Tuesday, 26 October 2021

TUESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2021

TUESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Michael Gibson requesting that the House change its Standing Orders to prevent a member of the Government reading from, or referring to, any written material when answering a supplementary question from a member of a party in Government

petition of Jenna Matchett requesting that the House review the South Wairarapa District Council’s rates increase in the Long Term Plan (LTP) and align with the figures released in the 2021-31 LTP consultation document.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is that Trevor’s petition?

SPEAKER: Shall we refer it directly to the Standing Orders Committee? Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2020-21 of