putting these orders together. I’m often waiting up till quite late in the evening to sign the orders in order for them to come in force—typically, just before midnight—because these orders, as I said, are often put in place in quite a hurry, and the people who have to draft them often have to do so under significant time pressure. So I want to thank them for their work.
By and large, they get it right. They’ve served us incredibly well. There are undoubtedly improvements that they identify and would have been able to identify had we given them more time in the drafting, but, ultimately, we are able to pick those up with future amendments. It is a pretty nimble piece of legislation that we’re making the orders under, and I think that our COVID-19 response overall is the better for it.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I just start by echoing the comments of Minister Hipkins in relation to the team who do all the work behind the scenes in relation to the orders. I’ve been back on the Regulations Review Committee for a couple of weeks now and it’s fair to say that the workload of the Regulations Review Committee has significantly increased from my first time on the committee, which was now five to six years ago, and that’s due to the Minister, of course, and all the various orders. But it is a really important process, and I just want to say I’m really enjoying working with Rachel Brooking from across the House, and, of course, Chris Penk, who would be here were it not for COVID restrictions. He’s the chair of the committee. He’s doing a great job, and it’s good to be with a bunch of lawyers talking about lawyerly things.
I do want to talk briefly in relation to saliva testing, which is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021. I believe that we will look back at some point in the future at saliva testing and the failure to roll it out more quickly as a gross failure of public policy in New Zealand. I think the situation is so bad that we will inevitably have to have an inquiry into what has happened. It’s worth just remembering by way of background that the Sir Brian Roche / Heather Simpson review into testing at the border recommended to the Government in September 2020—so a year ago; just over a year ago, actually—that saliva testing should be rolled out as a “matter of priority”. Those were their words, and yet here we are, a year later, and we are finally getting it going, and it was only until August—and that’s the reason why this is relevant—that we had the amendment order presented or signed by the Minister to allow for saliva testing properly at the border. So that was recommended in September 2020, and nothing symbolises, really, this Government’s inability to move quickly with innovation in science and the technology that is now available than saliva testing.
Everyone knows that the nasal PCR tests are uncomfortable, they’re very expensive, and they require a health professional to administer, and anyone who’s had one will know about the cumbersome process. Saliva testing is cheaper, it’s quicker, and it is just as accurate as the nasal PCR tests, and, the fact that Dr Anne Wyllie, who’s been dubbed the spit queen for her work at Yale University, has not been, essentially, an expert adviser to the Government here in New Zealand is, frankly, I think, disgraceful.
She’s a Kiwi doing work at Yale University. She is, basically, the inventor of saliva testing in the United States, and her work, very quickly done after COVID entered the United States, meant that the tests she created were granted emergency use authorisation by the Food and Drug Administration there in August 2020. It’s now used in 40 states, including by the NBA basketball league in the United States to keep their players safe—an amazing, amazing piece of work by an amazing Kiwi out there doing great things on the world stage. She should be being consulted by the New Zealand Government to roll out saliva testing here in New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah—I take your point, sir. So this has been a very long and drawn out saga. It is, as I’ve said, I think, really a shame that we have not had saliva testing earlier than now.
This order is good in so far as it allows for it to happen and encourages workers who are at the border to get saliva tests, if they’d like, as a supplement to the nasal PCR tests every two or three days, but we could do so much more. This order could potentially include the allowance of saliva testing in our public hospitals, for example, or, in fact, it could make them mandatory as a form of surveillance testing in public hospitals. There are people presenting at Middlemore Hospital with COVID symptoms who have to wait quite a long time before they get tested—that’s on the public record. We could have a rule, for example, that everyone who turns up at Middlemore gets a saliva test as a mandatory thing. That could be a rule. We could make it sure that our public hospitals use saliva testing for their workers, for example; not just for border workers. The order could and should include that.
There are private hospitals in New Zealand right now using Rako Science’s saliva test for their workers, for the people who come to work and work in the private hospitals. Why can’t we do that for our public hospitals? There’s nothing stopping us from doing that, and the attitude of the Ministry of Health towards saliva testing has been, quite frankly, disgraceful so far.
So this is good in so far as it goes: using saliva testing at our border facilities, at our airports, at our ports, and at our managed isolation and quarantine facilities as an option for workers being mandatorily tested. It’s being belatedly rolled out at the Auckland boundary for people crossing the border, but we could and should do so much more.
Saliva testing is one of those things which I think, you know, we will look back on, as I say, in a couple of years and say that we really missed an opportunity there, because, as Dr Ashley Bloomfield says and the Prime Minister has said, it’s all about testing. You know, the Auckland situation now is all about as many people as you can test as quickly as you can. The nasal test is expensive and it’s cumbersome and it’s time-consuming. Why wouldn’t we want to make use of the technology that’s available to us, that we could use alongside the nasal PCR test and alongside rapid testing—which, of course, is not the subject of this order, so I won’t talk about it.
So this is good. National will support that order and the other two orders, which are very non-controversial and make a lot of sense. But we can and should do so much more when it comes to saliva testing. Thank you.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll just make a short contribution on these orders. The Green Party is going to support all three of them. They’re very sensible. It is good to see the development and roll-out of more alternatives to PCR testing.
One comment I would make about the Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 9), which, of course, removed any references to Australia when it comes to quarantine-free travel, is just to acknowledge those New Zealanders, especially those who live permanently in New Zealand or who may have been planning to return to New Zealand in the last few months, to relocate here permanently, who have been caught out by the fact that the bubble had to be suspended, and there’s been just extreme demand for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities and for people to come back into Aotearoa New Zealand. I think that it was the right call to suspend quarantine-free travel with Australia, but I do think that the Government needs to urgently look at alternatives, especially for those who are in states that currently have no community spread of COVID, if there is a way for them to return and, if they’ve been vaccinated, to bypass the MIQ facility—if that is possible and can be done safely—because there’s just a huge number of people whose lives have been disrupted.
If they are citizens and residents of New Zealand, then they really do have a right to return to this country, and we’ve been asking the Government what they can do to increase the quantity of MIQ facilities in a safe way. But I think that there are states where there’s no community spread, and if people were able to travel from that state without passing through New South Wales or Victoria, and particularly if they’ve been vaccinated—if they could be isolating at home, they should probably be eligible for the pilot which is going to be rolled out to business people who are leaving New Zealand and coming back next month. I think that’s going to happen in November.
I’d like to see the ability of New Zealand citizens and residents to come back to New Zealand as a priority over discretionary business travel away from New Zealand when it comes to piloting safe quarantine at home. That’s all we have to say.
SPEAKER: Before I call David Seymour, I’m going ask Mr Eagle to apply his mask to his beak.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is one absolutely certain way to know that an issue has turned, and that is when the Green Party start taking sensible positions on it. What we just heard from Julie Anne Genter—that there should be risk-proportionate exemptions for New Zealanders in COVID-free states of Australia to travel here without managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)—is the surest sign that the tide is turning towards sanity on this issue of COVID-19 that I’ve seen since I first heard of COVID-19 last January.
This is a very momentous day for this House and our country’s journey with COVID-19 policy, but we’re here just to examine a few of these COVID-19 Public Health Response Act amendment orders—three of them—all of which the ACT Party will support. The first of those says that Fiji should no longer be considered a low-risk country. Now, of course, for people who are listening at home, this is retrospective—these orders were made much earlier; we’re just confirming them—but when Fiji got into some difficulty with Delta, it was the right and proper thing to do to say that aircrew traveling to Fiji should have to take more precautions than previously and that we shouldn’t consider that Fiji was a low-risk country to go to any more, sad as that may be. It’s a good example of a risk-proportionate approach: that we don’t use broad-brush restrictions on people’s freedom to go about satisfying other aspects of their wellbeing; we actually assess the level of risk and then we respond proportionately.
Another good example of that is what Julie Anne Genter from the Green Party has just suggested in relation to allowing quarantine-free travel from Australian states that have no community transmission, and similar arguments can be made for Pacific Islands, such as Samoa and Niue, that have never had COVID-19. It seems madness that we put those people, when they come here, in more danger of catching COVID-19 than at any other time of their life—that is, when they go into an MIQ facility in New Zealand.
The further orders—one, sadly, removes Australia as a quarantine-free travel destination. As I say, it’s one of those times: when ACT and the Green Party are agreeing, you know that an issue is turning. We’ve been saying this all year. We shouldn’t be saying that people from a state like Western Australia, that hasn’t had a community transmission case for a very long time—people should be able to just come, because the costs of not allowing people to come are absolutely enormous.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: I still think they should isolate at home.
DAVID SEYMOUR: And Julie Anne Genter has just piped up, for people who may not have their microphones highly tuned at home, that she still thinks people should isolate at home. It may be that she’s been reading ACT’s COVID 3.0 document, which says very similar things—
Chris Bishop: No, she’s got a leaked copy of ours.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —and Chris Bishop says that he’s got a leak from that document. We put it there precisely for him. In case he was preparing to release anything himself, we wanted to make all of the details available, because we know that in the past his party has relied on ACT policy to inform its own, and we’d like that to continue far into the future.
SPEAKER: Order!
DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I will now, as you say, narrow towards the COVID orders being debated, but I agree that’s very important.
Other than the change in risk profile for aircrew going to and from Fiji, and also removing Australia—all of it; not just some states with problems—from the quarantine-free travel provisions, we also have another welcome but really quite late change, and that is allowing saliva testing in a very narrow range of instances. It is true that saliva testing, or the lack of it, really epitomises the problems with this Government’s COVID response.
It was said to be an urgent priority by Brian Roche, whom the Government paid to advise them last September, and what do we have now? Just a few trickles of saliva tests in the Government response being widely adapted by private enterprise, and you have to feel a little bit sorry for the Minister. You know, he comes into Parliament believing in the essential goodness of State action, thinking that he’s going, with the might and power of the New Zealand Government, to change the world, and he discovers the practical reality that with the tools and advice of the Ministry of Health, he hasn’t been able to roll out a better technology. It’s been used overseas, used by the private sector—championed by a world expert, who is a Kiwi, in the form of Dr Anne Wyllie from Yale, and he hasn’t been able to get it contracted, rolled out, and implemented in a year that it’s being recommended, and the sad story about how that’s come to pass will come out sooner or later. I could spend the rest of this speech filling in a few details, but it’s all going to come out, and we’re going to understand why it’s been just so difficult for the New Zealand Government apparatus to absorb a new technology.
That’s why the ACT Party has said consistently that, instead of having minimal amounts of testing rolled out in this piecemeal fashion, we should have far better partnership with business. In our COVID 3.0 paper, we’ve said that we should have a series of sprints where everyone is brought around the table, all of the team, people brought off the bench, to figure out how we reduce transmission rates at least cost—better, faster testing would help with that—how we reduce hospitalisation at least cost, and how we reduce deaths.
Those should be the goals, and those cannot be achieved if we don’t have a way of getting better technology absorbed into our system. The poor Minister for COVID-19 Response hasn’t been able to implement it with the apparatus he’s given and, in his frustration, when his policies are questioned, he says that the questioners are somehow attacking every New Zealander. Well, that is total illogic. People are able to criticise the Government policy and its failings without it being an attack on front-line workers or the team of 5 million or anyone else. In fact, it would be undemocratic if New Zealanders were not able to have healthy debates about which Government policies were the correct ones without being accused, almost, of treasonous activity.
So these orders are good and proper, but it needs to be acknowledged that they are occurring in a context of too little, too late and of enormous failings by this Government to do basic things that would have allowed New Zealanders to respond to COVID while looking after their overall wellbeing and being able to provide for their needs with much greater freedom than if we’re able to do basic things like get a few contracts and roll out some saliva testing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Orders approved.
SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.
House In Committee
House In Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.
Bills
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come first to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 26, Schedules 1 and 2 amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I thought I might start proceedings this afternoon—begin with what we usually do in thanking the Justice Committee for its thoughts and amendments and work on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. I also want to acknowledge that this took place in the shadow—towards the end of that process—of the attack at LynnMall, and, along with many other members of the House this afternoon, I acknowledge the victims and communities involved and wish them a speedy recovery.
A lot of the measures contained in Part 1 are designed to ensure that in terms of terror attacks of this type—because the nature of terror is changing—the authorities have the ability to prevent and stop those types of offences happening. Again, reports back from the select committee are that all parties around the table worked well. I understand from reading the minority views of both the ACT Party and the Green Party that there were some differences of opinion around the process in terms of timing, and I’ll come to that, but I do want to thank the select committee for unanimously coming to the point where we could make an amendment to the definition of terrorism around intimidation. I do think it’s useful that all parties came to that threshold unanimously around the table.
Just around some of the criticism by both the ACT Party and the Green Party in terms of process, my understanding is that this piece of legislation within the select committee was fully and well considered, and any suggestion that it was rushed through hastily doesn’t necessarily pass muster. I understand that there was a small amount of time still available to the select committee which would have allowed the Parliamentary Counsel Office to undertake its normal drafting and then the select committee would have reported back. I also would point out that the Government is trying to make sure it strikes the balance of making sure it does have the proper scrutiny of a select committee, which we believe it did, and also working to make sure that we do give the tools to the authorities, which are contained in this bill, in order to address some of the challenges that they are meeting on a daily basis.
To some of the issues that were raised in the minority views, acknowledging some concern around the planning and preparation offence within the bill by the Green Party. I understand that the select committee essentially unanimously, I think, or with the support of the select committee, agreed to remove the “planning to plan” offence, which was in the first iteration of the bill. I understand there was plenty of discussion around that, and to avoid confusion that offence has been removed.
I do want to allow questions to be asked, but this piece of legislation has been progressed out of the recommendations of the royal commission on the mosque attacks in Christchurch in 2019. It also responds to, as I said in my beginning remarks, the nature of terrorism changing. Our current Terrorism Suppression Act was passed when terrorism was more likely to be the actions of an organised entity or an organised group, and, as we’ve seen more recently, acts of terror are being undertaken by individuals or small groups using things that might be considered everyday actions but are used to bring about harm to people in the name of their own ideology. So, again, I want to thank the select committee for its adjudication over this piece of legislation and I welcome any questions that members, who were on the committee or not, may have around Part 1.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the work of the Ministry of Justice. They did an outstanding job, I thought in my short time here, with their departmental report actually thoroughly going through and answering a number of questions. So I’d just like to acknowledge the work that the Ministry of Justice did for us there.
My question to the Minister is: could the Minister inform us where, in this part—or parts; we’re taking them both—could you answer please, if there’s any part of these sections in here that would have actually made a difference to the LynnMall terror attack or the terrorist being able to attack members of the public?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for pointing out my error in also acknowledging the officials of the Ministry of Justice for their hard work, especially under some of the time frames we suggested that they work to.
That is a very difficult question to answer; legislation alone cannot prevent attacks happening. But the legislation that we are implementing through the House will give the authorities—the likes of police—more powers, as we say, to intervene if they find serious evidence of motivation and intent and purpose, and also the bringing together of a number of actions where an individual or a group may be planning to undertake a terrorist attack.
The answer to the question around the particular incident is, in terms of control orders, this person wasn’t necessarily convicted of a terrorism act. But if we are looking forward, it’s hard to define precisely a case, because it depends on the facts of the case.
What I do think is that we are giving the likes of the police more tools, certainly. In planning and preparation, I think the members of the select committee were, no doubt, made aware of a High Court case where the judge, in that particular instance, gave a signal that a planning and preparation offence didn’t exist, so in that instance he could not make a judgment on the planning and preparation of a particular circumstance that was before him.
So it will depend on the facts of each case, but I do think, again, because of the changing nature of, unfortunately, some of the events that we’ve seen take place over the last two or three years, the provisions within this bill will give authorities the ability to take more pre-emptive action. To pre-empt a criticism on that that I think might come during the debate: that is with the necessary safety precautions in there around taking a prosecution under this piece of legislation, for example, having the Attorney-General green-light any prosecution that may go to the court.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair, and Minister, I acknowledge you for being in the Chamber this afternoon. When this matter was last before the House, Minister Little was here in the capacity, as I understand, as Minister who was in charge of the commission of inquiry. So my question to you, Minister, as the responsible Minister for the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill into law: it’s well known that there was a commission of inquiry and that commission of inquiry, having been appointed and commencing its work in April of 2019 after the Christchurch mosque murder incidents—that the findings of the commission of inquiry were presented to the Governor-General in November 2019. So, Minister, this bill is not specifically addressing the recommendations under the commission of inquiry per se.
But my question to you, Minister, because this is a counter-terrorism bill, the commission of inquiry—one of its recommendations, in fact recommendation No. 18, was to look at this legislation. That has been done. In your capacity, Minister with that of Minister Little’s, what is being done in relation to a specialist agency being appointed when it’s well known that the National Party has appointed a spokesperson to lead that? That segues into the application of the counter-terrorism bill. And I come back to Part 1—I’m mindful that the Chair may be pulling me back to the bill, and I do that accordingly.
So my question, Minister, is: what is the relevance of Part 1 in the totality of the counter-terrorism bill for the appointment and designation of an agency to lead this work?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for the inquiry. Certainly around recommendation 18 of the royal commission of inquiry, the changes within this piece of legislation, especially the ones around planning and preparation of terrorism offences, go directly to one of the strong recommendations within recommendation 18 of the royal commission—something explicitly that they pointed out there to change within the context of our terror laws.
I think, also, the member may have been talking around a contribution by Minister Little in the second reading speeches that were undertaken a couple of weeks ago or last week. I think it’s fair to say that as a Minister responsible for the overall response to the recommendations within the Christchurch commission of inquiry, he said he was working through all the recommendations and was open to the suggestion, I think, around the point that the member raised. I think what you have seen through the prioritisation of this piece of legislation, getting some of the powers to the agencies and responding to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry have been the priority to date, and that’s why we hope to get this legislation passed as soon as possible to give the likes of police and other agencies the ability to prevent other attacks happening in the future.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Minister. Of course, I join with everybody else in terms of thinking of our communities up there in New Lynn as well, but then also our communities that were impacted in Christchurch as well.
Thank you for reminding us about the changes in terms of the planning and preparing of terrorism. Some of the conversations that we’ve been having is that there’s a lot of concern around that and around how agencies might be enacting that, given the history of agencies in the past in terms of targeting, in particular, tangata whenua but also peoples of colour as well. As we know, in the case of Christchurch, the agencies were looking everywhere except for the right place, and they were primarily targeting peoples of colour.
So my question is—questions—given cases like Zaoui v Attorney-General are a part of Aotearoa’s history, is the Minister certain that new preparatory offences under the Act won’t be used to indefinitely detain, arbitrarily prosecute, or search or surveil people without warrant and with insufficient evidence of preparation of any wrongdoing? A follow-up to that is: how will the Minister prevent preparatory powers being disproportionately used against people of colour and tangata whenua, given the royal commission on the Christchurch mosque attacks found that public agencies have been overly focused on the threat of Islamic extremism and that Māori and Pasifika are also overrepresented in our justice system because of racial bias?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I think it was plain to see through the findings of the royal commission that it was a wake-up call for a number of the agencies that the member has suggested. When we do acknowledge the past history of the actions of some of those agencies around the predecessor to this bill, there are a number of protections which give me confidence that any misuse of the powers within this legislation will be there to ensure that they are not misused.
I’ve already mentioned one before, around the Attorney-General having the final sign-off on any prosecution that may come about from any investigation under this legislation, and I’d also point out—and the member will know this, but for those who may be interested at home—that the three legs of motivation, intent, and purpose all have to be met in order for a terrorist charge to be brought. One of the aspects that is new in this bill and that will be developed over case law around planning and preparation, I think, is if you tick all those three boxes, then a court will rule in terms of a series of events that an individual or an entity may undertake which will meet the threshold of planning and preparation. So I think all eyes will be on that.
I think the other concern that I believe was raised in the Green Party minority view in the report back from the select committee was around the right to protest. There are protections within the legislation to ensure that lawful protest is not impeded and that people still have the right to undertake and express their views through lawful protest. I guess I would go back to my first point, which was that all three arms of that terrorist definition have to be met. It’s a high threshold, and, again, we believe there are the protections to ensure that only those cases that meet that threshold and that are in the public interest will get taken to a prosecution.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you for that answer. Just in terms of the timing aspect as well, because you talked a little bit about that, and, of course, the pressure that particular groups feel—particularly social justice activists and environmentalists, who also often get picked up as well. I’m just mindful that there was, for example, spying done on Greenpeace and for the House to remember that, actually, Greenpeace suffered one of the horrific terrorist attacks in our history, as well, with the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, that there is a lack of trust amongst certain communities with the agencies, and having that time to actually unpack some of that with our communities would actually help to sort of really walk this legislation through.
I guess my question is: given one of the bills that we passed earlier was to actually have the opportunity to grill, this year, the SIS and the GCSB and to really find out actually what happened down in Christchurch, why they were so obsessed with the wrong people and the sorts of things that that inquiry will throw up; why the speed of this particular legislation, given that there could be a lot of other things that we could be missing out on and that many of our communities are quite concerned about that, and also people who often get caught up as political dissenters or protestors or whatever you want to call it?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I kind of go back to some earlier comments about trying to ensure that we strike a balance between ensuring we have given our agencies the tools to counter some of the national security threats that they are constantly facing in terms of monitoring other individuals or groups.
Again—and I want to acknowledge some of the contributions at the second reading of this legislation—the consideration at the Justice Committee was thorough, it was considered, and I also believe that the select committee members came to agreements on a lot of the substantive amendments and those things that stayed the same within the bill. There has been some criticism around the timing of the announcement of getting this piece of legislation through the House before September, but, again, I would acknowledge that there was, essentially, a small piece of administration needed from the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) in order to get the changes made, and I want to acknowledge both Justice officials and the PCO for getting this piece of legislation to where it is now. It did have full consideration. Again, I think, the events of the 3rd of September are a reminder that the threats remain real. Ensuring that the authorities have the powers to make sure they can do everything they can to prevent further attacks was the balance that the Government has sought to strike.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, you’re aware that we had quite a robust discussion within the Justice Committee about the use of the word “fear”, and removing “terror” in response to having “fear”. Then we, of course, removed that and went to “intimidate”. And that change of word “intimidate” was something that was agreed amongst all of the select committee, although there have been concerns that “intimidate” is still lowering the threshold. So Minister, for clarity, really, for the viewers at home, in order for them to understand why we have removed the word “terror” or “terrorist” and replaced it with “intimidation”, is the Minister able to give us examples of where “intimidate” would or could be used by officials in prosecutions, and what difference there is between inciting terror as opposed to intimidation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you for that. One of the anomalies with the definition of terror, as it currently stands within the legislation, is that it includes the word “terror”. So there was a circular argument to be had about the definition of terror there. I do understand that along with officials, the members of the select committee did have a robust debate around where the threshold should be. I also understand that officials outlined that countries similar to us—the likes of the UK and Australia—use “intimidate” as a threshold. It’s slowly becoming the international norm to have intimidation as the threshold within other pieces of legislation.
The proposed change from “terror” to “fear” was an issue that attracted most submissions. The issue was taken to Cabinet post the select committee’s departmental report and the revision-tracked version being delivered by the select committee. I think it’s difficult to give a number of scenarios around what intimidation would be. It is probably, for those who studiously watch these pieces of legislation, a slight lowering of the threshold, but I will note and I understand that it was unanimous amongst the committee, and the Government—given some of the reasoning that the committee made—decided to agree with it.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Yeah, thank you for that, I was wondering—in terms of some of the communities watching from home—if you could walk us through how this could capture, like, the offender from Christchurch? I think I can see how it might catch the guy from New Lynn, but how could this capture someone who flies under the radar? I’m talking about white supremacy, I’m talking about Nazis, I’m talking about those sorts of people that people from the communities that I come from are concerned about. So could you walk us through those two different scenarios about how this would actually do that?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. As I mentioned before, all those three legs of motivation, intent, and purpose need to be met. The change in this piece of legislation, I believe, if the individual concerned obviously had an ideological bent, and if the police were able to monitor him and believe that he did have the motivation, intent, and purpose to carry out such an attack, and—I guess in a hypothetical world, because I don’t want to give too much attention to the individual—they saw him meeting those three tests and making moves to plan and prepare to carry out an attack, they would have, as the High Court judge mentioned, the offence within this piece of legislation to bring about a prosecution. That hasn’t been available until this piece of legislation has passed, and regardless of the motivation or ideology of the individual or entity concerned, the ability to prevent an attack happening—which was in, I think, clause 8 of the bill, I may stand to be corrected there—is one of the key changes in this piece of legislation.
So, not only to some of those communities who may have some focus around disappointment of past actions, but to all communities who are concerned that this piece of legislation may see it being misused: we believe there are safeguards within it to ensure that it won’t. I think, as I mentioned at the very outset, the nature of some of the activities is changing, and in order to give the authorities the ability to pre-empt and take action before either infrastructure, individuals, or groups are attacked, is one of the key pieces of this legislation.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you for that answer. I guess one of the concerns that still remains with me is the speed of it, and also the way that this bill seems to be changing tack quite a bit as well. I know that a few people share those concerns—in some of the communities—that I do as well.
In terms of its original intention—and perhaps you could enlighten me here, Minister—when you brought in this regime, it only applied to foreign fighters returning home, and you said that the control over the regime was necessary as you weren’t able to gain sufficient legal evidence, from places like Syria, to charge them with a criminal offence. How can you justify expanding this now to include people convicted in New Zealand? The initial bill required a review of the regime, but this has been pushed out for another two years, so if you could answer—for myself and the people at home as well—those two questions, that would be good.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): The control orders regime makes changes to a piece of legislation that was passed in 2019, which does allow, currently, anyone who’s convicted of a terrorism offence that occurred overseas to be monitored by the authorities or be put under conditions by the authorities. The gap in the law, which is seen to be changed here in this legislation, is that, I think, certainly in the last two or three years, we’ve seen that there are domestic threats, and if anyone were to be convicted of a terrorism-related offence in the future and there were still ongoing concerns about their motivations to carry out further attacks, or to carry out an attack, then a control order would be able to be used as one of the amendments to the regime in this piece of legislation.
Again, that’s a higher threshold. I believe only one individual has been convicted of a terrorism offence in New Zealand. Anyone who undergoes a control orders regime will have to be found guilty of a terrorism offence, and I think in order to prepare for the future—I would hope we never have to use that regime that’s within this piece of legislation, but, again, because of the changing nature of the terror threat, or national security threats in New Zealand, ensuring that power is there, to have a control order for those who have offended in New Zealand, was seen as the right thing to do, given the changing nature of threat.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you. Just to follow up on that: if someone is subject to the control orders regime after they have already been punished for a period of imprisonment, will the further limits on their rights from the control orders result in that person receiving rehabilitation or are imprisonment and control orders likely to result in further alienation and, ultimately, further radicalisation and extremism? So I kind of want to know about how this will intersect with other parts of legislation or policy to make sure that we can sort of take more of a holistic approach.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Rehabilitation is certainly one of the options that could be undertaken as part of a control order in the future under the regime. I would also point out that at the end of the day, it will be a judge who will make a judgment as to what is appropriate in terms of the conditions of a control order. So if a judge believes that some of the aspects of a proposed control order that is being sought don’t meet the risk that an individual or individuals may pose, then it’s the judge’s decision as to whether or not that condition is imposed.
So I think a check of the judiciary in that respect is important to make sure that any constraints upon the individual meet the risk that the individual might meet. But just to reiterate the question from the member: rehabilitation could definitely be one of the options available as part of a control order regime over an individual.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make a small number of remarks and then ask the Minister a question. I just would agree with the Minister—indeed, something I said at the second reading. It was a thorough process at select committee. I don’t accept the criticism we see from parties to my left about that. It wasn’t rushed and much of what happened in the committee process was in fact unanimous. And so it does—and I’m not seeking to be overly political here, but it does seem strange that there’s now opposition to this bill. Certainly National isn’t opposing it. We support it fulsomely. We did at first reading, we did at the committee process; indeed, we sought to strengthen it and I think we’ve achieved that in some regards. That’s because we take, like the Government of the day, the obligation to keep New Zealanders safe—the first obligation really of any Government—very seriously.
I just want to note that the Hon Mark Mitchell, MP for Whangaparāoa, is now our spokesperson on counter-terrorism measures. He has deep expertise and experience in this area, actually in the field, and he would have liked to have been here today speaking, asking questions—
Hon Member: A very good member.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —a very good member—but he is in Auckland and, of course, with COVID restrictions, that’s not possible or appropriate.
My question for the Minister is, I hope, actually a very simple one, with no tricks to it, as it were. I simply want to have a sense from the Minister that he believes that the High Court decision of Justice Downs from what was a year or so ago, involving the perpetrator of the LynnMall supermarket attack—has the gap that he believed was present in the law, and I haven’t got the case in front of me, around planning and preparation—that we’ve now as a Parliament in this law comprehensively addressed that, really, and we now feel confident as a Parliament, the Government feels confident, and therefore, you know, given that Government and Parliament feels confident, New Zealanders can feel confident that we’ve comprehensively addressed that. I wouldn’t say that that would mean that we will never see the like of an attack such as we saw at the supermarket—and we all regret, and we thank those involved in keeping people safe there, the police and so on. I’m not saying we’ll never see that again, but does he feel that with the law it does comprehensively address Justice Downs’ gaps, as written to the Attorney-General and so on, and that this should keep, on that basis, more New Zealanders safe and make something like the supermarket attacks less likely in the future?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the Hon Simon Bridges for his contribution and for his reinforcement of his comments in the second reading speech, especially around the select committee process.
To the question that the member posed: obviously, the gap was identified in the case that was before the High Court judge last year, and I think that sent a pretty clear signal to Parliament that the offence the judge had before him—or the attempt to bring about a conviction for the case before him—did not exist in legislation. So, in plain English, there was no offence around planning or preparation. I would echo the comments of the member: nothing can ever guarantee something not happening, when we legislate. But we must, as a Parliament—and we do take very seriously our responsibility as Government to make sure that we can do everything we can to prevent attacks of this nature occurring. Again, “of this nature” is an important phrase, because, over the last 10, 20 years, we have seen the nature of these kinds of terrorist attacks, which are ideologically motivated, change in their nature, and we have seen, both here and overseas, horrific incidents where everyday items end up being used in terrorist-motivated attacks.
I do believe, to answer the member’s question, that we’ve done everything we can within this piece of legislation to fill the legislative gap. It was highlighted both by the royal commission and by the judge in the ruling that was made last year.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you for that. I have a question specifically around Māori, around land protectors as well, folks that occupy their ancestral lands, which is fairly common in Te Ao Māori—Ihumātao, Pūtiki—and trying to ensure that they don’t get caught up in the broadening of the definition of this. Does the Minister believe that this bill takes into account Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the right to tino rangatiratanga, given the broad powers available to the Crown under control orders? And has the Government carried out adequate and fair consultation with tangata whenua to establish this?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Important in the safeguards which exist, and will continue to exist when this piece of legislation is passed, is the right to protest. Again, I go back to the three tests of a terrorist act that need to be met, and in no way would I see a lawful protest of people around land rights getting anywhere close to being a prosecution within this piece of legislation. I will note some of the concerns raised at the select committee stage by Māori and iwi submitters. The nature of counter-terrorism legislation means that we can undertake very limited consultation ahead of legislation being proposed and tabled in the House. So we acknowledge some of the frustrations that have come about by that, but, by their very nature, undertaking consultation early can give opportunity for gaps in the proposed system to be taken advantage of. And, again, that’s a balance of making sure the national security interests and the consultation with stakeholders is balanced, and we did believe that the select committee was the right place, and acknowledge that there were submissions made around these concerns. It was the right place to ensure that the views of many, including Māori stakeholders—was the right place for those views and concerns to be aired.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Minister, I draw your attention to—taking my mask off first!—Part 1, purpose of the bill, section 4, where there is an amendment proposed for the insertion of Resolution 2178. Minister, are you able to give clarity as to why there has been priority in recognising and addressing Resolution 2178 under this bill and not addressing recommendations 1 and 2 of the commission of inquiry, which deals with important aspects of addressing counter-terrorism under this bill?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): For those who may be watching at home, Resolution 2178 is a United Nations resolution and the inclusion of that within this piece of legislation makes sure that we fulfil our international commitments to that resolution. It’s something that can be done relatively easily within this piece of legislation. In terms of the member’s juxtaposition of that, two recommendations, 1 and 2, I believe she mentioned around the royal commission of inquiry, I’d also note that there is a large amount of work to make sure that all of the recommendations of the royal commission are worked through and acted. That is obviously being led by the Minister responsible for that, the Hon Andrew Little. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a matter of prioritisation. It’s just that when we are passing this piece of counter-terrorism legislation, it’s an opportunity for us to make sure that we fully meet our international obligations underneath that, under that resolution of the United Nations.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Minister, following on from that, you’ve clarified for the benefit of the public, Resolution 2178 from the United Nations Security Council in 2014. Again, coming in under the purposes of this bill, it is specific to addressing the recommendations within that resolution. My question, Minister, is: why is it that the drafting of this legislation, and you as the Minister leading the bill, did not see fit as a priority the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry, giving it the same regard and positioning as Resolution 2178, which is specific to dealing with how best to address counter-terrorism in New Zealand?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): My understanding is that making sure that we include the United Nations Resolution 2178 within this piece of legislation means that we give full effect to it. It is connected to some new aspects within this legislation around international travel to or through New Zealand or its waters with the intent to undertake a terrorist act. I think the member will note that that resolution has been around since 2014, as it says in the clause that she mentioned, and the Government has seen fit to make sure that it comes fully into effect and this piece of legislation is the vehicle in which we can do that.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): With respect, Minister, that doesn’t answer the question I put to you. My question is—the purpose of this bill is identified with specifically addressing Resolution 2178, and you’ve talked about the elements under that resolution. My question, Minister, is that you leading this proposed legislation in addressing counter-terrorism to the best effect in New Zealand—why was recommendation 1 under the commission of inquiry, which is “Ensure a Minister is given responsibility and accountability to lead and coordinate the counter-terrorism effort” and recommendation 2, to “Establish a new national intelligence and security agency”—those recommendations, Minister, are very specific and would clearly fit within the purpose of this legislation in dealing with and defeating counter-terrorism in New Zealand. Why has that not been included? Or more so, Minister, why have you overlooked that being addressed within this counter-terrorism legislation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for the question. The priority in this instance, and for this piece of legislation, was to ensure that another recommendation of the royal commission of inquiry—around the likes of planning and preparation, control orders, etc.—was prioritised to give the authorities the tools in order to prevent another offence of that ilk occurring again, something which we all will agree with. I think Mr Little outlined, in his second reading contribution, that the issues around recommendations 1 and 2 that the member has referred to, are issues that the Government continues to work on. I would not want the work on that to hold up the work that is contained in this legislation, which will go a long way to give the tools to our authorities to prevent terrorist attacks occurring again.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 98
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.
Noes 22
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 37 to 56, and Schedule 3, “Amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 98
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.
Noes 22
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 and 2—that is, “Title” and “Commencement” clauses.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, I will report this bill without amendment.
Bills
Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Substantive and consequential amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come now to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 15, “Substantive and consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to start my contribution by looking at the cost of the implementation of this new policy, which is removing the subsequent child rule that is in the current Act. It says in the documentation that there is no or very little additional cost. In fact, the only cost that is of significance is the $3.966 million for IT changeovers and for training costs for staff. But it does say in this bill that for those who shift from the jobseeker support to the sole parent support, the rate of benefit will not change. But we know that the change to sole parent also triggers additional financial incentives, so I just wonder, has the Minister costed those financial incentives, and, if so, what are they? And what is the likely cost of that—per annum—going to be to the taxpayer of New Zealand?
While the Minister is getting ready I’ll maybe just quote the impact that that’s going to have. There will be 5,400 on the sole parent that will have their work obligations changed, which means that they will no longer have to be seeking employment from when their youngest child turns one, and 2,500 jobseeker support beneficiaries would move on to sole parent support. So there is quite a significant number of people that will be transitioning on to different benefits. It also takes into account of the 1,000 partners of those people who also will have their work obligations changed. So if the Minister is able to address those costs, I think that the taxpayers would be very grateful. Thank you.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I’d like to just point out that the cost of those financial incentives are outside of the scope of this bill. However, I would like to point out what some of those financial incentives for training and employment would be for people going from job seeker through to sole parent. We know that when the subsequent child policy is removed, there would be approximately 4,200 sole parents receiving jobseeker support or that are currently seeking jobseeker support would become eligible to transfer to sole parent support. So some of the financial incentives that they might be eligible for, one would be the work bonus. That is a non-taxable, non-recoverable payment that can be made to clients or partners on specific benefits who do not have either part-time or full-time work obligations and who cancel their benefits to move into employment. Some clients who become eligible to transfer from job seeker to sole parent support when the policy is removed may therefore become eligible for the work bonus.
There’s also the Training Incentive Allowance. The Training Incentive Allowance, as we know, is a non-taxable payment for clients who meet the qualifications and are getting specific types of benefits. At the moment, the Training Incentive Allowance is available for sole parents receiving jobseeker support, but because of their work obligation commitments, it might mean that they can only study part-time with the Training Incentive Allowance. Moving from jobseeker support to sole parent support when the policy is removed may therefore be able to increase their study from part-time to full-time, and they will be supported to do so. So I think that giving people that added incentive to study full-time and increasing their qualifications is a really good thing.
Whilst reduced work obligations may remove a trigger in the welfare system conversations about returning to work, clients will still be supported to return to work if they indicate that that is their preference. I think that that’s really important in this, that it is giving those people their choice of what works best for their whānau. So we know that the Ministry of Social Development offers a range of initiatives, services, and support that build capacity and remove barriers to employment for sole parents. I would be testing your patience, I think, if I went through them all now, but if members on the other side are happy to hear them, then I would be happy to answer that question.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m quite sure that everyone in this Chamber agrees that we should be firmly and resolutely focused on reducing child poverty. So I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why over 30,000 more children are living in benefit dependent households since October 2017 when this Government came into power, and how will this bill reverse this trend of more children growing up in benefit dependent households, which are so clearly aligned with child poverty?
If the Minister isn’t in a position to answer that yet, I’ll give her one more question. I would like to know—given that since Labour came to power, there have been 74,000 more people on jobseeker support and 84,000 more people on the main benefit—does this Government actually accept that long-term welfare dependency is harmful? If so, what policies do they have to reduce welfare dependency? And how, again, is this bill going to help reduce that welfare dependency with its close alignment with child poverty?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The member opposite, Penny Simmonds, will be pleased to know, I’m certain, that this bill will support 42,000 children and help them in their journey, as she is suggesting, towards moving out of poverty. What I will say, too, is that the evidence shows that the current policy has not been effective in reducing time on the benefit. So there was a thought that this would increase time, or that the previous policy or the policy as it stands at the moment would reduce time on the benefit. That is not what the evidence has shown. Also, the evidence has not shown that the current policy has improved financial or social outcomes for those people on this benefit. So while this is a small scope—this particular bill is a very narrow scope and creates a very narrow policy setting—it isn’t about the fact of looking at the increasing time on the benefit, because it doesn’t currently show that. The evidence doesn’t show that this has been effective in getting that aim, anyway. So this is about equity—about creating equity in the current policy settings.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of quick questions to the Minister. The Greens are very supportive of this piece of legislation, and we believe it’s well overdue to remove this kind of unfair treatment of subsequent children compared to other kids. We want all kids to be able to get the parenting that they need and that their parents are able to give them.
So from listening to the previous member from the National Party, who seem to be concerned about welfare dependency—as if that was a disconnected thing from the rest of society and could be resolved by sanctions and punishment of parents—I wonder if the Minister would like to talk to some of the drivers about why sole parents may need and benefit from receiving income support for a period of time to support themselves and their children.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I’d like to thank the member for that question, and yes, I think that the intent of this is to give those parents choice around what’s best for their family and what’s best for their children. I believe that it is really important that we create a realistic and sensible choice for those families and for those sole parents.
It was only last year that the Opposition put out their seven-point plan around the importance of the first 1,000 days in a young person’s life. I believe that getting rid of the policy settings as they stand at the moment supports the 1,000 days and those first 1,000 days of a young person’s life, because it gives a realistic choice that people can stay at home and be the first parent and the first teacher of their child. I think that that’s incredibly important, if that’s what works best for their family, because everybody needs to be able to make that choice, and not having something that’s being imposed upon them and choices taken away from them is incredibly important. That makes certain that they are providing the best that they can for their children. So I believe that that is the real reason why we are looking at this.
I know that it was part of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations; they put this forward that this was going to make a big difference to those families, but also—and something that is dear to my heart—a huge difference to women, because we know that the majority of sole parents receiving this, or in this situation as it stands, are women. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group acknowledged and identified that this was going to have the biggest impact on Māori and women. I couldn’t be happier that we’re making this difference here with this policy setting change.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Chair. I congratulate the Minister on her ambitions for women, and I must say I share much of that sentiment, to a degree. I think I made some commentary in this House last time I spoke on this bill about there being quite an ideological difference from these two sides of the House around this policy change. As much as there are ideological arguments to be had, there’s also data-driven arguments to have, and we on this side of the Chamber, especially, like to make our decisions based in data.
So, first of all, I’d like to ask the Minister about any impact assessment that has been had on women around the benefits of going back into the workforce, or at least attempting to go back into the workforce, after that 12-month period once that subsequent or second or third child turns one. I’d also like to caveat those comments with a note from the OECD which says that paid work is “the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development, and generally giving children the best start to life”. So in the context of that comment from the OECD, I’d just like to ask the Minister two further questions: one, is she confident that the advice on the bill accounted for the harms of long-term benefit dependency, and, if so, why; and, two, where in the official advice are the harms of long-term benefit dependency thoroughly considered? Thank you, Mr Chair.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I think it’s important to establish that what the member with that question is assuming is that this policy setting is reducing long-term benefit dependency, and what we do know is that the evidence shows that the current policy has not been effective in reducing time on benefit or improving financial or social outcomes. In fact, what it has done is taken away choices for those families, and I think that that’s really important.
I feel that the question is a bit of a redundant question in the fact that it’s making an assumption around that long-term benefit dependency, and that’s not what happens. Under the current policy settings, that benefit dependency did not reduce; we created greater inequities within the system. We are dealing with those inequities with rectifying the settings of this policy change now.
So there is no evidence to suggest that removing the policy will have a negative impact on parents off benefit or employment outcomes. The evidence does not exist, and the Ministry of Social Development will continue to offer a range of employment initiatives, services, and support. I kind of agree with the member that it’s important that we have those services and support there for parents who are able to be in a position to make those choices to work. But, equally, we want those parents to make the choices and to have realistic choices of what is best for their whānau, and to give them a realistic choice of what is best for their whānau and not have that choice whittled away and taken away from them. That is the critical key to what we are rectifying with this bill here.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just, I guess, more to that point, I’m interested in hearing from the Minister, because the Greens absolutely support the view articulated by the Minister. We believe that parents, particularly mums, are best placed to assist the needs of their whānau, and sometimes it’s in the best interests of the whānau for mum to go back to work because her head’s been done in staying at home 24/7, because, my goodness, that is a tough, tough job. Rewarding, I hear, but tough—right? And so sometimes going back to work is the right thing for the whānau, but the mum and the whānau are the best people to be able to assess whether that’s the case or not.
The sense that there’s a blanket rule that can be applied to every single family, regardless of the mental health of the mum, the aptitude of the mum, the health of the baby, a history of violence and trauma or not, or whether there’s actually attachment issues that require the parent to put themselves first at home with the baby regardless of whether they want to be going back to work. The fact—the idea that we can just pretend that none of those differences exist and apply a blanket rule does my head in, to be perfectly frank. So we’re very pleased to see this piece of legislation, and the Minister’s spoken very clearly and articulately that, actually, there’s no evidence of this policy supporting people back into work faster. I suspect that’s because of those diversity of experiences and needs. But I’m wondering if the Minister has seen any evidence that sanctions work at all in our welfare system and how that may have impacted her decision making in light of this legislation?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): That’s actually part of the broader review that we will have going on into the welfare area. I’m looking forward to finding that and reading through that, as I’m sure the member will be, and her party as well. But I’m really delighted that we will be looking into that because it does need examination and we do need to be looking into the evidence of the impacts of sanctions. So it will be part—and I can give you that reassurance—of the broader review that will be happening or is happening.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really pleased that the Minister and the Green Party have raised this issue around evidence, because it came up in the Social Services and Community Committee that actually the official advice was a little bit devoid of this information. In fact, they did not analyse the impacts of long-term benefit dependency. The reason they didn’t do that was because the Minister had indicated from the outset that this was the policy direction that they were taking, and so that analysis had not been done. In fact, I believe it was part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Greens that this sanction be removed from the Act. But the reality is, and if the Minister would like some help with this, the evidence is unequivocal, and the evidence is that long-term benefit dependency does make it harder to enter the workforce and it is more likely to increase those cycles of hardship within those families, and it is not the compassionate action to take in the long term. So that information is there, and, of course, the social investment approach was entirely based on that evidence and the long-term benefits for both social and economic outcomes for this country.
So I would like to ask the Minister that if this was a policy direction that was already decided on before it even went to the select committee and before this bill was even introduced to this House, how is the Minister going to monitor and measure whether those incentives to work or those motivators to return to work are actually going to be introduced? And how will the ministry be measuring that and deciding whether this policy direction is actually going to create benefits for those children and their parents in the very long term? If we cannot measure and determine those outcomes, then I think this bill is actually flawed. So can the Minister give us some confidence that there will be measures put in place that will support her contention that actually there is no downside from implementing this policy? Thank you.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I can give the member over there some confidence that this did not come out of thin air. This actually was part of the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s (WEAG’s) report in February 2019, and, again, that did not come out of thin air. The WEAG did a lot of research and analysis around their recommendations. They did a huge amount of consultation and they went out and worked with different groups throughout the country and looked at what was working and what was not working for those groups, and could see very clearly that this very small part that we’re talking about here today was not working for different groups. They particularly highlighted the women who it was not working for. But also, once recommendations were being made and officials were working through, again, this wasn’t just taking that recommendation and saying to this recommendation, “We’ll just take it and implement it and put a bill around this.” There was some research that was done with control groups—
David Seymour: What did it say?
Hon JAN TINETTI: —and it was highlighted during the select committee process, I know, from the officials, who were able to do that and report back to select committee around that—but it showed that this was not making a difference to benefit dependency.
So I’m just going to go back to highlight that point, because it does seem to be one that people do have some concerns around. The current policy settings were not impacting on that at all. So this bill, this small, narrow bill, is about equity within the system as it stands now and restoring that equity.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, I thank the Minister for that very interesting answer, and for people watching this at home, this committee is debating whether or not people should have to look for work after one year after having a child while on a benefit. That was a great example of why people lose faith in politics. A great example of ducking and avoiding the question. We heard from the Minister that there was a working group, and that they did some research, and it didn’t come out of thin air—no one was saying that any of this came out of thin air. The question was very simple: will this policy lead to an increase in benefit dependency, and does the Government believe that benefit dependency—other things being equal—is bad for children’s welfare and development? Two very simple questions, and we kind of got an answer at the end.
Without pointing to anything in particular, the Minister told us that she doesn’t believe that requiring people to go out and look for a job has any effect on welfare dependency. Well, that’s another extraordinary claim, because if it’s true that requiring people to look for a job a year after having a kid on a benefit has no effect on whether or not people go out and get a job and get off benefits, then you have to ask why are we here doing it? You’d have to assume that people are going out and getting a job anyway, in which case we never needed this policy. Or, on the other hand, here’s another possibility—what the Minister just said is not supported by the evidence. Actually, having a requirement to look for a job a year after you have a kid on a benefit results in more people than would otherwise look for a job, more people working, and fewer people dependent on benefits. That sounds like a more plausible explanation, especially when the Government itself is looking to remove the requirement. Why would they remove a requirement that didn’t make any difference, as the Minister claims?
So I want to put the question back to the Minister. If it’s true that a requirement to look for work doesn’t reduce dependence on benefits, then why are we removing it? If it doesn’t make any difference, then surely we don’t need to make any change to the law. That’s the first question. Why are we making the change if it doesn’t have any effect?
Number two, I want to ask about equity, which the Minister mentioned. The Minister said that she’s very concerned about equity. Well perhaps she could talk to us, and please be direct. We don’t need to know about what did or didn’t come out of thin air, whether there was a working group, whether there was a select committee; we just want a Minister with the data at her fingertips who can inform this committee about the law we’re passing, OK? That’s all we want.
What we’d like her to do is tell us how do working parents behave? How many working parents have to go out and actually get a job within a year of having a kid? How many people who have a kid in New Zealand get to take more than a year off? Or, put it this way—what proportion of working parents in New Zealand have to go back to work within one year? Because I can tell the member, when I think about all my friends—I’m at a time of life when a lot of my friends are having kids—they ain’t taking a year off. They’re back to work. I just wonder if their experience is common, or how many people that have a kid in New Zealand at the moment are back to work within one year? And if the Minister can tell us that, maybe we can think about whether this policy is truly equitable. So that’s two questions that we’re very keen to hear the answer to.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I’m quite happy to help out that member, who obviously hasn’t listened to my answers from before. So, firstly, to start with his second question—that’s outside the scope of this bill. That does not come into this bill whatsoever. The equity that I have talked about with this bill is that, as the Act stands at the moment, we talk about the children from zero to three, three to 14, and this particular policy setting makes an inequitable change to that by talking about then the nought to one. It takes away from the fact that it treats the first child very different to subsequent children, and that is the inequitable setting, and that is wrong, if we’re talking about children, to treat them differently and talk about inequity between. That is the difference, and what I have said here already today is that we are talking about the equity between the children as it stands in the Act at the moment, and equity with the Act.
But I also would like to point out that key themes from submission in support of the bill were that the policy impacts child development, doesn’t reflect on parents’ caring responsibilities, currently as it stands at the moment causes toxic stress, as it stands at the moment it disproportionately impacts Māori and women, and that has been identified throughout from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. It has created inequities in the welfare system, has not achieved its intended purpose, puts pressure on low-income families to have fewer children, and contributes to hardship and poverty.
I go back to what I believe is a fundamental of all parties across this party, the belief that the first 1,000 days—and I definitely know it’s the National Party’s policies, because they put it out in their election campaign about their seven-point plan around the first 1,000 days—but the first 1,000 days in a child’s life are incredibly important. This policy setting change—as I said, a small change that we are making here—ensures that we have really put that importance, and are showing that importance, on that first 1,000 days.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that. I think it’s really important that we keep focusing on the children here. The Minister has talked about working groups doing this and that with policy; it is also very important to look at experience. I was an experienced mother who went back to work, I’ve watched my daughters go back to work after having children, and I’ve watched thousands and thousands of women retrain to go back to work, in my previous job. So much of going back to work after having children is about confidence. There is nothing in this bill that tells me that women are going to be given more confidence to get back into the workforce eventually. The longer someone is unemployed, the harder it is to re-enter the workforce—that sense of self-worth and that confidence just ebbs away. This is not a compassionate bill.
The Minister has already said that she sees the biggest impact of this bill being on Māori and on women, and, sadly, I think she is right. I think the biggest impact will be on Māori and on women. There will be greater benefit dependency by Māori and by women, and the children of those women will suffer. The children who are in a benefit-dependent family will suffer, all because this Government wants to have their so-called kindness and compassion—but the reality is they will suffer.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for raising the issue of the first 1,000 days and referencing the National Party’s plan, its policy, on the first 1,000 days. I actually wrote that component of that policy so I firmly stand behind it. But what the first 1,000 days is about is not dedicating full-time at-home care for mums and their babies or dads and their new babies. It’s about creating that security with those children, and if you talk or listen to experts like Nathan Wallis, he will tell you that even children in day care can have those bonds if the facility manages the care of those children and rearranges their rosters and the process that they install there.
But one thing that I can’t reconcile with this bill, which has been raised, is that if you are a working parent you are entitled to 12 months’ parental leave. Six months of that is paid. But if you are not working you have no obligation to go back to work and so there is a disconnect and a misalignment between people who are working full-time and those who are not and receiving care from the State.
So how does the Minister reconcile that, and would she consider some other time frame, some other limit, to people who are caring for children on benefit before they have to re-join the workforce? One of the things that I do note, Minister, when we are talking about work readiness is that when someone has a time limit on it, when they have a time period that they have to work towards, what they are doing is starting to think about types of jobs that they might be interested in, the types of jobs that may be available to them in their local environment. Then they start thinking about the skills that they need to enter into those jobs, and then they start thinking about the training that they need, or the upskilling that they might need, or even going out and getting work in preparation for getting back into the workforce full-time.
But if there’s no time limit on that, if it’s very open-ended, then what is the incentive for people to actually start thinking about their skills, what skills they may need to develop, what re-education they may need for that work preparation? So without any kind of time limit on it, what I think is going to happen—and this Government will probably be very well aware of it—is that we are opening the door to very long-term benefit dependency and people staying out of the workforce because there is no incentive, no motivation, for them to re-enter the workforce. It just makes it harder on those people that do go back, because we all have to remember that the people who do go back to work are the ones that are paying for those that don’t.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for her very revealing reply to my earlier questions. She said that equity between kids in a household on welfare and a household with parents working was out of the scope of this bill. She then went on to talk about all of the terrible impacts of parents having to work in households where people are dependent on benefits. She talked about toxic stress, for example. Well, can I just offer a few thoughts to the Minister about why the kids of working households and their welfare is relevant and is in scope for this bill.
You see, this Parliament is here to approve the use of taxes for the Government’s purposes, and the people who are working—they are, compulsorily in this country, taxpayers, and so they do have an interest in how money is used. And they might reasonably ask, if we are going to spend money not having people working, staying on benefits to reduce toxic stress, then it might be relevant to understand what sort of toxic stress and other concerns the Minister has—apply to the people paying the bills. If we’re concerned about the people getting the Government money from the taxpayer, via the Treasury, via the Ministry of Social Development, I think we should be concerned for all kids, in all households. And, if it’s true that having to work is such a terrible thing, maybe the Minister could get up and tell us what sort of research they have done as a baseline for all those kids whose parents work and pay taxes and have to go back to work within one year already. I think we should be worried about their welfare too.
Now that I’ve explained, I hope, to the Minister why actually all children, including those in working households, are in scope for this bill and considering them is important before we set the levels of benefits for kids in benefit-led households, can the Minister get up and explain: has she studied, and has this policy been informed by, the experience of kids in working households? How many of them have parents who have to go back to work within one year? That’s very relevant, and I’d love the Minister to get up and explain it to us.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Transitional, savings, and related provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 17 and the Schedule, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Part 2 of the bill sets out transitional provisions to improve the client experience and comes into force on 11 October 2021. This allows for a 28-day transition period prior to the policy’s removal, which will improve the client experience for clients with the benefit application or change in circumstances around the time of the policy’s removal by preventing multiple changes to their benefit type and/or work, or work preparation obligations within a short period of time. The transition period also extends 28 days after the policy’s removal. The dates of application, decision by the Ministry of Social Development, and benefit commencement, or corresponding dates for a change in circumstances, can be spread across several weeks. A broad window is therefore required to ensure equitable treatment across a range of situations within the transition period and to ensure a streamlined process for clients.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do note the Minister’s response earlier when we were discussing the costs of this. The Minister revealed some of the other subsequent incentives or what would happen to beneficiaries on, say, the sole parent, who would have their obligations changed, and some of the transition from jobseeker to sole parent. The other financial benefits that are available, the Minister did run through those, but I wonder if she has put a dollar figure on it for those 5,400 sole parents that would be changed, and, especially, for the 2,500 that are on the jobseeker benefit who would move over to sole parent and qualify for those other financial benefits. If she can quantify that, please, to help inform the discussion. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the final debate—that is, the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): I’d like to just take a short call on the title of this bill, currently called the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, and suggest that we call this bill the “Social Security (Long-term Dependency) Bill”, because I believe that this is what we are condemning a lot of our most vulnerable people in this country to: long-term dependency on the State. For a socialist Government, I anticipate that that is exactly what they are hoping to do. But for people that care about the long-term future of this country, the financial viability of this country, but mostly about the children that are being born into these homes, this side of the House believes that we need to be creating independence, financial security, and really solid homes where families go off to work, where children go off to school, and they train and they grow up to be contributing members of this country. I think the title does not suit the outcome that this bill is going to deliver. I rest my case.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 1 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
Report of Committee of the Whole House
Report of Committee of the Whole House
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Water Services Bill
Third Reading
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Water Services Bill be now read a third time.
It is with pleasure that I rise for the third reading of this bill. I do want to acknowledge the efforts of all parties in ensuring that this piece of legislation has reached its final reading today. Everybody in Aotearoa should be able to get drinking water from the tap, knowing that it is safe. We should also be able to swim or gather mahinga kai in our rivers, lakes, or at the beach without fear of becoming sick. We have an obligation to ensure this for current and future generations.
I’ve previously outlined to the House the systemic failure of the existing drinking-water regulatory arrangements. The existing arrangements allowed the Havelock North campylobacter outbreak to take place in 2016, leading to the deaths of up to four people and forcing thousands to become sick. They allowed, at a conservative estimate, 34,000 New Zealanders to get sick from drinking their household water every year. They allowed over half of supplies serving 5,000 or fewer consumers to operate without meeting drinking-water standards. This is completely unacceptable, and I’m sure it’s unacceptable to every member of this House and to the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is why the Government has committed to the three waters reforms, with the Water Services Bill playing an integral part.
The Water Services Bill will provide a new regulatory regime for drinking-water suppliers, along with targeted reforms to improve the environmental performance of our three waters infrastructure. This bill will provide a clear leadership for drinking-water regulation through a new central regulator, Taumata Arowai, and will strengthen compliance, monitoring, and enforcement of the drinking-water system. It will create a requirement for a multi-barrier approach to protecting drinking-water supplies. It will include all drinking-water supplies in the new system apart from the domestic self-suppliers. It will ensure that source waters are protected and monitored. It will provide measures to significantly improve the transparency and environmental performance of our publicly owned three waters infrastructure. It will enable flexibility so the regulation of drinking water is proportionate to the scale, complexity, and risk profile of each drinking-water supply, and it will require those who have functions, duties, and powers under the bill to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai in a way that is consistent with the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management.
I’d like to briefly respond to some of the points that were raised during the committee of the whole House stage of the bill. Some members of the Opposition questioned whether the regime would work for small and rural supplies, particularly those that are run by volunteers or community groups. Some members of the Opposition also questioned whether the offences in the bill were too high for very small suppliers. Significant work has gone into the design of the legislation to ensure it is fit for purpose for small supplies. Suppliers will have to provide safe drinking water and meet drinking-water standards, including those supplies that are run by volunteers or community groups.
The existing regime under the Health Act has applied to supplies run by volunteers and community groups since 2007, so this is not a significant change to the existing law. However, the Water Services Bill does contain a legal defence specifically for volunteers and this is new. The bill also has significantly lower penalties for individuals than for organisations. The financial penalties are equivalent to those in other similar regimes like the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Food Act. More importantly, I need to emphasise that the bill contains very practical, simple, cost-effective ways to allow small and rural suppliers to comply. This is a significant improvement to the existing regime, which is one-size-fits-all. The aim is to make it easier for small suppliers to provide safe drinking water to communities, not to take them to court.
Finally, I also need to emphasise that Parliament has now amended the bill so that unregistered drinking-water suppliers will have a full seven years before they have to comply with the new regime. This is a long period and it will give a significant amount of time for small suppliers to understand the new requirements and allow Taumata Arowai to work with them, appropriately tailor the system, and provide support.
One member of the Opposition, Barbara Kuriger MP, spoke at length about the need for an exemption for small suppliers. I want to reiterate that population cut-offs have not worked well in this area as populations change. It is simply not workable for a supply to sometimes be in the system and sometimes be out. The better approach is to have a regime that can be tailored to small suppliers and to give them a reasonable period to understand the new obligations.
I also want to respond to questions raised by the Hon Eugenie Sage MP, who was a member of the Health Committee, which considered the bill. At the late stage of committee deliberations, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrote to the committee and suggested that the provisions in the bill enabling Taumata Arowai to have oversight of the environmental performance of three waters infrastructure should be relabelled. The committee received advice and changed the name of these powers and functions to “infrastructure performers”. In retrospect, this was the wrong decision. The Government always intended Taumata Arowai to have oversight of the environmental performance of three waters infrastructure, and this role is reflected throughout the objectives and functions of Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Act 2020, which was passed last year.
I want to reiterate how proud I am to see this bill come to this final parliamentary stage. This bill, along with our broader package of the three waters reforms, demonstrates this Government’s commitment to addressing the significant problems that face our three waters infrastructure. It also provides a comprehensive response to the recommendations of the Havelock North inquiry. Outside of this bill, the House will be aware of the service delivery reform proposals the Government is discussing with local government and iwi to establish water services entities. These entities will have the benefit of superior funding mechanisms, including overcoming council debt constraints, the ability to spread costs over wider pools of population, and operational efficiencies.
Service delivery reform is also essential, as many of our publicly owned drinking-water supplies, particularly those that service provincial or rural communities, have not complied with drinking-water standards for too long, and some have never complied. In addition, environmental standards are rising and communities no longer accept the discharge of sewage or mortuary waste to waterways on the ocean. We need to face up to these challenges, not shy away from them. I’m really proud to be a part of this side of the House, passing this bill. This bill, as I said, will deliver on transformational change for the health and safety of our communities as well as upholding a high standard of Te Mana o te Wai. I commend the Water Services Bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Madam Speaker—once I can get my mask disconnected from my glasses—thank you. Look, it’s a pleasure to take a call on this third reading of the Water Services Bill. It’s not really a pleasure to be in this position that we’re in, because National is still opposed to this bill. It could have been quite simple to repair this piece of legislation so that we could have supported it, because it does create a number of sensible duties and obligations for large water suppliers, such as councils, which are where more of our water contamination incidents and public health risks tend to originate. And so, in light of that, that would have been a reasonably easy bill to support. We support the formation of Taumata Arowai, and we have no problem with people providing and receiving clean water, and in particular clean drinking water, in New Zealand.
I was just interested in that speech from the Minister, Hon Meka Whaitiri, who spoke about this bill being not a significant change, and yet the changes in this bill require people to register their drinking-water supply, require people to prepare a drinking-water safety plan and lodge this with Taumata Arowai, prepare a source water risk management plan, establish a consumer complaints process, and Taumata Arowai must review drinking water safety plans and monitor compliance. So, therefore, the Government is asking more than 70,000 small suppliers to comply with these issues and then expecting Taumata Arowai to review those water safety plans and monitor compliance. Now, where the confusion sets in, after the speech that I just heard this afternoon, after the Minister’s saying that it’s not a significant change—she said that this is practical, it will be simple, and they are going to make it easy for small suppliers. And then, in the next sentence, the Minister said they have extended the time for small suppliers to be part of this compliance to seven years—and we commended the Minister on that the other day—before the compliance sets in for the small suppliers. The Minister said it will give them seven years to understand it. So what I don’t understand is, if it’s so practical and it’s so simple and if it makes it easy for small suppliers, how come it’s going to be so difficult for those small suppliers that they need seven years to understand it.
Now, the reason we supported the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, even though the Minister didn’t support Christopher Luxon’s Supplementary Order Paper the other day, was because it does give time, because we actually think that Taumata Arowai has got quite a bit on their hands just trying to work through the process for the larger suppliers, let alone the smaller suppliers. But what was interesting the other day, also, during the debate the other day, in response to Penny Simmonds, the very good National MP for Invercargill, the Minister quoted from a letter from Federated Farmers, from Andrew Hoggard, and said, “I want to take from a letter I received”—and I’m quoting this now—“on 21 September, from Andrew Hoggard, national president of Federated Farmers, the following quote, and I apologise for the length of time taken to extract this quote for the committee’s benefit. He has said: ‘It is encouraging that compliance with acceptable solutions, including end-point treatment, will remove the need for drinking water safety plans and source water risk management plans, and that consumer complaints processes will not apply to various small suppliers. We support more time being provided in the legislation for registration of water suppliers, and we welcome your assurance that registration processes will be simple and free with templates and guidance available. Much will depend on the detail of acceptable solutions for small rural water supplies.’ ” So, in the quote that I’ve just read here, Federated Farmers understand that it will be free, with templates, and there will be guidance available, but much will depend on the detail. So, over here, I’m a little bit confused about what the detail is, because what the bill says, what Federated Farmers says, the seven years—all of this stuff is starting to sound a bit contradictory, which is worrying in itself.
Then the Minister went on to quote: “ ‘… Federated Farmers is committed to engaging with Taumata Arowai to ensure that acceptable solutions are fit for purpose and provide for safe drinking water at a reasonable cost, with as little compliance hassle as possible. However, at this stage at least, there are still many uncertainties.’ ”. And she said, “In saying that, they’ve indicated at the end of the letter ‘Thank you again for hearing our concerns and responding to them.’ and they would welcome maintaining a dialogue with myself and officials to develop win-win solutions.” Now, we support win-win solutions on this side of the House, but it was really interesting that I’ve just received an email last night from Federated Farmers, who have quickly pointed out that there was a paragraph that was left out of the letter that the Minister read in the House in her response to Penny Simmonds last week. And that says, “On balance, Federated Farmers continues to prefer an exemption for small rural suppliers. Although we are open on whether the cut off should be 50 or a smaller number, with a focus instead on education and information, including developing best practice guidance.”
So, over the course of the most recent lockdown, Christopher Luxon and I started a petition, and that petition gained over 15,000 signatures in a relatively short period of time, and that was supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that we put to the House the other day, that the House decided not to support, that any person supplying with end-point users of less than 30 should be exempt. I even went to the point of saying to the Minister on the day: if she would accept our Supplementary Order Paper, in line with her Supplementary Order Paper, which gives seven years—to go, well, if it’s that simple and we need to find the most simplified answers and the way of achieving this, why would the Minister not exempt those users until the point where we get to the seven years. And if simplified answers are not found, we could have a relook at it, because what most people fear, when they see legislation coming out of this House, is that it comes out of the piece of legislation and then it’s sent to regulators to make regulations, and, despite everything we read and hear and people say about how simple this is going to be, we have no guarantee at this point that it’s going to be simple.
We have no guarantee at this point that it will be simple for those end users, and what I can see—so we have farmers supplying farmhouses, we have marae supplying small groups of people, we have bach owners supplying other bach owners, we have people supplying their neighbours, and people have been very good at organising water systems that work in small communities. And what I can see people going, when they read this and they look at the threats of how much they’re going to get fined and all the rest of it—they’re just going to pick up those water pipes and say, “Look, sorry, I’m just going to supply my own place from now on”—because you can—“I’m not going to supply those three baches down the road.” or “I’m not going to extend my water.”, especially if there have been subdivisions. We’re going to have lots of disputes about who’s actually the person, at the end of the day, who’s supplying the water. So there are going to be some real problems here, and what will happen, at the end of the day, if those people don’t supply the water, that’s going to be left to the councils, on top of the three waters legislation.
So National cannot support this bill this afternoon, and thanks for the opportunity to speak.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everybody should be able to turn on the tap and know their drinking water is safe, and for me it’s a real pleasure to be able to stand here at the third reading of the Water Services Bill, because this is a bill that the Health Committee spent a considerable amount of time looking at and discussing over the past few months. So it’s great to see it move forward to this stage.
In total we had 977 written submissions and we heard 130 oral submissions, and, basically, as a result we made quite a few changes. But one of the common themes, and it’s already been debated in the House, is the need to make sure that our response fits the scale and complexity of the water scheme. So we did hear from a number of submitters—often rural suppliers who supply a lot of stock with water but also supplied a few houses for drinking water; similar issues of scale around marae and also around some holiday homes.
So we were really pleased to be able to have a look at some of the acceptable solutions—there was an exposure draft on Taumata Arowai’s website—because the bill allows Taumata Arowai to develop acceptable solutions which mean that you can actually scale the response and mean those suppliers don’t have to comply with the full regulatory regime. And so looking at the one that was on the website, looking at households being able to install off-the-shelf water treatment devices in their homes is really important.
This is an important bill. There’s been an extension in the Supplementary Order Paper stage for smaller suppliers to come on board, but really great to commend it to the House.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, first of all, I want to start by thanking my colleague, Barbara Kuriger, for reading out that paragraph that was missed by the “most transparent Government ever” when they read the Federated Farmers letter out last week. I also just want to clarify a fact, because the Minister who spoke on this bill today is as equally numerically challenged as the Minister of Education is when he thinks 29 percent is a majority—can I just clarify that 96.7 percent of the population gets drinking water from a fully compliant supply. So that does not mean that many water supplies are non-compliant; 96.7 percent.
Now, I’m often asked, when I’m out and about, why Parliament is so adversarial. Why can’t we work together to get the best outcome? And, you know, we really wanted to do that this time. We really wanted to support this bill. We agree that so much of this is the right thing to do. Taumata Arowai is going to mean that standards are set and are monitored, and we really want to show our support for that. The problem is that 80 percent of this bill covers sensible restrictions and sensible requirements for large-scale water suppliers, but there is a disproportionate and burdensome obligation on smaller water schemes. And now I have found that it’s not only the 75,000 to 100,000 small rural water schemes that aren’t registered, but there’s also a small group of registered water suppliers—very small water suppliers—around 500 of them, and 200 of those are community owned.
I was contacted by the Tukurua Water Supply Society Inc., up in Golden Bay, and they are incredibly concerned about this bill going through because they understood that they were going to have five years to become compliant. They are a small, incorporated society that thought they would have five years to become compliant. But what has happened—in the Supplementary Order Paper that came through, the extension of time from five years to seven years for the unregistered ones has left out the 500 small registered ones and they are now going to be required to become compliant within a year.
Now, this is going to impact on a number of small suppliers in my region, in the Southland region, there’s about 10 registered water supplies in Southland that are small. Most of them have a bore source, three of them use a stream or river or lake source. No acceptable solution has been worked through yet for these small surface extraction suppliers, and they have no idea what they are going to be able to put in place. Now, you might say, “Well, the endpoint users UV system would be good for them,” but currently they can’t have that in place because the Health Act doesn’t allow them to. So they have got to find an acceptable solution, they’ve got to work through an acceptable solution within the space of a year. I don’t think the Minister has looked at that very thoroughly.
Also, the Minister last time talked about how this is going to be incredibly cost effective for these smaller schemes, whether they are registered or non-registered. Well, in the regulatory impact statement, when they thought that there were around 5,000 small suppliers, the range was between $154 million to $409 million for capital expenditure for those small suppliers and between $24 million and $110 million in annual operating expenditure. Now, I’m not sure where the Minister got her cost effective data from, but that doesn’t sound terribly cost effective to me, to small rural water schemes with a low number of users. So what we’ve got here now is an incredible mishmash of legislation trying to be applied one-size-fits-all across a whole range, from big water suppliers through to small registered water suppliers through to thousands of small unregistered water suppliers. I’d have to say, if I was Taumata Arowai I would be quaking in my boots as to how we’re going to round up all these small schemes, let alone monitor them and look at their reporting.
So what we have, again, is this ideology of centralisation, of us taking a sledgehammer to a walnut instead of taking a practical, pragmatic, and sensible approach to these smaller schemes. Had the Government been prepared to think about something that was more practical and more sensible, we could have supported it. And, as my colleague Barbara Kuriger said, if we had been able to exempt these smaller suppliers for that seven-year time period, developed the practical and pragmatic and sensible, acceptable solutions, then they would have been flocking to go into it. So why is the Government not confident enough that they will be able to show how wonderful these acceptable solutions are and therefore there will be no need to enforce it? The water schemes and their suppliers and the people that run it will be flocking to go into them. But my fear, like the fear of many of my colleagues, is that this legislation will develop a life of its own. I think Ian McKelvie may have said something about this earlier on last week when he said it could be like the health and safety legislation where it develops a life of its own.
Now, it’s all very well for Ministers to stand in this House and say that we’ll develop something that is fit for purpose and it won’t be overly burdensome and it will be pragmatic and it will be practical. But these things leave the House and then bureaucrats run them and it does develop a life of its own. People will be finding that the solutions are not practical and they are not pragmatic and they are not sensible and they do not take account of the size of the schemes and what is appropriate for the size of those things.
Now, I just want to refer again to these handful of small suppliers who have already been registered. They feel that they have been completely left in the lurch with this, the one from Golden Bay, they wrote to the Minister back in August asking her to clarify why now they would only have one year to be compliant. They haven’t heard from her. So they wrote to the Minister Damien O’Connor, because he’s supposedly going to look after the rural sector, and they asked him if he could help them—to explain why and tell them what sort of practical and effective and fit for purpose solution would be put in place for them. He handed it on to the Minister Mahuta and, again, they’ve heard nothing more.
So when the Government say that they have consulted with a number of small registered suppliers, in actual fact there was only a handful of the registered suppliers that were able to have any input into the development of this bill. The rest of them—well, some of them don’t even know it’s happening, to be quite honest. And for the rest of them, they’re going to be scrambling to look at draft acceptable solutions that may come out in about February, and then they’re going to be rushing around to see if it’s going to be workable for their scheme. So we have got a one-size-fits-all, except it doesn’t fit all. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. I just want to commend the Minister for being bold enough to bring this piece of legislation to the House, because, as we’ve heard, at the end of the day, and everyone agrees—including those across the other side of the House—that people should be able to turn their taps on and have safe drinking water. That’s just an everyday human right in my eyes and, as we’ve heard, the members opposite agree.
I’d also like to commend and acknowledge the select committee who heard all these submissions from those in person and all those that wrote in, and interesting to note that due to some of the submissions, some of the concerns that were raised in those submissions, there have been changes made to this piece of legislation which will be better for those that we’ve heard members on the opposite side of the House talk about: our small and rural suppliers. One of those changes is the additional time that has been allowed; seven years for people to be able to comply with this piece of legislation.
Much of what I would like to say has been said by my other colleagues who have stood and taken a call this, so I have nothing further to add, except to commend this bill to the House.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. It is a major step forward to have a national regulator for drinking water, and I really congratulate Minister Mahuta and officials in the Department of Internal Affairs, particularly Michael Petherick and Francesca Algie and others, for taking the recommendations of the Havelock North inquiry, for working with councils, with iwi, and others in developing the legislation last year to establish Taumata Arowai, seeing it formally established in March this year as a new Crown entity, and this bill putting in place the regulatory framework that Taumata Arowai will administer and operate.
So it is bringing all drinking-water supplies, except domestic self-supplies like those that depend on a rainwater tank, within the framework. It means that all drinking-water supplies must provide water that is safe, that meets drinking-water standards, and it obliges suppliers to act when drinking water fails to meet those standards or there are risks to public health. So there are certainly increased responsibilities and duties on drinking-water suppliers. They do have to register with Taumata Arowai. They have to have a source water risk management plan. They have to have and implement a drinking water safety plan with a multi-barrier approach to protection, and they have to review that regularly. There are also duties of due diligence, similar to those in the health and safety at work legislation.
Really importantly too, Taumata Arowai has more tools and a much more comprehensive compliance, monitoring, and enforcement regime. It’s got the ability to issue compliance orders, the ability to have infringement offences, and also a requirement to do much more comprehensive monitoring. The Havelock North inquiry was damning about the previous system for regulating drinking water. It found that district health boards had taken no formal enforcement action over 11 years between 2007 and 2018. That’s why it’s really disappointing that the National Party, having established the inquiry into the Havelock North contamination, is not supporting this bill, because we need an effective regulator, and we need one which has got adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement powers.
Certainly acknowledge, in the Green Party, the concerns of some of the community and rural water suppliers about the administrative costs of this legislation and its impacts on them, given that they provide a lot of time, energy, and expertise on a voluntary basis. There will be costs of registering with Taumata Arowai. There may be some costs of having consultants in to develop things like a drinking water safety plan. But the Greens really support small suppliers being under this law because the Havelock North inquiry found that many small communities have drinking water which doesn’t comply with drinking-water standards because there’s no regulatory oversight of them. It found that there had been no marked improvement in the number of suppliers providing safe drinking water since 2009, and non-compliance with the drinking-water standards was entrenched amongst those small suppliers. In fact, in the Ministry of Health’s 2018-2019 report on compliance with drinking-water standards, only 28 percent of the community drinking-water suppliers, which were supplying between 100 and 500 users, complied with the drinking-water standards. That is not acceptable.
The Government has committed $30 million in the Budget last year to help drinking-water suppliers, the smaller ones, get up to standard. There has been a real commitment, both in the legislation and practically by Taumata Arowai to develop these acceptable solutions or safe harbour arrangements which provide a pathway to comply with the law. If you have a look on the website, not only is there an acceptable solution for agricultural supplies but there is also one for spring and bore water drinking-water supplies. So I think Taumata Arowai has recognised the importance of really developing these practical safe harbour standards which are fit for purpose for the different types of small suppliers. It may well be that they need an off-the-shelf cartridge filter or a UV treatment, which can be provided at the end of point.
So the National member Penny Simmonds’ claim that the legislation was a one-size-fits-all—I totally reject that, because the bill has never had that one-size-fits-all approach. It’s really got a strong ethos of being proportionate to the scale, complexity, and risk profile of the drinking-water supply. In fact, there were further changes made in select committee to give Taumata Arowai more flexibility here, particularly around the review of the drinking water safety plans. So it is proportionate.
But one thing I would really like to encourage the Government to do is in relation to Part 4. Now, clauses 191 and 192 of the bill enable the Government to set regulations which provide for Taumata Arowai to recover all of its costs in performing its functions, duties, and responsibilities from drinking-water suppliers, waste-water and stormwater network operators through fees and levies. Some policy work is under way, I understand, on this, but that the Government hasn’t yet made decisions on the cost recovery component of Taumata Arowai’s funding.
We want the suppliers to focus on improving infrastructure and improving service delivery. It would be a false economy if those in Treasury thought to impose a really high cost recovery regime which meant that Taumata Arowai was setting high fees for suppliers to comply with the responsibilities in the Act. It will create resentment. It will undermine the cooperative relationships which need to develop, and it will undermine the process of developing trust in the sector. It’s in our national interest that this new regulatory framework works well. It will benefit both human health and the environment. So central government needs to invest adequate Crown funding in Taumata Arowai to avoid the lumpy funding which a cost recovery regime can create, and then the lumpy resourcing and staffing that can result from that.
Just in the remaining time, the three waters changes that Government is proposing relate to this bill. We’ve got a new regulatory agency. Because of the number of suppliers, it’s going to take a lot of work to ensure that those are all registered and meeting the Act’s requirement, and yet we have this major reform in three waters. The Green Party recognises that the status quo isn’t adequate. We need more investment in three waters infrastructure and we need more scale to achieve that. Yet only yesterday, the Christchurch City Council unanimously decided to opt out. Other councils like Waimakariri are doing the same. Canterbury mayors have called for a pause on three waters to enable the Government to explore more options for how governance works in the new system, how funding and service delivery works. You’ve got former Labour Ministers—the mayors of Christchurch and Auckland—calling for more work here. Yet Minister Mahuta, in her responses in the House today, was indicating that there’s no opportunity for a pause.
This reform is too important to get wrong. There needs to be more work to ensure that there is a direct role for councils in the governance of the assets that communities have developed over decades. There needs to be a real conversation around how central government can help better fund this infrastructure. Certainly, there has been an additional funding proposed so that no local councils are worse off through the changes, but we need to ensure that council ideas—because it’s councils that know how these systems operate in practice. There is an opportunity for other options than this complicated regional group which decides on the nominations for the boards of the new entities, that there’s more direct and community involvement, because these are community services and community infrastructure.
So I really congratulate the Government on getting this bill to this point, but it needs to listen to councils in terms of the three waters reform and allow a greater opportunity for that dialogue and genuine consultation with the public, which hasn’t happened to date. Kia ora.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Water Services Bill. It’s a bill that is designed to put in place a set of standards for regulating water for drinking, waste water, and stormwater as they are used and the assets that support them are developed up and down New Zealand. That’s what this bill is supposed to do.
I should add, before I go any further, that I am deputising for Mark Cameron, our rural issues spokesperson, who was taken away from Parliament this afternoon. He was deputising for Simon Court, our environment and infrastructure spokesman, who is incarcerated in his house in Te Atatū under what they call alert level 3 in Auckland. It just goes to show the benefits of voting to get more ACT MPs in, you never know when you might need a series of them to get a speech up on a bill like this. And it really matters what sort of regulations we have for three waters, because we have problems, real problems. We know about lead in Dunedin, campylobacter in Havelock North, sewage on the Auckland beaches where 50 to 100 days a year, instead of cleaning the water, the council puts out a sign saying, “No swimming today, there’s too much sewage on the beach.”
We have real difficulties with the way things work, but also with developing three waters infrastructure. You talk to people who are developing property, often building homes so the next generation has a pathway to a property-owning democracy. What do they tell you? Dealing with councils and developing that infrastructure is one of the most expensive and time-consuming things they have to do, creating many delays. So we’ve got a lot of problems with our three waters infrastructure. The basic idea of a national regulator, as legislated last year, and a set of standards for water quality, as set out in this Water Services Bill, is a very good idea that the ACT Party has supported at its first reading and its second reading, but we can’t support it at the third. And why? Because when the Government was asked to do one vaguely sensible thing to make this bill work for New Zealand, they couldn’t. And what was that thing they were asked to do? Well, Mark Cameron, as I mentioned, was up here giving speeches, and I see that—hang on a second, what’s this? The member from Havelock North is furiously writing. She’s been listening. She’s thinking, “I know something really funny I can say when I speak.” Well, look forward to a Berocca-laden speech coming up soon from Anna Lorck. I just want to warn people at home, she may be out of camera shot, but that’s coming up now.
Back to the topic at hand. They were asked to do one very simple thing, and that was to exempt water systems with fewer than 30 end users. Madam Speaker, when you go back to Waitaki, in between studying up the Standing Orders, you will know that there are many people in rural areas who don’t get their water from a big system like Watercare or Wellington Water or even Havelock North or Dunedin. They might be a little bit like where I grew up in the outskirts of Whangārei—without town supply. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, we and a couple of our neighbours, we decided to drill a bore to see if we could get water and we went in together with a plan to share that water. Sadly, there was a lot of iron content in the water. We couldn’t use it. We got it tested and we decided not to drink it. We didn’t need someone to come all the way from Wellington to tell us not to drink water with too much iron. We thought maybe we could use it for showering, but then we consulted some chemistry and we knew what happened when iron oxidises and we thought if we washed our hair with this water, we could end up looking like Chris Hipkins. So we didn’t even use it for showering, because we could make sensible decisions for ourselves. This was in 1994, by the way, back in the olden days. We didn’t need someone from Wellington to come and tell us that we needed special regulations. So they should have exempted people like that, because a lot of people do strike good water and they do get together and share resources.
This legislation—by putting extra regulatory burden that is completely unnecessary—will just stop people cooperating, getting together and developing their resources for no benefit whatsoever. Because you can understand why you’d regulate Havelock North, it’s a town of thousands, if not tens of thousands of people—
Anna Lorck: Tens of thousands.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —the people that are drinking the water don’t know—and there’s Anna Lorck, she’s saying “Tens of thousands.” A little bit like when the Prime Minister said tens of thousands of people might die. There’s often exaggeration coming from the Labour Party.
But we know that, in Havelock North, the people drinking the water don’t always know the people that are responsible for running the system, and that’s when it might be worthwhile having a regulator from Wellington coming along and saying, “You’re not doing that very well. You need to raise your game.” In a city, in a town—a town of tens of thousands, perhaps. But in a small group of people with fewer than 30 users, it makes no sense for someone from Wellington to go up to Ruawai, where our rural spokesman Mark Cameron is from, and say, “You two neighbours can’t share a bore or tank or a dam. We’re going to tell you how to do it.”, because those people already have the incentive to get it right, because it’s them drinking the water.
This is a wider problem in New Zealand. And I quote, as I have a few times before, Emeritus Professor Tim Hazledine from my alma mater at the University of Auckland. Professor Hazledine is an economist and he says one of the challenges with productivity in New Zealand is we spend less and less time on transformational activity: actually building dams and building tanks and drilling bores and processing and cleaning water. We’re not spending time doing practical things. We spend far too much time doing transactional activity: getting permission, being inspected, filling out forms for people from Wellington. This is another example of that. We have a perfectly good system for people up and down rural New Zealand who are able to make their water work for themselves, thank you very much. They don’t need the incursion of a Wellington water regulator telling them what’s good for them. That’s why the ACT Party, while we believe in a national water regulator for cities, cannot support this legislation.
At some point, we have to actually stand up and say, “There is too much regulation, there is too much bureaucracy.” Its benefits do not outweigh its costs, and if we keep on doing this to ourselves, we are simply going to make New Zealand a poorer country and we’re going to be worse off because we spend all our time making work for the bureaucracy, writing forms that we then have to fill out and not enough time providing for ourselves, our families, our neighbours and our friends to make tomorrow a better day than today was.
Here’s another couple of predictions: not only will it stop people getting together and cooperating; it will actually create huge ructions amongst people who are currently sharing water supplies. People are going to say, “Actually, with these new rules, it doesn’t make sense for us to keep sharing.” So they’re going to say, “Sorry, we’re just not going to share that bit of water that we said we would in a friendly handshake agreement 20 years ago. We’re just going to have to stop doing it.” And you know what the other person is going to say? “Hang on, you promised. It’s a right. It’s an easement now. Actually, that bore kind of points under my property. I want some too.” And then you’re going to have even more transactional activity—what Professor Hazledine calls it—more fighting and more arguing, more work for lawyers and less work for engineers. That is not a pathway to prosperity for any country and it’s not a pathway for a united or cohesive society.
This Government is passing hate speech laws to boost social cohesion, and it’s passing water laws that are actually going to lead to battles between neighbours. That’s how crazy this Government is. That’s how out of touch it is. But when you’ve got 27 union organisers and a dozen former civil servants—half of the Labour MPs are from the Wellington bureaucratic machine—don’t be surprised if they feed the beast and make that machine bigger and more costly for New Zealanders trying to make a difference in their own lives, especially rural New Zealand. And for that reason, the ACT Party opposes this bill.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a very brief call on this bill. I was going to say that’s a hard act to follow, but the least I can do is at least speak to the bill that’s before us, the Water Services Bill.
We all agree that we want clean, safe drinking water and while this is the case for most New Zealanders, on this side of the House we prefer not to leave people behind. We want to make sure that the approximately 20 percent of our population whose water quality is not currently guaranteed can also feel assured about the safety of their water. Many of those 20 percent live in rural communities, and it would be such a disservice to not extend the same level of drinking water quality to them as their counterparts in the cities. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper extends the deadline for when small suppliers can register with Taumata Arowai to four years, and when they must provide a plan, if required, to seven years. These amendments were the direct response to concerns raised by the community and the rural suppliers. This extended transition window, in conjunction with acceptable solutions, provides sufficient time for these suppliers to organise themselves and become compliant with the legislation. It is certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution, and doesn’t need to be.
Although not strictly part of the third reading, it was a pleasure to be part of the select committee and, given that I missed the second reading, I would very quickly like to extend my appreciation to all the submitters for ensuring that this process was as informative as it was comprehensive. I commend this bill to the House.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland and the Opposition spokesperson for rural communities to speak on the third reading of the Water Services Bill.
Look, the National Party supported the establishment of a new drinking-water regulator, Taumata Arowai, which has the power to set and enforce drinking-water regulations. However, regrettably, the National Party cannot support the Water Services Bill, which puts onerous rules, regulations, and compliance costs on small rural water suppliers. It is not for want of trying. The National Party tried to engage with the Labour Government. It sought to obtain some sensible and pragmatic changes to the bill, which would have meant the National Party could have supported it, but, regrettably, the Government chose to push ahead. When it became clear the Government would not engage with us in the Parliament over these changes, Barbara Kuriger and Christopher Luxon launched a petition asking that rural water schemes be exempted from the bill. That petition garnered over 15,000 signatures in a short period of time, showing the level of interest in the community. My colleague Christopher Luxon then produced an amendment, Supplementary Order Paper 61, which would have exempted from the bill small water supplies, like rural water schemes, that supply fewer than 30 endpoint users. Regrettably, the Labour Government voted down this amendment.
Unfortunately, this is reflective of a Labour Government that continues to rain down regulatory reform on rural New Zealand, and is simply not listening to rural New Zealand. There are tens of thousands of small rural water schemes in New Zealand, estimated between 70,000 to 100,000. These range from someone letting their neighbour draw water from their bore, to water schemes that primarily feed stock and some houses draw water from them, to farmers that supply water to their home as well as to their workers’ homes, to marae, as well as holiday home schemes. Under this bill, those rural water schemes will be required to meet inappropriate and disproportionate obligations, such as: producing drinking water safety plans, risk management plans, consumer complaints processes, and it goes on and on. This is reflective of regulatory reform that this Labour Government is raining down on rural New Zealand, which is putting the community under huge stress. I cannot stress that enough. I’m hearing this again and again and again throughout rural New Zealand, that they cannot keep up with the pace of change and the regulatory reforms that this Government is requiring and bringing down on them, and making them complete more and more and more paperwork to comply with the rules that the Government is bringing in rather than getting on with the job. Let’s remember that rural New Zealand comprises approximately 600,000 people. That’s the biggest population group outside of Auckland. This Labour Government simply isn’t listening to them.
Last week, I asked the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if she would give some more certainty about what was intended by the wording that there would be “mechanisms that would enable the regulation of drinking water to be proportionate to the scale, complexity, and risk profile of each drinking water supply;”. I asked that question because the bill does not make it clear what it means. It is a very important question that will need some explanation to provide guidance to Taumata Arowai. It is particularly important for another reason. I asked the Minister last week about whether it was proportionate and appropriate for a small drinking-water supplier, such as someone with a bore also supplying their neighbour with water, to be subject to a penalty regime exposing them to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a maximum fine of $600,000. The Minister replied that there would be a level of responsibility for such a small water supplier who failed to provide safe drinking water. Now, I note that the Hon Meka Whaitiri referred to an exception in clause 160, with the liability of volunteers that would mean they would be excluded from prosecution of offence under a specified number of offences in the bill. Unfortunately, I note that this only refers to clause 163, which is an offence involving negligence in the supply of unsafe drinking water. It does not involve clause 162, which is an offence involving recklessness in the supply of unsafe drinking water, and there’s no good reason that I have heard for why that has not been done.
Just looking at my time, I do note with regret that the Minister referred to a letter from the president of Federated Farmers last week in support of the bill, but left out a part that had been written in bold to her, noting that, “On balance, Federated Farmers continues to prefer an exemption for small rural supplies (although we are open on whether the cut off should be 50 or a smaller number) with a focus instead on education and information, including developing best practice guidance.” We cannot support this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House is resumed at 7 o’clock this evening.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House has resumed. Members, before the dinner break, we were debating the third reading of the Water Services Bill. We were on split call No. 9.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Water Services Bill. Tangata w’enua, as you know, have been protecting wai since we arrived in Aotearoa. Wai—water—is central to our w’akapapa and is embedded in our very essence, our wairua. You don’t even need to look at our history or activism to understand this connection. Just listen to our waiata and our pepe’a.
This bill, as it was introduced, threatens to sever that connection, and it’s that I’d like to speak to, and like the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, it was met with a large outcry from our people. To allow Crown agents warrantless entry to marae without consent would be a direct attack on our mana motuhake. It’s despicable.
I would like to mihi to the many tangata w’enua marae and Māori organisations who made their voices heard at select committee: to Te Hiiri marae and Ngā Pae o Rangitīkei, Rānana Māori Committee and Rānana Marae Trust, Pariroa Pā, Kokiri Marae, the National Urban Māori Authority, the Māori Climate Commission, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa, Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, and to the young wahine Maringi James and everyone else for their leadership on this kaupapa. We also acknowledge the significant concerns of local government and rural sectors and the large degree of uncertainty that they also face with this legislation, and, finally, the Health Committee for listening to our concerns by removing the provision that would have allowed warrantless entry into our marae.
I believe this process has been somewhat of a learning curve for the Government, and the lesson I hope the Crown will take from this is that kāwanatanga does not sit above mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. Clean drinking water is fundamental to tino rangatiratanga, and our marae is where tino rangatiratanga is held.
I guess too the other thing that we’d want to talk about is that we will never accept your perceived right to impose your own rules in places governed by tikanga. Our tikanga are vital for our cultural safety and our sovereignty.
Before I go any further, I would like to applaud the intent of this bill and mihi to that—that is, to ensure that people have access to safe, clean drinking water so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in Havelock North. Nobody should ever have to worry about being made sick from drinking water in this nation or lose their life because of it. The legislation, however, has been rushed and it puts in place wide-ranging reforms that would centralise power and decision making in response to a localised event. I’d also like to note that no marae water supply has ever caused an outbreak of illness.
I stand here as co-leader to echo my tungāne’s challenge to Parliament last week. Let this be the last time we see such a provision brought before this House. We’re tired of making speeches justifying our rights. I’d like to once again commend our people, who, time and time again, at our own cost and their own energy, have to organise and lobby to protect our most basic rights.
Once again, tangata w’enua have been sidelined and treated as every other stakeholder and not Tiriti partners. This is wrong. Major reforms in water regulation and management should not go ahead while tangata w’enua rights and interests over water remain unresolved. We also have raised concerns about compliance costs associated with this legislation, including upgrading and maintaining drinking-water infrastructure, paying annual registration fees, building a workforce, and developing safety and risk management plans. Without exemptions, their extra cost would cripple many of our marae—many of our marae who are there, serving their communities when they’re needed.
This bill was a missed opportunity for meaningful engagement that would embody Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our rights as Māori. Would it be unreasonable to allow us to do our own monitoring, or to work alongside Taumata Arowai to grow our own workforce?
As the only tangata w’enua party in this House, we cannot support this bill as it stands. Start over, come back to us when you are ready to talk about indigenous rights, about Te Tiriti, and about tino rangatiratanga. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.
SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t able to speak to the second reading, unfortunately, so forgive me if I stray slightly for a few seconds from third reading protocol. I just want to take a minute to thank our chair of the Health Committee, Dr Liz Craig, but also to take a minute to thank the many officials and the clerks who worked incredibly hard on what was a substantial body of work with 977 submissions, 130 of those in person or via Zoom. We did listen to or read every single one of those submissions, and changes were made as a result.
My colleague across the way has referred to the warrantless entry to marae being declined, and that was unanimously supported and championed by the entire select committee. Christchurch residents will also be pleased to hear that a strong focus was on enabling suppliers to provide chlorine-free water to consumers, so long as it is safe and meets drinking standards, because ensuring safe, clean drinking water for all New Zealanders is the clear intention of this bill and something we can all get behind. Thank you so much, and I commend this bill to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on the third reading of the Water Services Bill. Whilst the National Party aren’t supporting this bill, there are parts of this, and in fact the wider water reforms, that we do support.
Clearly, the Havelock North inquiry was instigated some time ago with a view to reviewing how water was supplied, regulated, and managed in New Zealand. I, obviously, from my background, have had experience in this sector for quite some time and I’m very pleased to see the establishment of Taumata Arowai, because under the old Ministry of Health command, there was very little regulation. It’s been stated already in the course of this debate that in fact they really abdicated their responsibility to it. I came into local government in 2002. It was extremely topical at that time and some very onerous measures were put in place, which clearly a lot of councils couldn’t afford to, or communities couldn’t afford to, and didn’t want to meet. That consequently led to some relaxation of, I guess, improvements that were required and some other issues that happened within the water sector. And here we are today as a result of the Havelock North water inquiry.
We in the National Party accept, and, in fact, firmly believe that everyone should have access to clean and healthy drinking water. I think that should be a given right of all New Zealanders; in fact, it should be a given right of all people in the world. It’s not, of course. So we support any measures that are going to make that fact easier.
The Minister in the committee stage tried to reassure us that our small water schemes would be catered for differently in this bill; in fact, we’ve heard a number of speakers say the same thing. Of course, many of us in this House have had experience of a number of bills going through the House before this one on other topics where we were assured the small users and the small operators and the little people in the country—that costs wouldn’t impact on them like they do on the big ones. Well, we’ve never yet, in my experience, seen a bill that’s actually taken any different approach to costs than lump the same costs on everyone.
Of course, unfortunately, the Wellington bureaucracy—and I’m not criticising it at all because, effectively, they’re Wellington people. They live in Wellington and they drink the water that comes through their tap and they turn the tap on and they expect it to be there. Now, many of us don’t have that experience. We turn the tap on and quite often there isn’t any there. And of course, when you do that, you’ve then got to go and find it. So I think that to lump us all together and think that the country can operate as one in this respect, I think, is naive and I think to think that the costs will fall equitably across the sectors in this country is also naive. We’ve seen that with numerous pieces of legislation, most notably, I think the power reforms of the 1980s, which effectively cost the small users and the users that are more isolated a whole lot more money than it costs someone who lives on Lambton Quay—they don’t live on Lambton Quay, do they—or they might, but people who live in the city and on a street that’s very heavily populated. So nothing that you think’s going to happen through legislation in this House actually happens and it always turns out differently than we anticipate.
The reason for the National Party being opposed to this particular bill was actually quite well outlined by the Māori Party speaker a moment ago, who said this bill has been rushed in some respects. Now, I absolutely accept and give the Government credit for the fact that they’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at the Havelock North inquiry and then coming up with some response to that. The problem is, as I see it, they haven’t adequately dealt with provincial and rural New Zealand, the small water schemes, the fact that that many farms—many, many farms in New Zealand—are going to be impacted by this piece of legislation simply because they have water supplies in place that in some cases for generations have been delivering perfectly safe drinking water to houses, and all of a sudden we’re subject to regulation and a couple of inspectors from Wellington turning up to see how we’re getting on. We could tell them without them turning up, of course, but they’ll still turn up and they’ll then charge us for the privilege of turning up to do it.
That’s the reason that we’re opposed to this piece of legislation, because that’s what happens when you put legislation in place. We’ve seen it with the food safety Act. We’ve seen it with the power reforms, as I said. We’ve seen it with the anti - money-laundering legislation, where it costs as much to deal with a massive great amount of money as a little wee amount of money. That’s just not equitable and it’s very difficult to manage. So that’s one of the reasons.
Now, the second thing I want to just deal with quickly, because the Minister did in the course of her third reading speech, was the relationship between this and the three waters proposal. Clearly, you’ve got to have a regulator and, as I said earlier, we accept the need for a regulator. The problem is that the Government has then turned its attention, I guess, to establishing the three waters proposal, which this organisation, Taumata Arowai, will regulate, and it will regulate everything that happens within the proposed three waters structure.
I absolutely support the comments of Eugenie Sage—something I don’t always do, but I absolutely support the comments she made about this proposal, which has clearly not been thought out logically. In fact, in my case, we’re discharging water into the Rangitīkei River, we’re taking water out of the Rangitīkei River, and we’re governing the river itself half from Hamilton and half from Wellington. I don’t know how that’s going to work.
So there’s a whole lot of things I think that whilst the intention on both of these things is good—and I don’t think there’s any doubt that from a local government perspective the water situation needs to be reviewed—the problem is the three waters proposition as it’s been put to the communities doesn’t account for what effectively will be a whole lot of costs imposed on council as a result of them having their assets and the asset base and the operation of it taken away from them. And also, it doesn’t account for what happens to the debt that’s left behind as a result of that. I think it looks to me like it’s completely inequitable.
So there’s a whole lot of challenges that come out of this water reform. As I said earlier, there’s really only one piece of this Water Services Bill that we specifically don’t support, and that is the fact that it’s not clear how it’s going to regulate those smaller water supplies. And it’s all very well for the Minister to stand there and say that the bill enables different treatment, and it does allow exemptions and it does allow for different treatment, but will that, in fact, be the case? I very much doubt it. So there’s a whole lot of challenges, I think, coming out of that and I’m not comfortable with it at all.
I was very interested to see that the ability to enter a marae unsolicited has been withdrawn—I just hope that applies to my marae as well—because I do think that we take a lot of liberty with the way we enable organisations and Government officials to enter people’s private lives. This is one of those cases that, in fact, that’s exactly what’s happening.
The other thing that concerns me, and I accept the fact that the Minister has extended the inclusion of the small water schemes to seven years, given them seven years to comply—I think what will happen in a lot of cases is we may well see an adverse reaction to that and we may well see a lot of those water schemes that we think are going to be included in it dismantle themselves to an extent that it no longer applies to them and consequently they get out of it. That may or may not be a good thing, but you’d have to suspect that it’ll lead to a whole lot more suspect water supplies throughout New Zealand.
So I think it’s quite sad that we can’t support this bill, because I do think that, as I said earlier, Taumata Arowai—having a water regulator in place like that is very useful from a New Zealand perspective and it would have helped councils. But, of course, councils won’t be in charge of their own destiny now because that ability’s been taken off them and been taken off local communities, so no longer will we be in control of what goes on in our local communities.
So that’s the reasons that we can’t support this bill. And as I said, I think it’s sad we can’t support it, because I think the intention of it was good. That’s my lot, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Talofa, Mr Speaker. I’ve taken a call on the first reading and second reading of the Water Services Bill, and so it’s my pleasure to rise and take what appears to be the final call for the third reading this evening. This bill is, fundamentally, about health, but it’s about infrastructure as well, and particularly around waste and water, but the latter being the key focus there. As we heard earlier in the House today, when it comes to drinking water and the safe provision of that to communities up and down New Zealand, doing nothing is simply not an option. And so what’s pleasing in the bill that’s currently before the House is that it does actually enable a transition period that sets a pathway forward for communities to understand what the expectations are, and to simply move forward in that particular light.
The observation over time is that there has been significant under-investment when it comes to water service infrastructure, for many, many years, and so, fundamentally, this bill is about the intention to ensure that there is the provision of safe drinking water to communities. Some, as we know, have paid the ultimate sacrifice for that not being the case, and that, quite simply, is not good enough. So when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to good, safe delivery of water and safe drinking water—that is fundamentally what this bill is about. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 September.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when we last considered this bill, we were up to call No. 9, which is a split call.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For people who may be listening at home or watching this on television, we are into the second reading of this Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and it’s a bill that seeks to ensure that organisations and entities that are subject to the Financial Markets Conduct Act will be required to broaden their financial reporting requirements so that they include climate-related disclosures.
Now, the Government speakers have made much of the fact that this is ground-breaking legislation. As far as we are told by Government members, there is no other jurisdiction that requires similar legislation of financial entities of this sort. It will affect about 200 financial entities, and so that will be something that will be new for them. It is something that many of them, we were told, are actually in some cases already doing.
So on this side of the House, we are supporting this legislation. I didn’t sit on the select committee—it went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Collectively, the committee received submissions—they had 55 submissions, in fact, that were presented to the committee, and the committee heard from 27 oral submitters.
So one of the things that I think is interesting about this is that it’s going to require these 200-odd entities to report climate-related matters that will have an impact on their business and the way they do business or the funds that they manage or the organisation and the entities over which they have control. They’ll be required to prepare an annual climate statement, and in that statement there will need to be a disclosure of information about the effects of climate change on their business of any funds they manage. There are several other matters as well that they will be required to report on, but I’ve got some reservations about this, notwithstanding the fact that this is a regulatory requirement, and it will impose some costs on the entities concerned.
But if we look at the situation in the United Kingdom, for instance, over there they implemented legislation very similar to our own zero carbon Act about a decade or more ago. And one of the things that we have learnt from that is that business and the commercial world actually got ahead of the legislators. Actually, in the UK, it is and has been the commercial world and business that have actually leapt ahead in terms of responding to the need to report on climate-related matters. Most businesses now have taken a lead from other businesses because their stakeholders, their shareholders, their customers, and the people that they supply are asking questions of that sort.
I can remember myself being in business many years ago when ISO requirements started to become mandatory. It was not so much the independent assessment of process and assessment of process and procedure and business methodologies that was being imposed by Government or the Parliament, as in this case, but it was our customer base, our suppliers, our stakeholders and shareholders who actually were driving the requirement for businesses to adopt a more transparent, open, and clear pathway to the way they ran their businesses, how they managed their businesses, and what have you. And, certainly, that’s been the case in climate issues in the United Kingdom.
So my concern is that here is a piece of legislation put in by regulation in the Parliament and one that the businesses will, I think, adopt. The principle and the processes are sound, but the methodology, I think, leaves something to be desired. I would have preferred that business be allowed to get on with it themselves and be able to get on with it in a way that saw them responding to their customer and supplier needs, rather than being forced to by the Government. So here we have something of a piece of legislation that is a bit akin to fiddling while Rome burns—while this country is importing record amounts of Indonesian coal to generate electricity and whilst our emissions are going up, we have a fiddly little piece of legislation that is good in principle but, actually, a very small part of what the Government needs to be doing in a climate emergency.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to take a call, somewhat unexpectedly. I thought I was in another turn after. But anyway, it’s fine. I’m quite happy to jump ahead and speak on this Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think the previous speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, made some excellent points. In listening to the debate, particularly coming from the other side of the House, what has struck me is that the main point they’ve all sought to make is that this is going to gain attention all around the world. I just wonder if this bill’s main purpose is perhaps to cover for our lack of having a nationally determined contribution (NDC)—
Hon Scott Simpson: Don’t tell Greta!
STUART SMITH: —to announce—that’s right. Well, yes, Greta probably won’t worry about it unless someone writes it in a speech for her! We don’t have an NDC to announce at Glasgow; it’s quite a smirch on our reputation, actually, albeit that our Prime Minister said this was a nuclear moment for her. Well, it is such a nuclear moment for her that she is not able to have an announcement at COP, wasn’t able to have an announcement last year, in fact, at a pre-meeting! So this is quite an embarrassing situation for them.
But anyway, we’ve got this legislation. We are supporting it, albeit that we will be introducing some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to try and get it into a better shape than it actually is. But I take the Hon Scott Simpson’s point: is this actually going to achieve much, and, if it is, what are those things? It certainly will add some cost, and it will add cost to businesses who are, really, essentially, under this bill, reporting risks. These businesses that are captured by this, they are in the business of actually assessing risks—banks, for example, that’s their job. They don’t just lend money; they actually assess risks. Like insurance companies, they are not in the business of doing a public service, necessarily; they are in a business of assessing risk, laying off some of that risk for customers, and, in turn, laying off some of their risk with reinsurers. So they are all about assessing risks.
What is the real benefit in this? It doesn’t actually measure the footprint; it is actually assessing future risks. That is the point of it. It is going to be quite onerous, quite frankly. If you could imagine, let’s take sea level, for example. If a hotel chain decides to build a hotel on a beach, or a bank decides to fund a hotel that is going to be built somewhere near a beach, they are going to actually pay quite a lot of attention to sea-level projections. This bill is not going to make any difference at all to their concerns about whether they are going to build that hotel there or not. They will look at the known studies that are out there, what is happening in terms of sea level, what are the projections, how do those projections that are being made by those entities actually perform when you go back a few years—what were their projections, and now, at this point in time, have they come to pass or not? The projections on sea-level change, Mr Speaker—which I know you’ll be very interested in—have been much overblown.
Certainly in my electorate, we’ve got a 1 metre, at least, extra freeboard now because the land has gone up by over a metre and a half on most of the coast along the Kaikōura coast. I don’t know whether that would have to be captured in this assessment or not, but if it is—
Hon Scott Simpson: What does the local member say?
STUART SMITH: Well, the local member says, “Well, if it is, what happens if we get seismically induced vertical land motion that goes the other way?” It could always go the other way. Although, historically, for the last 150 years, there’s been about three movements and they’ve all gone up, so maybe that is going to be a continuing trend.
So, I think, we go back to the ag sector—how is that going to affect the ag sector with the banks when they are lending money to the ag sector? I think they’ll be very engaged at the moment with the way the emissions trading scheme is performing. Given that Keith Woodford, who is a former professor from Lincoln University, has written a really interesting article. He says that we are on the cusp of the greatest land-use change in 100 years. Does that mean the banks therefore have to assess that as part of their risk in their lending in the agricultural sector? Will they, for example, not fund the expansion of a sheep and beef property, buying a neighbouring property for sheep and beef, but they will, perhaps, have a lower risk rating for someone who is buying the neighbouring property for carbon farming? These are quite serious and perverse effects that are potentially ahead for them, but they’re going to do that anyway, this bill is not going to make any difference.
What was also touched on by the Hon Scott Simpson: businesses care about what their customers think. They might not even think it themselves, but if the customer thinks something is a risk and they should care about it, then they are going to do their best to find out what the risks are, either don’t take that risk, or convince their customers that that risk is worth it—and not just their customers; their shareholders who are also answerable, particularly if they are a public company.
The whole Government programme—it doesn’t come into it, I suppose, but the Government has a carbon-neutral programme by 2025. Well, the Government has only just started measuring; haven’t even developed the model for the tool to measure all of their emissions. So this is such a climate emergency that nothing is happening, but we are bringing in some legislation which is groundbreaking, so that actually shows we’re doing something! But look, signalling virtue on these things is all very well but it doesn’t do anything about climate change. Actually, we’ve got to do tangible things, rather than coming up with some little piece of legislation, which may have a use—and we are supporting it, so we’re saying that it does have some use—but is not doing anything tangible for the climate. Rushing it in because you want something to announce and have the nuclear moment being endorsed by the Parliament in some way, for our illustrious leader, I think is quite perverse.
I also note the tool that the Government should have had developed to measure their emissions—not having that developed actually says something. I just wonder if we might see if we could put some SOP in that would capture the Government in that. It would be quite interesting to have them report on their performance and what risks they see, because certainly they are not living up to them at this stage.
We look at what has happened in the UK. As the Hon Scott Simpson said, at the moment they are going through a fuel crisis in the UK, not down to anything other than a shortage of heavy-truck drivers to circulate the fuel around the economy. They’ve also taken large steps, as we have, to try and get more renewable electricity into their sector, which is going to have a very interesting winter this year because they have made it very difficult for gas. They’ve got huge shale gas reserves, particularly in the Forest of Bowland, where they could actually have enough gas for 100 years, but they are not taking out of the ground, and instead they are relying on electricity from France. That connector the other day in Kent that failed almost caused a blackout. We are getting a similar issue here with Genesis having some issues with their hydro plant and we are burning record amounts of coal.
All this does is signal a bit of virtue. It doesn’t help us with our electricity supply. It doesn’t help us with the amount of coal that we are burning. It doesn’t help us lower our transport emissions. What is this all about? It is about signalling virtue. We do support this bill, but we are, I think, obliged to point out the weaknesses in the bill, point out that the motivation for bringing this bill to Parliament is not about climate change; it is about signalling virtue, it is about trying to have an announcement for the Prime Minister—or at least for the Minister of Climate Change to make the Prime Minister’s nuclear moment somehow a valid claim. It is not a nuclear moment; it is a pretty wet squib, quite frankly. With that I, with qualifications, commend it to the House.
RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this climate-related disclosures bill. As the Hon Scott Simpson has just said, this bill went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. One of the members on that committee is Naisi Chen, she’s been unable to speak on this bill, so I asked her what she’d say about it, and I ask—before I say it—for the forgiveness of Chinese speakers, but she said, “ai diqiu”, which means “love the planet”. And why did she say this? Well, because this piece of legislation is one of the many tools that we need to respond to climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. Fiddling or not, we need to do many things, and I’m so pleased to hear members of the Opposition just now—particularly Stuart Smith—being so enthusiastic about the need to take tangible measures to fight climate change. I couldn’t agree with him any more than that.
I wanted to focus very briefly on the key hook or mechanism within this legislation, and that’s found at clause 28. It’s about the creation of climate standards. These are made by the external reporting board, the XRB, and then they’re reported on by the climate reporting entities. So at what would be new section 19A, there’s an ability for the board to make non-binding guidance that can facilitate best practice. But then at 19B—this is the really important one—it talks about the purpose of climate standards, and that is to, “provide for, or promote, climate-related disclosures, in order to”—and this is particularly important—at (a), “encourage entities to routinely consider the short-, medium-, and long-term risks and opportunities that climate change presents for the activities of the entity or the entity’s group”. It’s that that’s the key to this bill, identifying those risks and opportunities, reporting on them, and then, hopefully, that will lead to the action that we all want. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Lovely to have the opportunity to take a call on this. I am quite surprised, actually, that we’ve heard so much about the fact that we’re in a climate emergency right now and yet the Government members are not even standing to take their calls on this bill. This shows a Government that is not acting—[Multiple members interjection] Great to see that there’s some energy on the other side. I was a bit concerned about that because they were all asleep and missed the call before. So if they are prepared to take a few calls on this, well, fantastic. I would be happy to give Mr Faafoi the opportunity to stand up and give his contribution to it if he would wish to. But I suspect he won’t, because like most Government members, they actually are all about virtue signalling, and not delivering tangible outcomes that really matter for New Zealanders.
Now, this bill, there’s some aspects in it that are OK, but actually we are hearing about a climate emergency; “The end is nigh!” according to this Government. And yet, what are they proposing here? Minor tweaks. This Government-mandated reporting and disclosure is really just going to add additional compliance costs to businesses who are already ahead—well ahead of where this Government is at—leading the curve to ensure that they can maintain their competitive advantage in business and can secure opportunities in an adapting and evolving environment.
Now, businesses know that they have to adapt. They know that they must meet the changing requirements of climate change. Now, they’re doing that in an array of different manners and the flexibility to do that is an important part of how we should be functioning. And that’s what National believes: when there’s less Government it gives businesses the opportunity to drive their own success. Provide them with the platform and let them get on and do it rather than going in heavy-handed like this Government has on so many areas. We’re seeing it right now in the three waters stuff, which we’ve just been debating earlier tonight, as well. Another example of the Government stepping up, thinking they know best, coming down with a heavy fist, and ignoring all common sense.
Now, this bill, again, does something similar. So it’s about reducing the opportunity for people in their own businesses to make the right decisions for their particular industry or sector based on the needs at the time. We’re not seeing any real practical action being proposed here. These are just tweaks around the edges that are, as Mr Smith has said, about virtue signalling on what this Government may or may not look to do.
Hon Member: What would the member do? Tell me what you’d do.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: And we hear some chatter from the other side, but, again, they’re not prepared to take their calls and speeches on this because, clearly, it’s not as important as they might like to suggest with the press releases or public announcements. It’s easy to stand up and make an announcement, but the actual delivery is what we are seeing time and again from this Government, that they are not able to achieve. So quite sadly, really, New Zealanders are being let down by this Government.
This is going to result in additional compliance costs for businesses as well, being forced into something with the compulsory reporting, the disclosure requirements. There will be an additional cost to business, and businesses are seeing that time and again from this Government. Rather than making the playing field easier for them to operate, to navigate, to adapt, to pivot, whatever they may wish to do, the Government instead is coming down with a heavy-handed approach.
So this really is just a token gesture. Unfortunately, it’s reducing the opportunity for businesses to have the flexibility they need to succeed. That’s going to stymie our productivity at a time when we need businesses to be driving their own success more than ever, and that is before we even get on to some of the agricultural matters that Mr Smith mentioned as well. We have seen a significant shift in the playing field there, and this was the risk. When we stand up in this House and the Government puts forward legislation, it has a real life impact on those outside these walls, and sometimes I think that is forgotten. In the primary sector, we’ve seen that in particular, with the changes over recent years in terms of the emissions carbon offsetting, the forestry buying of sheep and beef land—there has been a significant shift in the market that has been absolutely a result of Government-imposed legislation. Now, that has a massive impact on those communities and those livelihoods, and it’s important that we recognise that. This legislation is another example of that, it is distorting the playing field and, unfortunately, it is making it more difficult rather than less difficult.
Now, I would really encourage the Government to get out there within their different industries—and I’m sure they have some connections, and, if they don’t, I’d be more than happy to help them in the ag sector and building and construction sector. Talk to anyone on this side of the House, we can give some connections to help you get some better insights into the implications of these sorts of legislative changes. Unfortunately, it is not going to help, it is virtue signalling and that is not what we need at this stage. So, on that basis, unfortunately this is another missed opportunity from the Government. It’s been all talk, no action, and New Zealanders are let down.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Tangi Utikere. Five minutes.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Ni hao, Mr Speaker, thank you—a pleasure to take a call on this second reading. Look, I think, having just listened to the previous speaker, Tim van de Molen, who has just resumed his seat—I think he’s actually got his wrong speech notes. We might need to remind him that he’s actually intending, as we’ve heard, his party to vote in support of this. If anyone’s sitting at home listening to that, they might be a little bit confused—but that’s turning out to perhaps be something that’s more familiar than not, this time, for some.
Look, I think this particular bill, what it does is it introduces a requirement for entities—and only, actually, those entities that are specifically identified and captured under the Financial Markets Conduct Act—to report in an additional way. The purpose around that is, quite simply, the inclusion of climate-related disclosures. We’ve heard a lot around that in the second reading of this bill this evening. But I think it’s also worth reminding members of the House that this is, yes, public-facing information. Then there is a level of accountability around that, and my colleague Rachel Brooking has touched on the avenue by which the reporting board would provide guidance. So entities are simply not left to their own devices around that.
But this is also an opportunity for entities to have an inward-facing opportunity to look at, actually, how they are performing as a business, and perhaps they may choose to take some particular decisions around climate-related activities that their entity is doing, to ensure that the longer-term focus is at play. I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 110
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill
Second Reading
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth) on behalf of the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: I present a legislative statement on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.
DEPUTY 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 Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
It is a pleasure to move in support of the RCEP bill. Following the bill’s first reading in May, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where it was extensively examined until early in September. The committee tabled its report on 3 September, recommending that the bill proceed without any amendments.
I want to, firstly, thank all those involved in this process, from members of the committee to civil society and business representatives. Engagement by people representing various sectors and communities in New Zealand is an important stage for any bill, but this is especially welcome for the RCEP bill in light of our Trade for All agenda.
The select committee’s report highlights that unlike previous free-trade agreements, the obligations required in RCEP have predominantly already been met through New Zealand’s existing legal frameworks and policy regimes. None the less, in order for New Zealand to ratify RCEP and comply with our obligations under it, the RCEP bill makes a small number of technical, legislative, and regulatory amendments. Other matters were also raised during the select committee stage, and I will address some of these points throughout my speech.
RCEP should not be viewed in isolation. A major feature of the current international environment is unpredictability. There are significant headwinds for global trade and challenges for our exporters. We’ve seen increasing pressure on multilateralism, and especially on international trade. The system of trade rules has been under pressure on a number of fronts: protectionism, increasing tariffs and non-tariff measures, more overt geopolitical rivalries, and, after decades of sustained growth, the beginning of decline in global trade.
In responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for cooperation at the international level has never been so significant. We see the challenges in the distribution and access to vaccines and in the continuation of supply chains across the worlds, and especially from the rise of new variants, including Delta. As a Government, we’ve prioritised both the response to the initial crisis through increasing supply of personal protective equipment—PPE—and vaccines, while also maintaining access to supply chains for our exporters. But we also have been renewing our efforts to build on the trade architecture so as to assist the recovery. It is in the context of this challenging environment that diverse and robust trade relationships are more important than ever. They are important for the resilience of our supply chains and for the economic prosperity of New Zealand and our region. As a small, export-oriented economy, it is therefore hard to overstate the importance to New Zealand of a trading system which puts small countries like ours on an even footing with global powers.
RCEP is not just an important achievement in terms of the outcomes for New Zealand and our economy but it highlights New Zealand’s commitment to cooperation with other trading nations and our commitment to working with the broader Indo-Pacific region and ASEAN. It is no coincidence that all New Zealand’s free-trade agreements to date are in the Indo-Pacific region. At the core of RCEP is the Association of South-East Asian Nations. It is an ASEAN-led agreement and a demonstration of ASEAN’s ongoing commitment to regional economic integration and trade, and it is important that New Zealand continues to be part of that. After all, ASEAN has risen to become our fourth-largest trading bloc.
When looked at as a whole, the 15 RCEP countries are home to almost a third of the world’s population. It includes seven of our top trading partners. RCEP countries take over half of New Zealand’s total exports and provide more than half of our direct foreign investment. In the year ending December 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic started, New Zealand exported more than $36 billion worth of goods to RCEP countries, and nearly $12 billion of services. India’s withdrawal from RCEP negotiations late in 2019 was disappointing. Although a fast-track accession process for India exists should it wish to rejoin in the future, we value our relationship with India, and we will continue pursuing our aspirations to broaden and deepen the political, cultural, and trade links that we enjoy.
In the wake of the challenges from COVID-19, New Zealand exporters have proved remarkably resilient. Notwithstanding this, our trade recovery strategy has three main pillars: retooling support for exporters, refreshing the international trade architecture, and re-energising and refocusing our key trade relationships. Agreements like RCEP are, therefore, vital as we accelerate our recovery from COVID-19.
RCEP is critical to our trade-led recovery as an agreement that enables the reduction and removal of tariffs, new investment flow opportunities, and new markets for exports. The areas of services and investment are where the big gains will be made, as well as the lifting of non-tariff barriers with China and the largest ASEAN countries having made investment and market-access commitments to New Zealand for the very first time. Exporters of sheep meat, beef, fish, milk, cheese, honey, and avocadoes to Indonesia, the fourth-most populous country in the world, will see tariffs eliminated on their products above and beyond the current arrangements. On non-tariff barriers, RCEP creates an expectation that customs authorities will, for example, release perishable goods such as seafood within six hours of arrival, including the release of such goods outside normal business hours, which should reduce spoilage and save exporters money.
The trade effects are material. About half of New Zealand’s jobs come from the tradeable sector and, over time, the economic benefit to New Zealand from these changes will be considerable. Independent modelling predicts that once RCEP is fully in effect, New Zealand’s annual GDP will be between 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent larger as a result. That amounts to $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in annual GDP.
RCEP is also important because of its comprehensive nature. RCEP promotes economic integration and keeps New Zealand central to the prosperity of our region. RCEP demonstrates that even in challenging times, Governments are able to come together, make compromises, and strike deals that will lift each other up. RCEP is more than a sum of its parts.
New Zealand is a proud international partner and we do our part, including by ratifying free-trade agreements promptly. Singapore has led the way as the first ASEAN country to ratify RCEP. China and Japan were the first non-ASEAN members to ratify. New Zealand’s swift ratification could quicken the implementation process as well as demonstrate our commitment to our region and ensure that RCEP will help accelerate the economic recovery for New Zealand and other parties.
Once fully implemented, RCEP will be the largest trade agreement in the world. Given the difficulties of COVID-19 and the challenges to the international trading system, this achievement cannot be underestimated, and it speaks to New Zealand’s long history of building diverse coalitions.
RCEP sends an important signal of New Zealand’s openness to trade and indicates our ability to progress other trade agreements. These expected benefits show why trade has been a central part of the Government’s plan to recover from COVID-19. It is not just about more and better trade links but also about helping our exporters make the most of the opportunities in overseas markets. I’m honoured to be part of a Government that in turbulent times is leading the way to ensuring that New Zealand is a responsible, proactive, and engaged global citizen. It is also a Government, however, that does not pursue trade cooperation simply for its own sake. RCEP provides for future cooperation across a number of trade and economic areas. It preserves New Zealand’s right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes, and it upholds the Treaty of Waitangi. It will create new opportunities for international trade and other economic benefits, which will contribute to improving the wellbeing and living standards for all New Zealanders.
I was very proud and honoured as Associate Minister for trade, or Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth, to be able to play my part in what was a long negotiation. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all the officials who worked so very hard through many years to get RCEP over the line. Thanks to them, it is now up to us as a nation to pick up the opportunities from this great agreement. Kia ora.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I rise as the National Party spokesperson for trade and export growth. Very pleased to support, as the Minister’s just said, the swift ratification of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.
I recently—thanks also to the Minister—had a fascinating conversation with one of New Zealand’s most senior trade negotiators, and he shared his view that after a 25-year agenda of aggressive free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiations, New Zealand is at the end of the golden weather. He used this expression to describe a current trade environment dealing with increasing geopolitical tension, rising protectionism, closed borders, a weakened World Trade Organization, and, frankly, the damage caused to New Zealand’s reputation as a stable, uncomplicated trading partner brought about by divided public and political sentiment over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The very clear strategy, therefore, to return to those halcyon days is to secure diversified FTAs with high-end markets. As a small trading nation at the bottom of the Pacific, New Zealand must be outward-focused and work across the world to advance the values in trading interests to benefit all New Zealanders. To do this, we need to build on the strong bilateral and multilateral relationships we already have and seize new opportunities to advance the interests of New Zealanders across the globe.
Multilateralism has served New Zealand well. Successful multilateral action has enhanced our reputation, and, tonight, we’re here to discuss the RCEP, which is a part of that puzzle. It anchors New Zealand in a region that is the engine room of the global economy and reduces complexity and compliance costs for exporters through a single rulebook for all 15 markets.
The National Party worked hard in Government to advance RCEP as a significant opportunity to bring together many of the largest economies in Asia as well as ASEAN nations. As always, we must acknowledge the Hon Tim Groser for his efforts, because they will bring significant impact.
Unlike the unfortunate scenes the world witnessed from Labour MPs and activists as we negotiated the TPP, National will not play politics on trade, so much so that the scrutiny of this bill by the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee made virtually no changes. As the Minister noted, there are some technical changes that need to be made to some law to enact this legislation: simple things like the bill will enable preferential tariff rates under the partnership and make an amendment to provide for eight years of transitional safeguard mechanisms to provide temporary relief to domestic industries. It also makes minor technical changes to the Customs and Excise Act of 2018 that allow authorised third party certification bodies to operate for the purposes of the RCEP. It brings new market access for New Zealand exporters to Indonesia through tariff elimination on a number of products, including sheep meat, beef, fish, dairy, honey, and some horticulture.
Happily, we have some new services and investment market access commitments by some RCEP countries that go beyond existing free-trade agreements. Notably, China and the largest ASEAN nations have made investment commitments to New Zealand for the first time. We do note, though, with some disappointment, the withdrawal of India from RCEP and are pleased by the fast-tracked accession agreement in place, should the great nation of India change its mind. We don’t currently have an FTA with India, as this House will know, and this would present real gains for New Zealand exporters if they had been at the table. So I encourage the Government in the strongest terms possible to engage with India to ensure that we are advancing our economic relationship as much as possible.
Our country’s ability to recover from COVID will be determined by how well our exporters can continue to access traditional and new markets for goods and services. Equally, trade policy should not become a geopolitical football. If it does, New Zealand’s interests will be pushed to the sidelines, and that is the real, live risk that I mentioned earlier. It’s for this reason we support the expansion of Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to all countries that are willing to comply with CPTPP’s high standards, whether they be China, the United Kingdom, or the United States. We need these large agreements to engage with our key trading partners to improve the environment for New Zealand exporters so that they can continue to thrive.
Trade agreements, though, are just a small part of what allows our exporters to succeed. The Government needs to urgently consider what we are doing to support exporters to make the most of these formal trade agreements. We are seeing increasing frustration from exporters who, since March last year, have not been able to travel to engage with their customers. Every day we see reports that they are missing out on opportunities to others who can spend time up in market and can then return to their home country. The managed isolation and quarantine system is throttling exporters’ ability to engage—
Hon Kris Faafoi: Is that in the bill?
NICOLA GRIGG: —with their markets. Our exporters need that fixed urgently—not just very soon, Kris Faafoi. We look forward to the Government responding to those exporters’ needs so that by the time this bill is passed, they are fully geared up to begin trade with our partners through this agreement. The National Party is pleased to commend this bill to the House this evening.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I must congratulate the speaker Nicola Grigg. I think that’s the best speech she’s read so far.
It is good to hear—the one good thing I did hear from over the other side—the usual cross-party approach on trade, because, obviously, we all have New Zealand’s interests at heart. The fact of the matter is that this is yet another plank, another piece of the puzzle, to make sure we’re a robust trading nation, that we are resilient, that we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket, and that we’re diversifying. Some of those South-east Asian nations are thriving economies. Vietnam’s a great example, and other emerging economies like Laos. They’re important parts of this agreement, along with the very major trading nations like China as well.
But the Minister’s done a great job. We know that in true cross-party fashion, we’re building on work that’s gone before, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Great work, Minister.
Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill. Any trade bill that comes before the House that was started by the National Party is a good bill. But Duncan Webb, the last speaker, said how important trade was as part of a puzzle, and, about 3½ seconds later, he sat down, and therein lies the problem with the Labour Party when it comes to trade. When in Opposition, they are lions, but when it comes to Government, they become the things that New Zealanders want to sell overseas a lot, which is mutton or lamb or sheep. The challenge is that in this case, this is a good agreement for New Zealand, but it doesn’t go as far as it could have and it should have.
So here’s the problem you have with trade agreements. You’re only as good as your last one, not your next one, because when you next go to negotiate a trade agreement, the people you’re negotiating with look at the previous agreement and they decide to give you only that amount or less. I would say to the Government that I know it’s very difficult when all other countries are ready to settle and they want to move on because they are not free traders or trade is not as important to them as it is to New Zealand. But I do think that whilst this is a step forward, this step is not large enough and that the Government was not ambitious enough, and it almost feels like they settled.
I want to look at how many people have been involved in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It was started by the Hon Tim Groser, who was a trade Minister for a very long period of time: 7½ years. I had the opportunity for a year and a half, as trade Minister, to also be involved in negotiations in RCEP. Now we have a new trade Minister who was there only a very short period of time and has had the pleasure to agree it and to sign it. Unfortunately, there was one trade Minister in the middle of that who didn’t get to sign any deals at all, and that was David Parker, and I suppose I think it could be because David Parker wanted to hold out for the very best deal he could get for New Zealand, or someone else’s deal and put the name “comprehensive” in front of it, it would do as well.
But, putting that aside, I do fear that whilst I look at the notes that have been distributed and the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it talks up some of the benefits, we must see those benefits delivered. One of the areas the Government is very proud of is the opening of market access to Indonesia, a country that we would dearly like to have a bilateral free-trade agreement with, and it talked about areas where products will go in there more easily. Tariffs will be reduced for sheep meat and for other products. It is behovent upon the Government to make sure that that happens.
The thing is New Zealand always honours its obligations in trade. That’s one of the reasons why successive Governments have been able to negotiate high-quality trade agreements with large countries when we actually don’t have as much to offer them: a market of a mere 5 million people on the other side of the world. But when New Zealand says it will do something, it generally does it, or at least that is the reputation we had four years ago when the Labour Party took over. So it is important that they make sure that with the obligations that have been offered to us as we have given access and other things to countries overseas as part of RCEP, New Zealand exporters can benefit from them.
I want to just segue for a moment, and then I will come back to some of the provisions of RCEP. I did say a moment ago that you’re only as good as your last agreement, not your next one, and so if this is the last agreement that was signed, I really hope that when our trade Minister jumps on the plane, now we’ve learnt he’s about to go overseas, and heads off to Washington for a while, I understand, and then he goes to the United Kingdom, he brings back a deal that is good for New Zealand. It should be better than the deal that has already been agreed between the United Kingdom and Australia, but we’ll give him a bit of a break. It should at least be as good.
The reason for that is New Zealand was at the front of the queue with the United Kingdom, the first country that they agreed they wanted to do a free-trade deal with, and they said that New Zealand will be the first cab off the rank, along with Australia. They were secondary. We were first there. We were supportive of them. We were first through the door. We had the first-mover advantage. It concerns me almost as much as it concerns our agricultural sector in New Zealand that Australia has got a deal that they say is very, very, very good for them. Their expectations were lower than the deal the Australian trade Ministers were able to deliver and we have now missed the deadline that was imposed for reaching agreement by our trade Minister, and they’ve gone very quiet—the Government—about where we will head.
So the problem we have is if I was sitting over there as a trade negotiator with the Minister in the United Kingdom—and it’s his job to get the best he can for his exporters, and it’s the job of the New Zealand trade Minister to get the best that that person can for New Zealand exporters—he will be looking at RCEP and he’ll be looking at things that New Zealand agreed here, and, actually, it’s woefully short when it comes to market access. The officials would have given the Minister a piece of paper that talks about the tariff eradication and market access: up to 97 percent across all products. What he won’t tell this House is in the products that New Zealand exports—the ones we are most interested in—there is not enough liberalisation. So whilst it’s good that Indonesia may have a look at a couple of areas, across the board, where we have trade agreements with RCEP countries in place that they don’t go as far as we’d want them to, or with RCEP countries we don’t have a bilateral trade agreement with, in the items that New Zealand exports that are important to us, we don’t get enough.
Take, for example, when it comes to dairy and it comes to other agricultural products. There could be 98 percent tariff elimination under the RCEP agreement, but when it comes to the 3 percent that we don’t get the eradication we need, that could be 50 or 60 or 70 percent of our trade. So the devil is always in the detail. I say to the trade Minister—he’s about to jump on an aeroplane, fly off to the other side of the world, and then come back and probably take the places of some Kiwis who actually have a right and a strong desire with their family members to leave the United Kingdom and come back to New Zealand for Christmas who won’t get those managed isolation and quarantine places—that he needs to bring back a deal that he can be proud of. It needs to at least be, if not better, as good as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was, because a comprehensive TPP that the Labour Party is so proud of—the one they campaigned against—really only had the word “comprehensive” put in front of it. Everything else was the same. It made great inroads into markets that we had such restrictive access to—Japan is a very, very good example.
So I hope that when he goes to the other side of the world, flies all the way to the United Kingdom, he brings a deal back that is good for New Zealand exporters and is better than what we lost as a result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and that we will have free trade for agricultural products and our dairy products, our butter, go into there free—it doesn’t have to be on day one, but it must be done—that our lamb goes in there without restriction—maybe not on day one, but it gets there—and that it is better than the deal that Australia has got. If it is not better than the deal that Australia has got, there will be about as much worth to New Zealand exporters as RCEP is to some of the countries where we don’t get the access that we need, because a trade deal is only as good as your last one, not the next one, because you always start from the point of the last one.
The reason I say this is not to give a lesson to our new trade Minister. He knows a lot about agriculture, much, much more than I ever will. It’s because, actually, you only ever get one shot with this. What the officials will say, Minister, is “Why don’t we have a built-in agenda so we can keep negotiating in the future?” But the moment he walks away from the negotiating table with a deal, if it doesn’t deliver on the things that New Zealand exporters need, it will be an opportunity missed, and when he’s ready to go out and do one with the European Union, they’ll say, “Well, actually, you gave this to the United Kingdom and they didn’t give you much back. We’re much larger than they are. How about we offer you even less?”—because he’s also stopped talking about his trade deal with the EU.
We are a trading nation: 600,000 jobs directly and indirectly depend upon trade. We have produced enough food and fibre to feed up to 40 million people. We cannot consume it ourselves alone. If we want to rebuild our economy, if we want to pay back the debt that the Government is racking up as fast as they can in spending money on things they say are about COVID but are really not, we need high-quality trade deals that open the door so New Zealand exporters can go and do what we need them to, which is to say, “Government, thanks for your job. We don’t need you any more. We know how to go out and make money, and we will help rebuild the economy for you.” But if this trade Minister comes back from the European Union and the UK with a substandard deal, if he leaves it on the table, and if he doesn’t get the things he needs to—in fact, if it is not better than the Australian deal—he has let everybody down, and the debt they’ve racked up, which is almost $100 billion over two years, will be even harder for New Zealanders to pay.
We will be supporting RCEP because it is a step forward, but it’s not the giant step it should have been. Thank you.
BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. I’d like to thank you for the ability to be able to take this call. It is quite ironic. I’m going to actually speak on the bill, as opposed to Todd McClay, the previous speaker, who, although he was giving us a lesson on Trade 101, he isn’t actually the spokesperson for trade. So I’d like to acknowledge the spokesperson for trade for her contribution to the bill.
I think it’s also appropriate, given it’s Chinese Language Week, that the bill that I arise to take a short call on is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. This particular bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under RCEP, a free-trade agreement negotiated between New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and 10 members of ASEAN.
Now, I wasn’t a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which scrutinised both the bill and the treaty, so I want to acknowledge the work of the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, who’s probably watching this from home, and other members of the committee. I note that the committee unanimously agreed to the recommended changes in the bill bar the one change around the application date, which is as a result of a recommendation from the Regulations Review Committee. So it’s good to see the system working as it’s needed.
One other item I did want to take note of within this particular bill is the futureproofing, which is around some of the commentary around e-commerce and cryptocurrency. I note one submitter who was supportive of the bill thought that the agreement would provide some opportunities around cryptocurrency. The bill doesn’t actually have specific cryptocurrency provisions, but it does allow for e-commerce. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which currently has an inquiry on cryptocurrency, I thank the committee for bringing this to our attention. It is something that I’ll take back to note as part of our select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Ni hao. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill, and can I acknowledge the Greens’ global affairs and trade spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, who’d normally be taking this call.
The Green Party will be voting against the bill. RCEP is, of course, a multilateral trade agreement which focuses on reducing tariffs and improving market access. We’ve got a number of reasons for voting against the bill, which I will explain.
The agreement has taken nearly 10 years to negotiate and we certainly acknowledge that it’s got a market size five times larger than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA). Of course, member countries must ratify the agreement before it comes into force, and this bill is providing for that ratification process through amending the Tariff Act, creating some transitional provisions, and legislating for rules of origin and some product specific rules for goods from RCEP countries.
So in terms of the commentary around the bill, because we’ve already got free-trade agreements with other RCEP countries which have led to the removal of tariffs, this bill won’t be creating access to a larger market that other free-trade agreements have, because the tariffs have already been reviewed and removed, except in the case of Indonesia, where I understand it will remove the tariffs on beef and sheep meat and fish products. So the commentators have suggested that the largest benefits from the agreement will, in fact, come from non-tariff measures—things like phytosanitary measures to protect against pests, issues around import and export licences, and, as the Minister noted, making customs procedures much easier, which will certainly benefit exporters in the horticultural sector, enabling things like fruit and vegetables and flowers, if they have to be transitioned through customs within six hours, to arrive fresh at the market. So those sorts of practical things will certainly be of benefit.
We’d also just like to put on record, because some in other parties claim that the Greens don’t favour trade, that we do. We’ve recognised that we depend on trade—it’s a crucial generator of our economic and social wellbeing—as far back as the late Rod Donald, who came to be co-leader of the Greens from a background with Trade Aid Aotearoa. But we don’t like neo-liberal trade agreements. We want trade agreements that focus on protecting human rights. They’re all about sustainability, and they protect climate justice and inspire climate justice.
So that’s why, because we wanted a new regime for trade, we were strongly engaged with the Government’s trade agenda last term and the work that was done by the Trade for All Advisory Board and its comprehensive 2019 report, which recommended quite significant changes in how Aotearoa New Zealand both negotiates and ratifies our trade agreements, and the Trade for All agenda recognises that we need really strong social foundations to have widespread and enduring public support for trade agreements. They must reflect our country’s social and cultural values and the full range of our economic, environmental, and social interests, and particularly our partnership with Māori under Te Tiriti. The widespread opposition that we saw to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) reflected the fact that New Zealanders didn’t think that that agreement reflected our values as a country and that it cut across our democracy in undermining our legislation.
So that’s why it’s really good to see in the RCEP agreement that we don’t have the heinous investor-State dispute resolution procedures that we see in the CPTPPA, because those are very controversial settlement clauses. They allow foreign investors to sue the Government for adopting a law or a policy that may uphold the public good but may impact on corporate profits. So that was one of the key things in the Trade for All agenda—not to have those clauses—and it is good that Government has now got a policy of opposing such clauses, and there is not one in the RCEP agreement.
One of the ways that Government could improve public confidence in our trade agreements is to just negotiate a new framework for them that is based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, that recognises the urgency of the economic transformation that we need around climate change, and that facilitates the development of international trade rules which meet indigenous peoples’ rights and aspirations, particularly in terms of intellectual and cultural property rights, and so this agreement, we don’t think, matches up there. But one other positive thing is that it does exclude pharmaceuticals. So that protects our Pharmac model of securing public access to affordable and publicly regulated pharmaceuticals, and that’s particularly important because of the context of COVID, of course.
The other reasons we’re opposing the bill is that RCEP has no strong chapters on environmental or workers’ rights and, as such, is based on the same neo-liberal paradigm that gave us the TPPA. If anything, RCEP represents a step back from the CPTPPA, because it doesn’t have that strong carve-out to protect our environmental legislation and the regulation that that puts in place. There’s no environmental chapter at all. Similarly, the agreement doesn’t include a workers’ rights chapter. Even the TPPA had a very loose workers’ rights chapter which recognised that trade agreements could impact on workers’ rights and those rights needed to be protected, and that’s particularly unfortunate in this agreement because of the amount of manufacturing that occurs in the Asian region and the need to protect workers’ rights.
Another reason we are opposing RCEP is because the Trade for All Advisory Board recommended that trade agreements be negotiated in a much more transparent and democratic way, and that didn’t happen with this agreement. As a House of Representatives elected to represent the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, we have a 500-page, 20-chapter agreement that was negotiated in secret that had input from multinational, big corporations, but didn’t have that same input from the public or civil society—that same substantive input that the corporates had.
The people of Aotearoa New Zealand should have known what was going on, what was in the mandate for the negotiating team, and what was being negotiated, and should have had a say on whether or not it was, in fact, a good trade agreement. They were denied that opportunity. So the Government needs to be pushing for much more transparency around these negotiations, as the Trade for All agenda provides. We wouldn’t, obviously, disclose our bottom line, but negotiating text should be released, and there should be much more inclusion of representatives of non-governmental organisations and civil society in the negotiation delegations.
The other issue is the whole thing around national assessments and Trade for All recommending that there be independent national interest assessments undertaken of trade agreements. At the moment, you have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) determining whether it’s in Aotearoa’s interests and identifying those interests before negotiations start, MFAT leading the negotiations, and then MFAT evaluating the results of its work. That’s not appropriate, and given the marginal economic benefit to Aotearoa of this agreement because it is largely around non-tariff measures and because India isn’t currently included with the large market it would provide for agricultural products, it’s even more important that there should have been such a national interest assessment undertaken.
The final reason we are opposing this is, while there is a carve-out clause to protect the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it’s the standard clause which the Waitangi Tribunal has said does not fully recognise the Crown’s responsibilities under Te Tiriti. So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says it does, but then it’s the ministry that drafted the clause, so it’s a bit rich to accept their assurances that the commitment is adequate.
So for those reasons, the Green Party will be opposing the RCEP bill. Kia ora.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call tonight on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the second reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.
The ACT Party believes that our foreign policy should uphold the safety of its citizens but also should help to reflect our interests and our values on the international stage for the benefit of all New Zealanders under our democracy, and I think we have to acknowledge that New Zealand is a small trading nation. There is an importance to having a rules-based order that we are a part of and that we can also help to shape. That’s important for our peace and security, not just in New Zealand but for our regional security and peace in the Asia-Pacific. It’s also for the stability of our businesses. As we know, a lot of businesses wish to export to larger and growing markets, and there’s an importance for us to be able to provide agreements that support them in their business opportunities. So that is the importance of trade agreements and of signing more of them for New Zealand.
We are a small trading nation, and those opportunities are not only for small businesses. If we actually look at what that means, people every day, up and down New Zealand, start new businesses. They start small companies. It might just be one or two people, or could even be up to a hundred people—there are so many different business opportunities. But, as we see them grow, it helps to create more jobs and more opportunities for a whole range of New Zealanders who may have never had that opportunity. So signing these agreements and allowing for more market access not only helps a small business but it helps employment opportunities in New Zealand for people who may not have had a job opportunity beforehand. So it can only be good for all of us and for all of society.
But, importantly, signing regional trade agreements also helps us to not be at threat from other countries who may seek to wish us harm. So for a geopolitical perspective, this means that New Zealand is less vulnerable to other big players who might decide that, one day, they don’t like the way New Zealand is doing its democratically elected role and they wish to seek us harm. It is important for financial stability. It’s important for those small-business owners that there are people acting in their interests to make sure that we have stability, so that is why we agree with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) being signed. It’s for protectionism for New Zealand but also because we’re seeing that protectionism from around the world as people start to become more enclosed. So we need to be ensuring agreements cross-party. It sends a message to a whole range of different countries that New Zealand is open for business and that we are open for opportunities and we’re open for trade.
That brings me to what actually is RCEP. Well, RCEP anchors us in a regional agreement with around 30 percent of the world’s population, which is 2.3 billion people, and around 30 percent of the world’s GDP. More than half of New Zealand’s trade and foreign direct investment flow through the Asia Pacific, so this is a very big opportunity for us to become part of this regional agreement because it provides a framework and set of rules for how these countries will operate trade going forward.
I have to take a moment to disagree with the previous speaker who said that because we already have free-trade agreements with a range of different countries within RCEP, it doesn’t matter. Well, I’d completely disagree. I believe that the consequence of not being part of this agreement would actually end up with us being excluded from regional agreements, going forward, because of value chains. So if you take, for example, the rules of origin that are within RCEP’s agreement, we may find ourselves being discouraged from having input in non-RCEP countries because we aren’t part of the same collective agreement, and that would lead to a loss of economic opportunity. Also, not being part of RCEP means that if RCEP decides in the future to create new rules then we wouldn’t be able to be part of the negotiating for those rules and would be unable to influence them, and that can only be a bad thing if we go back to ACT’s original position on the importance of our foreign policy to uphold our values internationally. We need to be a player—we need to be at the table—in order to have influence in these international agreements.
So, in conclusion, the ACT Party recognises the importance of free-trade agreements. They’ve pulled billions of people from poverty but, in New Zealand’s context, they provide more opportunities and more jobs for New Zealanders here at home. It is in New Zealand’s interests to be part of these regional agreements, and it is also for the importance of regional stability as we see protectionism growing around the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Xiexie, Madam Speaker. What a joy it is to stand up and support this bill during Chinese Language Week, and to be able to do so—xiexie, Madam Speaker—when celebrating this bill that is also going to bring us closer with our international trading partners.
I’m particularly pleased to be following Minister O’Connor, because at the beginning of this year, he and I visited a little local place in Whangārei called Lynwood Avocado Nursery. Lynwood Avocado Nursery is one of our innovative small exporting businesses. They do remarkable, world-leading work cloning avocados and they export them all over the world. I am delighted that on Thursday night, when I go home, I’m going to be able to take up the invitation that I’ve been given to Lynwood’s next open day and tell them about the work that this Government has done to make it easier for them to access the markets they need to grow their remarkable business alongside all those other remarkable Kiwi businesses we’re so proud of.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney—five minutes.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak in support of the second reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill on behalf of the National Party. It’s great to be able to speak in support of a bill giving effect to a free-trade agreement signed on 15 November last year by 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific which, between them, are home to about a third of the world’s population—2 to 3 billion people; a third of the world’s GDP—and the destination of over half of New Zealand’s exports.
This is the culmination of a body of work which started when the National Party was in Government. These negotiations were led by the Hon Tim Groser back in 2012, and has been completed under the guidance of the present Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon Damien O’Connor—a great example of a bipartisan approach to trade and the recognition of how valuable trade is to New Zealand.
Agreements such as this are also an important example of multilateralism. These are the framework of institutions, the norms, and rules that make up the international order that countries around the world, and particularly small trading nations such as New Zealand, rely upon in order to be able to sell our goods to the world. It is important to remember that as a trading nation, we must sell our goods in order to be able to buy goods that other countries make that we do not have the resources or the capability to make ourselves, such as iPhones, vehicles, wind farm turbines and much, much more. We are, however, in an era the world has not seen for a long time, when nationalism, protectionism, and great power competition is on the rise, and it is important that we do our part to promote and support multilateralism in this current geopolitical matrix. This is crucial to New Zealand’s future as a country that trades with the world.
Trade has many benefits. Of course it is crucial for our economy, but it also delivers other very important things, as trade is not only about the exchange of goods and services but it facilitates the exchange of ideas, the growth of personal relationships, and an opportunity to understand other viewpoints, even if we don’t agree with them.
In the current geopolitical environment, with borders largely closed to the world for over a year and a half and uncertainty about how long the borders will remain largely closed, trade relationships offer a very valuable role in developing and maintaining the person-to-person, organisation-to-organisation, and Government-to-Government relationships that are key for maintaining the links and relationships that underpin the understanding that helps maintain not only trade but also peace. People and nations that trade with one another have an inherent motivation to maintain cordial relationships, even if they do not always see eye to eye on a number of issues.
If I look to my electorate of Southland, the land of milk and honey, I see an economic powerhouse that contributes much to New Zealand and much to the world, exporting milk—
Ian McKelvie: It appears to be the land of beef and sheep.
JOSEPH MOONEY: —meat, apples, wine, cherries, peaches, apricots, wool, as well as an increasing volume of services and much, much more.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ha, ha!
JOSEPH MOONEY: Madam Speaker, I know that there’s a significant crossover in terms of the value of the things that are exported from this region that Madam Speaker will no doubt have much familiarity with.
The RCEP has benefits for New Zealand. It strengthens our connections with Asia-Pacific; it facilitates trade, reducing red tape for exporters; it opens the doors for our goods and services exporters; it improves transparency and certainty around investment in RCEP countries; and it modernises and deepens our trade relationships. The 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. They have formed an agreement, with the other nations being New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. These are all very exciting, growing economies, and this agreement cements our place in the trading framework of the Asia-Pacific. New Zealand exported over $36 billion of goods and nearly $12 billion of services to RCEP countries in the year ending 2019.
If I look at just one of the countries in the RECP, Indonesia, it has a population of 284 million people—the world’s fourth – most populous country. The Indonesian Archipelago has been a valuable region for trade since at least the 7th century. It is now the only G20 member State in Southeast Asia, and it’s the largest economy in that region. It’s Australia’s largest export market for cattle and beef offal and its fifth-largest market for boxed beef. It possesses great growth potential thanks to its large population, with a rapidly expanding, digitally connected middle class, steady economic growth, and continuing urbanisation. This is a great example of many of these countries in South-east Asia, which is an economic powerhouse that it’s a pleasure to be a part of.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. God bless Joseph Mooney. That’s what I have to say, because if it wasn’t for him, the people listening at home would think that the National Party were playing political games. But he’s stood up and he’s taken exactly the right tone.
This is not just an achievement of this Parliament; it is an achievement of this country. This is a bill that gives effect to a significant piece of trade agreement, the largest in the world, and it was started with that Government and it was finished and improved by this Government. It is not a case of standing up and taking credit; it is a case of celebrating, because this is good news for this country.
But if you listened to the two previous speakers from that side of the House, you would have seen arrogance and you would have seen snark, with Todd McClay standing up and lecturing this side of the House and lecturing the current trade Minister—the one who is actually building on the work of the previous Government and forming the relationship that makes this deal worthwhile.
I say put that nonsense aside and celebrate the fact that this deal is good for this country, and all but one party in this Parliament is supporting it. That’s what stands New Zealand out, I believe. It is that when it comes to it and it really matters in, particularly, trade and international relations, we usually put party politics aside and put the country first, and aside from one party and two members from that side of the House, we’ve done that tonight.
JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand, following my colleague Kieran McAnulty, and agree with everything that he has just said.
I want to just touch on something that the Minister talked about: unpredictability, global headwinds. Other members have talked about protectionism. This is something that we are seeing more and more, and given the current climate with COVID-19, it just highlights how important cementing these trade agreements is. They are vital to our economy’s recovery. When you think about our economy here in New Zealand, we are a small trading nation, and the majority of our economy is based on the fact that we can trade and export our goods that we make and manufacture here in New Zealand.
I don’t have much more to add. I think it’s all been said by members around the House—those who have spoken in a positive light around this agreement. We know it’s one of the biggest agreements in the world, and so I just want to commend this to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, Kieran McAnulty has got a short memory—I’ll get you back one day.
I just want to go into this Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill at second reading. I wasn’t on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I’ve always seen myself, funnily enough, as a bit of a foreign affairs spokesman, or even a trade Minister, and I’ve noticed in my time in this House that most of them are never here. I guess that’s a sign of someone who’s actually supposed to be working for New Zealand overseas, and, of course, in recent times that’s changed a little because it’s become much more difficult to travel. But I do remember Ministers McCully and Groser—I don’t know whether Tim Groser even knew who I was, and I’m sure McCully didn’t—and I don’t think they were ever in New Zealand. So that’s the sign of the commitment that’s needed to be a trade Minister or to negotiate these kinds of deals.
I notice our current trade Minister is heading off overseas in the next few weeks to finalise negotiations on what might be one of the most important trade agreements we ever get to negotiate. I was a bit intrigued by Nicola Grigg, who put out a press release telling him not to return to New Zealand without it signed, and I’m wondering whether he’ll sneak down the West Coast and go into that self-isolation on his way home and never come back. I sincerely hope he doesn’t, because I think it’s most important that these agreements get signed.
Of course, the other thing I think that’s most relevant to this agreement, or to all of our trade agreements, actually, is that, as the Minister himself pointed out, we live in a time that’s extraordinarily difficult for trading around the world, and in New Zealand we’re totally reliant on trade for almost everything we do. And—to get back to annoy Mr McAnulty a little bit—except borrowing money to prop up our economy, because, actually, our trade props up this economy entirely and it will prop up the future borrowings of Governments too. So it’s most important that we get these deals right.
But the other thing the Minister pointed out was the extraordinarily challenging times we are in at the moment with respect to trade internationally, and one only has to walk down to the wharf in Wellington, as I did this morning, and see the enormous number of logs sitting on the wharf—and I counted 17 logging trucks turning up at the port this morning—and not a log ship in sight. So that really just points out the logistical challenges that we have with trade at the moment in New Zealand.
The other thing I wanted to comment on was there’s been comment that this will add $186 billion to the world economy. It doesn’t really add anything to the world economy, because that money is going around in a circle anyway. So it’s going around, but what it does do, though, is it make it much more efficient and, from a trading point of view, it becomes much more efficient and also enables us in New Zealand to be part of any further discussions on trade with respect to, I think there’s 17 countries involved in this deal—something like that—or maybe 15. It’s very significant.
Of course, the challenge of that is that India have pulled out of that. India, to my mind, are one of the very important areas that we need to concentrate on in the future. It’s very difficult, I know, and many Governments have tried, but I’m sure that we’ll get there in the end.
So, with the exception of the comments from the Green Party, who don’t support this for various reasons, I think from our perspective the critical thing here is that we are a trading nation and we need to deal with our trading issues first and foremost. The other issues that the Green Party raised, in my view, will fall into line behind the trading stuff, because if we don’t trade, we don’t have the ability to fix any other issues anyway. So it’s most important to New Zealand that we have the ability to get our trading environment right and that we continue to prop up the income of New Zealand through having these very good trading arrangements around the world.
It will be, I guess, interesting to see where some of these agreements get to in the future, because RCEP is, as I’ve said, a type of an umbrella agreement, which then enables us to get on and negotiate individual trade agreements within those countries that are associated with RCEP. It’s an umbrella type of arrangement which gives us inclusion in that sector.
So it’s very important from our primary industries’ perspective, and when you look at markets like Indonesia, Vietnam, and places like that, we’ve really got some great potential for New Zealand to grow our sales and to grow our contribution to the world economy through the provision of what we do best in New Zealand, which is producing food, basically. So we’re very good at that, and it’s important from our farmers’ perspective that they have access to these markets in the most efficient way possible.
Obviously, this has got the support of the House, with the exception of the Greens, and the fact that this bill went to the select committee and came back with no alteration, I guess, speaks for itself. So it’s pretty straightforward and, hopefully, it will hold New Zealand in very good stead as we move forward. That’s my contribution. Thank you.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I was fortunate enough to be on probably one of the last delegations that left this House before COVID arrived, and I was lucky enough to go to Indonesia and India. I hadn’t really heard of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) before I got to Indonesia, and by the time I’d left India, I knew a lot about it because, of course, I’d experienced the excitement that the Indonesians were anticipating with RCEP and also, in India, the trepidation that I experienced, not so much in the formal talks but in the informal talks, that they were not going to be in RCEP. So that gave me an appreciation of the importance of this trade agreement, and I was able to come back and then I’ve been following the progress of it.
So it gives me great pleasure to be standing here speaking tonight and to see that this RCEP bill, or the legislation bill which underwrites the RCEP agreement, and to be part of speaking on behalf of that. It will be something that those that come after us—as Mr McAnulty has said, it’s so important that we have the whole House behind this, because it is something that we will build on—and those that come in here behind us will appreciate just what has been achieved with this. So I have great pleasure in commending this to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Bill read a second time.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Members will understand that the Minister of Transport would normally be here to deliver this address to this second reading of this bill, but he’s locked down in Auckland, and so it falls to me, in his stead, to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and to thank them for their time and contribution to the development of this bill. I understand that eight written submissions were received on the bill, and oral evidence was heard from two submitters. I’d also like to thank submitters for their informative views on aspects of this bill.
I understand that the select committee has no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House and that they have proposed only minor and technical amendments to the bill. These changes include amending two of the definitions in the bill to better differentiate between ballast water and sediment, and to replace an incorrect cross-reference. I’m pleased to note that the committee recommends that the bill be passed as amended.
As Mr McKelvie just recently, in a contribution on the prior bill, noted, shipping is, of course, of fundamental importance to New Zealand’s trade. None the less, it’s also true that shipping is a major contributor of noxious emissions to the atmosphere, particularly sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which affect both human health and the environment. Passing this bill will enable us to reduce these emissions and implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures by aligning our domestic legislation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—or MARPOL—Annex VI.
Again, I thank all of those who submitted on the bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We will be supporting this bill as well. It’s a bill that is very short in nature and, as the Minister has just said, probably has as its most creative part the use of fuel and the direction around that for shipping in New Zealand, especially of coastal shipping. That will have an impact on the cost, no doubt, of shipping, and so that needs to be taken into account, because all environmental changes do have some consequence and some action that has to be taken, and this will be no different. We look forward to that being done in a constructive way—that is, done in a manner which enables coastal and other shipping to perform its activities in New Zealand which are vital for our economy.
I just want to take a moment to really focus on that. As the Minister said in his contribution, shipping is crucial for New Zealand, and never before have we seen how crucial that is than in a time when our export industries have been the mainstay of the economy at a very difficult point in our country’s current state in dealing with a pandemic and needing the export earnings to be able to function as a country. So any legislation that has to do with shipping has actual vital importance for the New Zealand economy at this time.
I note also that in select committee we are also—and I see the chair of the committee here, Greg O’Connor, and just acknowledging the committee members and submitters. I was not part of the committee for those submissions, but I understand that Christopher Luxon was our member that was dealing with it at that time and that the submissions were done in a constructive way between all the parties. But in the select committee at the moment, we are looking at coastal shipping, we are looking at the shipping industry as it comes to New Zealand, and we are looking at our supply lines. They are vital for this country going forward, and there’s some really crucial questions around that that we as a country need to face.
I know when we were in Government a few years ago, those same issues were arising at that time, and they are to do with which ports should be the main ports for New Zealand entry and exit of exports and imports, how we should regulate, and how we should look at our coastal shipping industry, how we should look at the opportunities that are being presented and some of the challenges that come from shipping lines desiring that certain ships of certain size are coming to port in New Zealand. All those things come together and are really important for New Zealand as an exporting, food-producing country, and also as an importing country of a lot of the commodities that we use and our consumer goods. So anything in regard to maritime transport is vital for our country at this time.
It’s been interesting that the Government hasn’t taken on board this challenge, though. We’ve seen in healthcare the willingness for the Government to take the challenge on, you can say, and try and reform the governance of our health institutions. We’ve seen it in education, where the Government has tried to reform the polytech sector. We’ve seen it in local government, in water, that they’ve tried to come and change that, but, strangely, they have done nothing in the shipping sector. One of the most vital sectors for New Zealand, and the Government has not said a word.
They’ll come and say that, in the last Budget, they gave—what is it?—$30 million to coastal shipping, which is going to make no difference, in effect, to what’s actually happening and what New Zealand needs to do to go ahead. And all the time, we are seeing more investment by many regions in their coastal ports. At the same time, we are getting a very big change in the way that the shipping industry operates around the world. We just have to look at that and we see, as we’ve seen in select committee, the big shipping lines are now looking at bigger and bigger ships that will only go to one or two ports in New Zealand. That’s going to be a crucial decision New Zealand has to make going forward.
There are some that argue that we leave it up to the market and that the market will determine where that goes. There’ll be some that say that we need to actually make a strategy around how and what ports are the identifiable ones for New Zealand going forward, and there’ll be some that want a mix of that to take into account that Governments of the day can’t always project what will happen in the future.
So those are all the elements but the Government has stayed away from that. They haven’t taken up that challenge, when I know, years ago, when we were in Government, they harped on about coastal shipping and they harped on about having a strategy around coastal shipping, and yet they haven’t done anything in the time that they’ve been there. I just wonder if there’s some other reason that we don’t know about, the reason that the Government hasn’t undertaken that approach.
Now, when we look at the shipping industry, and one of the key things has always got to be the Port of Auckland. The Port of Auckland is crucial for New Zealand and our shipping sector. And we wish that we could have those issues sorted that we’ve seen up there, and that really has—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’m just going to ask the member to return to the bill at hand. The member’s been canvassing issues around the wider shipping industry, but, in fact, this bill is around emissions and I’d ask him to come back to the bill.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. But it is partly around emissions, but it is also partly around the large structure that we as a country have signed up to.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s not arguing with the Chair—the member is not arguing with the Speaker. I invite the member to resume his speech.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. So we do support this bill, but this bill is part of an international arrangement around shipping and it is part of how New Zealand operates in that shipping environment, and that is the whole point of it. It’s an international bill that is being approved in New Zealand and has some impacts on the New Zealand shipping industry, especially in the coastal shipping area, with many of those environmental aspects, as has been mentioned.
We also need to look at the difficulties we’re seeing in shipping as well with the Australian ports now looking at industrial action. That will have a major impact on New Zealand as well and that will mean that there’ll be less ships coming to this country. And it is vital that we do have a strong shipping industry, when we consider that the Minister of trade, for example, is just going overseas again to try and reassert a trade agreement with the UK, which, obviously, failed in his last attempt. The importance of actually having that ability to transfer those products is crucial, and if we get the Minister to do his job and actually sort out that agreement, that would be helpful for our shipping industry going forward.
So this is a bill that National will support. It is a small bill and it has got that environmental context, but the shipping sector is something that is vital to the New Zealand economy at this time. Supply lines are crucial in New Zealand at this very time and it would be great to see the Government actually take some leadership in that area and actually ensure that New Zealand producers can guarantee their products get to market and that New Zealand consumers know that the imports that they will be purchasing will actually come through.
This is another reflection on how the Government hasn’t acted when it should have acted in the best interests of the New Zealand economy. It’s been focused on other issues and hasn’t been focused on the real issues that drive an economy, and that’s making sure that our shipping lines, our supply lines, are effective, they’re world class, and they’re keeping up with the pace of change that we’re seeing in the shipping industry.
So we support this bill, but we also seek that this Government actually takes some action in this sector where they haven’t done in the past.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): One would hope that one day that member David Bennett will bring the bill he’s supposed to be speaking on to the House, not come laden with a load of grudges which he seems incapable of getting away from when he stands on his feet.
This is a relatively simple bill and, funnily enough, it is something that has been some time in coming before this House, because what it does do is actually bring New Zealand in line with world standards around emissions. The bill will align New Zealand legislation with Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—the MARPOL.
I was fortunate enough to be the chair of the select committee which actually considered this bill, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and we had a number of submitters who were actually, invariably, very positive about it. There was a matter brought, particularly, that’s been mentioned by Minister Parker, around what was ballast water and what was sediment. And, of course, this was important to be worked out, because, without going into too much detail, these ships will be carrying things called scrubbers, which they will actually put the emissions through. As a result, there will be sediment, there will be materials that do need to be dealt with when they come into New Zealand ports. That was why we did require to make that change that has been previously mentioned—because each of the ports will be required to actually have the ability to deal with this material.
It is a very good bill, something that will bring us into line with the world, and it will only go some way towards improving our connectivity with the rest of the world. I commend the bill.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand tonight and speak to this Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I do remember speaking on a previous reading. I wasn’t in the select committee when this went through. It is a very important bill. It is important because New Zealand getting involved now with this MARPOL Annex will strengthen New Zealand’s ability to play a credible role in negotiations in the International Maritime Organization and to push for global ambition and to improve New Zealand’s ability to protect its trade and economic interests.
The last speaker, Greg O’Connor, was talking about the difference—and I heard Minister Parker speaking about the difference—between the ballast water and the sediment. As someone who is not totally au fait with some of the terminology of shipping, “ballast” is like a heavy material—just for the audience listening: it’s a gravel sand or iron or it’s placed in the bilge of a ship to ensure its stability. So if you think about that and you think about the water that surrounds that and sediment, I can understand that there’s, obviously, quite a bit of discussion around how those things are defined. It is important, as ships are travelling around the world, to make sure we get this right, because, as we’ve heard tonight, shipping is extremely important to us.
We know that over this COVID period, we have really struggled to get some items into New Zealand. I was very pleased to be at one of our local fertiliser companies on Friday, where they said to me, “We’re not going over into that area of the plant, because we’ve just had a ship come in and it’s brought in potash fertiliser.”, and I know that is something that has been very difficult to get for various reasons—not just shipping—in the world over recent times.
The key message, really, around this bill is that it is relatively minor and yet it is a positive step for the shipping sector towards a cleaner and healthier sector for people and our environment. What is really rather interesting for me in debating this bill, having been through a whole range of other things, particularly in the energy space and the agricultural space, is that we are kind of late to the piece in this one. With so many other things that the current Government is trying to lead the world on—New Zealand first signed up to MARPOL in 1998, which was some time ago. So 94 other countries are party to Annex VI, representing 97 percent of the world’s shipping tonnage. So we are rather late to this, albeit that this particular piece of legislation, which we are happy to support, is in the process of making a difference to the environment and to climate change around the world. It is really important because it takes into account the human environment around courts, it takes into account climate change and ozone layer - depletion both through air-quality regulations and energy-efficiency measures.
While we haven’t had so many planes going off the ground over recent times like we used to—apart from the occasional huge ship which gets stuck due to its size—and while the canals have largely been doing their thing, we have to always remember that we are a very small country right at the bottom of the world, and if there is any other reason to be economic and go somewhere else rather than come down to New Zealand, I’m sure people will choose that, which is why our trade agreements and our relationships with other countries is so important. That relates to the conversations we’ve just had prior to starting on this bill tonight.
MARPOL might seem like a funny word, but it is really just the “mar” and the “pol” out of marine pollution. It was developed by the International Maritime Organization, which actually first signed it in 1973. So this is going back a while, and, in terms of climate change and environmental things, it was probably quite early in the piece.
What Annex VI does is it limits the amount of sulphur content in all ships’ fuel to half a percent. It requires certain diesel engines to comply with certain emission standards. It requires certain ship board incinerators to meet performance standards. It is about banning the incineration of certain substances. It is also about ensuring that ships with a mass of 400 gigatonnes or more meet energy-efficiency requirements. So there is a lot going on here on the ship, but also ensuring that the port facilities are capable of dealing with the residues and the waste that these ships need to come off.
I think, waste, really, if you think about the shipping industry, a bit like any travel industry, there is quite a—not just the waste that we were talking about before in terms of the ballast and the sediment but, obviously, people live on these ships, so there is a lot of food that goes around the world, and food waste and those sorts of things need to be taken care of, restocked, and waste going off at ports. So there is a lot that is taken into.
One of the places I live is on the coast not that far from the New Plymouth port. We assume that these ships are moving often, but, actually, they all have to wait their turn to come into port, even in a small port like New Plymouth. So sometimes they are sitting out on the sea for quite some time—so just thinking about the operations that actually have to happen during that time, as well.
In dealing with the second reading of this bill tonight, it is worth noting that New Zealand is one of six OECD countries that are currently not party to Annex VI; the others are Austria, Columbia, Hungary, Israel, and Mexico.
So it is a pleasure to stand here tonight and have the National Party support this bill, because I sincerely believe that this bill will help with our climate emissions. I have to be honest and say that I can’t stand here and say that a lot about a lot of the bills that the current Government is introducing. But, I guess, the length of time this bill has been around gives me a lot more confidence that it has been well-thought-out, it has been well tested around the world, and the changes that are being made have been well proven over time. So it’s not just some idea that was thought up on the steps of Parliament and the next thing you know there is a piece of legislation for it; it’s a global piece of legislation that we’re following here. It’s a pleasure to support the bill tonight. So with that, Madam Speaker, I’d just like to say thank you.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s good to be back in the House and be given the opportunity to speak. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger. I thought for a minute she was going to break out into a rap song with a bit of m-a-r and a p-o-l, but we got there, and now we all know the history of this very important bill.
Can I just acknowledge her final words around the support, because this does fit with our Government priorities to tackle climate change. Transport emissions do make up 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, and this will go a long way to helping those fall, and they need to fall really quickly.
I just want to finish and be short in this call by saying we do need to make the changes to the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and then those rule-making and enforcement provisions will enable the Act and give that full authority required. Can I acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that I sit on for the hard work. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party very much supports this bill. MARPOL Annex VI, as other speakers have mentioned, is the primary international regulatory mechanism for addressing the climate change impacts from shipping.
Of course, when it initially came into force, Annex VI, in May 2005, it was regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships. Now, it seeks to address the impacts from shipping emissions not only on climate but on human health and environments in and around port communities by regulating emissions of harmful pollutants from ships, and it addresses the climate change and ozone layer - depletion through both air-quality regulations and energy-efficiency measures.
I think what’s most interesting about this debate tonight is that the National Party is supporting the bill. That’s great. I’ve heard some supportive comments about coastal shipping from the National Party and for this particular bill. It’s really interesting the reason why something that came into force in 2005, New Zealand is only acceding to now through these legislative changes, because a long time ago, in 2010, when I came in, before I was elected to Parliament, and I joined the Green Party’s research unit as a transport advisor, in Parliament, there was great concern amongst some of the people who were working on international shipping that the Government had no interest, at that time, in 2010—this was the National Government—in acceding to MARPOL Annex VI. Indeed, that’s why nothing happened until 2018 when the coalition Government came in.
I think the previous Labour Government, in 2005-2008, had been doing the work to get it going, but, obviously, when the Government changed, nothing happened. If you look back at records, the United States was signing up to this with the Environmental Protection Agency implementation in 2011. So the reason why this took so long is because the previous National Government did nothing about it for the entire time it was in Government. Of course, when we came in in 2018, these UN conventions, bringing them in and making them part of law in order to accede requires a whole set of Government processes, which had been engaged in prior to this bill actually coming to select committee and then second reading in this House.
We had public consultation on accession that started in 2018 and went to 2019. The Environment Committee did consultation of the parliamentary treaty examination. Then we had to have informal engagement on implementation, which took us up until now. So it is really important that these international agreements which we engage in in order to protect our environment, to protect our climate, and to protect our human health, they do require a process that takes quite a bit of time. And the momentum in New Zealand signing up to this, it can all be lost simply in a change of Government and it not being a priority for a particular Government.
So I’m really happy to see that the National Party has now changed its tune, now that it’s no longer in Government, that it is supporting this bill, that we are finally acceding to Annex VI of MARPOL—thank God!—because we practically could not be any later than right now.
The Green Party is happy to support the bill and will continue to advocate for intelligent Government regulation and intelligent global agreements that help us tackle our collective challenges, which include pollution of our marine environment, catastrophic climate change, and things that affect not only our medium- and long-term wellbeing but also our immediate human health, because the truth is air quality is not very good around our ports because we haven’t signed up to this in time.
Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Xiexie ni, yizhang furen. Dajia hao. Da ga hou. Nimen hao, tongshi. That’s the last thing I’ll say. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill at the second reading. ACT advocates for a rules-based international order and, specifically, a level playing field in the sector. This is quite important, as this agreement—almost 100 countries have signed up to this, covering 97 percent of global freight capacity.
Regardless of our international obligations, we’re satisfied that reducing the sulphur limit to 0.5 percent is the right thing to do and practical enough, given the availability of low-sulphur fuel or, alternatively, as has been talked about, the scrubbing systems or exhaust cleaning systems. The select committee process clarified section 444A, which, while technical and small, we were happy to see because it has implications for the ports.
We do have some minor but lingering concerns based on our interactions with stakeholders. One of those concerns is around ports being required to provide reception or storage facilities for hazardous materials. And we certainly hope that the Government works closely with the ports and the sector at large to ensure that costs are manageable and infrastructure investments are achievable in the expected time frames. We don’t want this to have a significant economic impact on ports, especially. We understand the need for audits, inspections, and even the ability to detain ships that are in gross violation of the standards, though we hope that detainment is something that is seldom used or needed. Given these powers of enforcement, we need to ensure that the lines of communication with shipping companies are solid as well.
We’re happy enough with this bill. New Zealand has to play its part and we want a seat at the table when these international agreements are hashed out. So I won’t use up any more time, I commend this bill to the House.
ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Tukituki, from a port region of Hawke’s Bay. Napier Port has set an ambitious goal of reaching net emissions by 2050, considering this a top priority. It’s leadership like this, backed behind with the bill that we are talking on supporting today, that is going to see New Zealand lead the way in joining emissions-free exporting. The Napier Port has considered a whole-of-port climate change risk assessment and also established an emissions inventory with ongoing monitoring and reporting on these. It’s work in progress, which is being acknowledged, and including looking at decarbonising the port’s entire footprint. This work in progress shows an export-leading region of Hawke’s Bay leading the way. We must work towards a cleaner, healthier environment; an export story that goes forward. This is why I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds—five-minute call.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker—I’ll be mindful of that split call. I’m very pleased to rise and speak in support of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. This bill, of course, brings our domestic legislation into line with our obligations under Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. I’m interested that this was developed nearly 50 years ago, and, certainly, there’ll be a few members here—I was going to say that wouldn’t be out of their nappies, but, actually, they wouldn’t even have got that far. So it’s something that’s been around for some time.
It’s interesting that we have so far accepted four of the six annexes—Annexes I, II, III, and V, on oil and oily water, noxious substances, harmful substances, and garbage. But, at this time, we are looking at Annex VI, which is around limiting air pollution from ships around ports and harbours. It aims to address the impact of shipping emissions on, particularly, the human environment in and around ports.
I always think, when there’s a bill like this, that it’s really important to try and relate it back to your own electorate, because that makes it much more real. So I look to South Port, our wonderful South Port, in that fabulous port settlement of Bluff. If ever you needed a reason for why we should be careful of the impact of shipping emissions on the human environment in and around ports, then Bluff would be it, because, of course, Bluff has a number of amazing things, not the least being the oyster, the Bluff oyster, and the oyster beds that are out in the strait not far from the port there. So, certainly, that’s a very good reason to ensure that there’s protection from pollution of shipping.
Bluff also has a number of other important aspects to it, like the wonderful network of walking tracks around it with abundant native birdlife and flora—again, well worth wanting to protect—and lots of human activity, of course, around in Bluff: our famous Bluff oyster festival, and also the Burt Munro Bluff Hill Climb. So, again, having an environment where not only people can live in a healthy environment but activities and events can take place and native birdlife and flora can exist is incredibly important.
I’d have to say that our South Port is a very, very successful port, and it enables the greater Southland to be a very successful province where we punch well above our weight, with around 16 percent of New Zealand’s GDP coming out of Southland, with only 2 percent of the population. Of course, it’s no use producing wonderful things in Southland, like primary produce and logs and aluminium, if you can’t ship it out of there. So South Port does a wonderful job for the province of Southland, enabling our produce to be shipped all around the world. I want to acknowledge the board of South Port, ably chaired by Rex Chapman, and also the management of South Port, ably managed by the chief executive, Nigel Gear, and all his staff there. It is the successful management of South Port that allows us in Southland to be so successful for New Zealand in what we produce and earn as export income for New Zealand.
So it’s balancing those two tensions that can arise, being able to produce and export but also ensuring that the environment of our ports is kept in a pristine condition for the wildlife, for the population of the settlement of Bluff, and for the activities that we want to carry out there. So I’m very pleased to be rising and adding our support to this bill. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Duncan Webb—five-minute call.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora and thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m just rising in light of the fact that the Māori Party hasn’t taken the call here, but I must say I particularly enjoyed Barbara Kuriger’s speech, when she went through the legislation, right through to spelling out what MARPOL was for us—I think we can now call her “Mrs MARPOL”!
This is a piece of legislation which, in fact, went through the last Parliament under treaty examination, and I was on the committee that did that. It’s very straightforward, but very timely, because one of the difficulties was that we were, essentially, becoming a dumping ground for poor-quality fuel, the highest sulphur, cheapest, and most polluting fuel, and we absolutely needed to stop that, and this is how we do it. We simply have legislation which prevents the import and use in our shipping fleet, coastal or otherwise, of this extremely low fuel which pollutes the air with sulphur and has a negative impact on human health. It’s as simple as that. I commend this bill to the House.
JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of this amendment bill, the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Bill. I too enjoyed Barbara Kuriger’s speech, where she gave a bit of a rundown of the history of the origins of this bill and what “MARPOL” stood for.
I’m not a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but I have found the reading around it quite interesting. I didn’t realise quite how much pollution ships coming into our ports put out for us, and I think that the fact that this is going to make improvements for human health is vitally important. I think about the Port of Timaru, where I often see young people down there with their fishing lines, and it horrifies me to think that people could be breathing in these really toxic fumes from the fuels and from the emissions that these ships put out there.
So I’m really pleased to see this piece of legislation before the House, really pleased to see that it has all cross-party support, because the health of our people is paramount. Working towards reducing our emissions and looking after our climate environment is hugely important as well. So I commend this bill to the House.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a delight and a pleasure it is at this late hour to be addressing the second reading of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. I’m not going to use the time of the House to pick up where my very good and capable colleague Barbara Kuriger left off in terms of explaining the name and the categorisation of the actual annex or, indeed, the term “MARPOL”, because she’s done that in a very thorough, diligent, and appropriate and parliamentary way.
I didn’t sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but I’m pleased to have read the report of the select committee. It’s not a long report, but it’s quite detailed, and it’s a report that indicates to me that the select committee did their job diligently, that they paid careful attention to the legislation, and that they were dutiful in terms of listening to the submitters that took the time and trouble to make submissions. There were only eight submissions made on the bill and there were just two that were heard, but the general consensus from those handful of submitters that were heard and that presented was that there was broad support for this legislation. So I’m delighted and pleased that tonight it appears that there is unanimity across the House for a small but very significant piece of environmental legislation that is actually a good piece of legislation in terms of providing credibility to the brand of “New Zealand Incorporated” in terms of the role we play in international transport affairs.
One of the great challenges over the history of these islands has been our position on the globe. We are literally surrounded by the largest moat in the world, and for much of our nation’s history, that has been an impediment. It’s been something that has been a hindrance to the growth and prosperity and ability of New Zealand producers and exporters to get product to market. Similarly, for those that want to import product, there are only two ways of getting things and people to and from these islands, and that is either by air or by sea. So our shipping networks are incredibly important. They always have been, right from the very early days of European settlement here in New Zealand. But, of course, our tradition comes from the first people here. The tangata whenua arrived by sea, navigating—as they did—vast ocean tracts.
These days, of course, we don’t rely on waka, we don’t rely on sailing vessels, and we don’t rely on steam; we rely very heavily in terms of shipping on, usually, dirty diesel freight ships—large dirty diesel freight ships—and much of the fuel that they are burning is full of toxins. It’s bad for the environment. It has all kinds of nasty levels of sulphur, nitrous oxide, and a whole range of other substances that would be neither good for our marine environment, our atmospheric environment, nor, indeed, for human living conditions. So it’s appropriate that after what probably is too long a period, New Zealand is going to finally get around to ratifying and taking our responsibilities seriously under the MARPOL Annex VI agreements and conventions that will prevent pollution from international shipping. So I think this is a good move, and I’m delighted on behalf of the National Party and my colleagues to support this legislation.
Others have gone to some lengths to explain what it means in practical terms for their regions. I particularly want to acknowledge the very good contribution of my colleague Penny Simmonds and the appropriate way in which she acknowledged the good work done by people in her part of Southland—particularly around the port of Southland. But that is reflected and replicated in other ports around New Zealand, and as much as I acknowledge the very good work that happens in your area, Ms Simmonds, the situation in other ports in other parts of the country is exactly the same.
Anyone that has had an opportunity to spend any time on a maritime vessel—and I haven’t had much time on one, but I do remember a visit not so many years ago, in Auckland, to the Ports of Auckland and having a look at a container vessel. What surprised me was not only the remarkable efficiency of containerised shipping, which has largely transformed international shipping in my lifetime, but that the efficiency that comes with containerised shipping, frankly, wasn’t being matched by the propulsion methods of the vessels that are carrying these containers around the world. In many respects, much of what has occurred for far too many years in terms of the propulsion fuel used to fuel shipping all around the globe has been less than adequate. It’s not been a best practice by any manner or means, and it’s something that, I think, collectively, as not only New Zealanders but citizens of the world, we can probably hang our heads in shame about and say that these are matters that should have been addressed many years ago.
So now, at second reading, it’s not an opportunity to critique and go into any detail, particularly about why it’s taken so long. Let’s just be grateful and thankful tonight that, finally, steps are being taken and that at this second reading, this piece of legislation will progress through the House. It won’t be too long, I hope, on the Government’s agenda before they bring it back for a committee stage where there will be further analysis of the relatively short number of clauses in the bill, but also then to have a third reading and then, finally, to get it passed so that the Minister can then use the powers that the legislation will provide the Minister with to ensure that the fuels that are used in New Zealand and on New Zealand ships coming to and from our ports is actually going to be better for our atmosphere, better for the marine environment, and better for human health.
I’m reminded of the former chief executive, or it may have been executive director, of the Shipping Federation—a former member of this House—Annabel Young, who for many years has been in her role. She’s no longer in that role, but I can remember her making representations passionately and vigorously and repeatedly to me and my colleagues about MARPOL. I have to say that we found, initially, some concern because there was an initial sort of almost disbelief that we could be going on in this way and that, actually, things could be as bad as they were. But, actually, they were bad and they are bad still today, and we’ve got a lot of potential for improving the fuel sources being used.
There were a couple of other provisions in this piece of legislation that will give the Minister some extra powers that are worthy. They’re credible, and on this side of the House, we do support them. But I do want to, again, just acknowledge Annabel Young for the work that she did in terms of advocacy on behalf of her then employer, on behalf of the organisation that she represented, to ensure that, actually, we were doing the right thing for our environment. I know that this matter to many people, and there will be people who will be sitting at home, watching on television or, as the former member—
Hon Andrew Little: They’ve turned off now.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —of this House—
Hon Andrew Little: You just about had them—just about had them. They’ve gone.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I can remember there was a—Andrew Little will remember a former member in this House. His name was John Banks, and he used to give speeches at this time of the night and talk about people at home listening on their crystal sets, and I’m sure that around the country, there are probably—it could be John Banks himself listening on his crystal set. Who knows—who knows? But here we are in the Parliament, getting on towards half past 9 at night, in a COVID world, discussing and passing, hopefully, at its second reading, a piece of legislation that I think will provide some real, tangible benefit to New Zealand’s shipping operations and that will stand us in good stead for years to come.
I’m very pleased, on behalf of my colleagues in the National Party, to support this piece of legislation at second reading. I hope that it traverses well through the committee stage of the House into third reading and is passed forthwith.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair, and dajia hao. I’ve stood in this House on a number of occasions and sung the praises of the electorate that I am very fortunate to represent, the beautiful Banks Peninsula. Lyttleton is the centrepiece of this electorate. It’s a beautiful harbour, Whakaraupō, and home to a thriving community. So it’s a privilege to take a short call on this bill, which seeks to mitigate the impact of shipping emissions on ports like Lyttleton—ports which are so important to New Zealand, with almost all of our trade by weight shipped by sea.
This bill is important to our trade aspirations. It’s important to our economy, to our climate change response, and, ultimately, to our communities. And it’s vitally important that New Zealand be meeting its international obligations to limit greenhouse gases and other pollutants emitted by ships. I have no doubt that the good people of Lyttleton will also welcome the greater environmental protections provided for by this bill. So I welcome the continued safe passage, so to speak, of this bill, and commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act—the Act known as the mental health Act—and is an important part of the work we’re doing to, initially, improve the Act, to make it more compliant with basic human rights obligations, and introduce some more pragmatic solutions, for example, for the transporting of patients who fall under the Act. But it’s one step along the way to a more fulsome repeal and reform of the current legislation as a consequence of the series of reforms we committed to in 2018 as part of He Ara Oranga.
I want to first of all acknowledge the work of the members of the Health Committee and their examination of the bill, and the small number of changes that they produced as a consequence of their examination and which are now part of the bill as reported back to the House. I want to thank all those who made submissions to the bill. There were over 50 of them, mostly supportive of the bill, and recognising the need for change which is, of course, reflected in it. This piece of legislation, or the legislation that it is amending, is 30 years old. It is timely for it to be closely examined and changed and reviewed. It’s quite clear that the current legislation is out of step with basic expectations of the way people who fall under its aegis should be treated.
The bill focuses on four main changes to the principal legislation: first of all, eliminating indefinite treatment orders; secondly, improving the safety of both patients and the public when transporting special patients, as they’re known for the purposes of the legislation; thirdly, addressing some technical drafting issues that will help to improve the administration of the Act; and then fourthly, removing the sunset clause that had been put in as a consequence of COVID legislation that related to appearances in court by audio-visual technology, which has turned out to be welcomed by many practitioners and, indeed, patients. Following examination by the committee, I think some refinements are made to it so that there are some further protections for the patients who fall under the bill.
In relation to the indefinite treatment orders, this amending bill removes those or eliminates those. It is to be remembered that under the principal legislation as it is at the moment, an indefinite treatment order has no end and no basis on which it is ordinarily reviewed by the court. So this was seen as a very Draconian, very extreme, order to place people under, and so they will go. They’ve been very heavily criticised, and in the many reviews of the legislation by the monitoring agencies, this particular provision has been criticised and it will now go.
In relation to the provisions about transporting patients, this is a recognition that there are some patients who, at the time of being transported between facilities or to and from court, pose greater risk than others, and some need to be managed appropriately in the course of being transported. Currently there is no power or provision in the current legislation to allow restraint techniques to be applied to allow a patient who is at serious risk of harm to themselves or others to be more safely transported. The amendment will now allow steps to be taken for a patient to be safely transported. So, effectively, it gives permission to use appropriate or reasonable force, including restraint, during the transport. There are, of course, safeguards in place. Any force or restraint is to be used only if absolutely necessary.
I won’t go into the sort of technical drafting amendments, because that would bore the bejesus out of anybody at this time of the night, but in terms of the sunset clause for appearances by audio-visual technology as required in the court, that is removed, and I think it was one of the most common subjects upon which submitters made their submissions to the select committee. There are some safeguards put in place to make sure it’s not just used as a convenience, that it is used for a proper reason. So there is now a requirement that practitioners must record the fact that consideration was given to whether or not the audio-visual technology use was suitable in the particular circumstances, and also a record of it—if it was used and why it was used—so that there is a record kept of that. That is then the subject of reporting to the director of area mental health services who then reports that to the Director of Mental Health so that there is some sort of oversight and monitoring of the extent to which this technology is used, and whether or not it is appropriate for the particular patient. So oversight is now part of the regime. Consideration was given about public reporting requirements in relation to all of this. The committee has recommended that future reporting requirements be considered as part of the broader work of the repeal and replacement work of the Mental Health Act, and I think that is an appropriate thing to do, and it will now comprise part of the work we do on the major repeal of the legislation.
In the end, this is about making sure that this piece of legislation, which has courted controversy from time to time, is fit for purpose. It is part of the overarching mental health reforms that this Government is committed to doing, because, as we said from the outset—and, indeed, just before we were elected—mental health has been neglected for far too long. We must get it right, we must support people, and for those people who are particularly troubled, and a risk as a consequence of their mental health, we need to make sure that in terms of the legislation that compels them to be committed or detained, or to undergo treatment—whether for forensic purposes or otherwise—their basic human rights nevertheless are respected and are incorporated into the legislative regime that we have. This amending legislation takes one of many steps towards that. There are other steps and bigger steps to take, and that will follow. But, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, a bill that seeks to amend the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, or quite simply called the mental health Act.
I do want to start, if I can, by acknowledging this is Mental Health Awareness Week. Isn’t it great in New Zealand we have this week to talk about an issue that I think is important to most New Zealanders—I’d probably say all New Zealanders—irrespective of their political colours. I think mental health is an issue that we need to ensure we take a bipartisan approach to. I’m very proud to be a founding member of Parliament’s cross-party mental health group that seeks to work collaboratively to make a change. I think it’s great that in Mental Health Awareness Week we are having these conversations. Who would’ve thought years ago you would have had farmers turning up to a woolshed to talk about their own mental health?
I know that you’ll know the National Party is doing their bit. We held our first suicide prevention seminar at our annual conference where we heard from guest speakers like Jason Herrick, who’s attempted suicide himself because of the pressures of farming and rural life. He’s gone on to set up a mental health advocacy, Ag Proud. Of course, we also heard from Grace Curtis, who tragically found her father who had committed suicide. Grace has gone on to set up Cool Change NZ, a young person’s mental health advocacy group. So through great tragedy and hardship in New Zealand we see the green shoots of people wanting to take responsibility and promoting better mental health in New Zealand. I’m sure that’s supported the whole way round the House.
This bill, as the Minister outlined, is a fairly technical bill. It seeks to end indefinite treatment orders, specifically orders that had no end date and weren’t to be reviewed by the courts. Now, under this bill, the orders will be reviewed every 12 months. Sadly, for some people with severe and lifelong enduring mental illness, they will be under some order or care for a large part of their life. But I think it’s quite right to review every 12 months to understand how we can do better to supporting people to stay well. We do know now, with the recovery model, that if we put a person with lifelong and severe mental illness at the centre of their care, they do know what can keep them well. It is up to us to support them with the resources they need to keep them well and carry on being productive members of an inclusive society.
The second part of this bill seeks to allow transport management plans for restraint for mental health patients. It also seeks to use technology. This is a second reading debate so this bill has been to a select committee. We had a number of submissions, no wholesale change, just some amendments, primarily around the use of audiovisual links (AVL). So it’s important we use technology, and under this bill we can have friends and family who can be part of assessment as well. Also, under the COVID orders we allowed AVL to be used for assessment of patients under treatment orders as well. This bill will allow that AVL use to continue. But there was quite a theme coming through the submitters which was that we wouldn’t want the use of audiovisual to be the default setting of assessing people in their time of need for what specialist care they might need. Of course, it should be face to face, and at all times we should be looking to include friends and family in that as well. But, as COVID has taught us, it’s not always practicable to be able to do that in person, and I think it’s a great step forward to be able to use technology such as AVL to ensure that people get timely access to care.
One change that has been made is to ensure that through the guidelines and the guidance that will go with this new bill once it’s enacted into legislation, practitioners will be required to record whether AVL has been used and their reasons for it, and that will actually be reported up to the Director of Mental Health, who then will be reporting at a macro level around the use of technology in people’s care. Quite rightly, we want to use technology to support people’s care, but, equally, we don’t want to overstep and have a default where technology and AVL is used to the detriment of the person’s care and treatment.
What was very interesting, that also came out from submitters, was this reference—and the Minister did say—that this is part of a wider programme. Of course, the Government kicked off the mental health inquiry over three years ago. There were 40 recommendations; the Government accepted 38 of them. One of them was around repealing and replacing the mental health Act. Sadly, we are still no closer to that. We did put some wording in the select committee commentary report which, hopefully, reflects the concern of the submitters, who are concerned about the pace of the repeal and replacement of the mental health Act, because when we asked the officials, they told us that, when they’re looking at the timing of the work, the preliminary consultation is under way and formal consultation is expected to begin by the end of 2021. I mean, we are now going to be three, 3½—next year will be four years since those recommendations were accepted by the Government, and to say that this bill is the start of a process of repeal and replacing something that even the Minister’s officials have accepted has not formally started is, I think, a long bow.
We have seen that—because, of course, last week the Government announced their 10-year strategy—parts of these changes will feed into the strategy around the recovery model and using technology, but really disappointing with their own, independent review. Of course, it was an interesting choice of words to call it an independent review, but the health Minister gave it to his colleague the Deputy Prime Minister to review in his implementation unit, and they came out with words like “strong progress” and “initiatives are on track”. Well, we clearly see by the comments of submitters in this bill that, after three years of promising to repeal and replace the mental health Act, the work hasn’t even started. I think Shaun Robinson, who’s been very outspoken, as he should be as the CE of the Mental Health Foundation—he speaks on behalf of people with lived experience—called the comments of “strong progress” and “initiatives on track” as spin. And I think we should probably call it for what it is.
The reality is that this bill, although it’s well timed for Mental Health Awareness Week—you know, it starts to say the right things, a few more slogans, and starting the work around replacing and repairing the mental health Act, but the reality is that things are very slow. It’s a stocking filler. It’s a nice-to-have bill, but it’s very small, it’s very technical, it’s very perfunctory, and the reality is, I think, very clear from my colleagues across the House, whether it be Chlöe Swarbrick in the Greens, that we would have liked to be here today debating the replacement of the mental health Act, as promised by the Government when it accepted that recommendation over 3½ years ago, because the time has come to take a more person-centred approach to mental health, and that should also be in the compulsory treatment Act. And that’s why I would encourage the Government to bring to the House the repeal and replacement of the mental health Act that they promised those thousands of New Zealanders who turned up to their mental health inquiry, often telling very personal and traumatic stories that ended up in those 38 recommendations, which we now know many aren’t in progress and aren’t on track. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr Liz Craig: Madam Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): With apologies to the member, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.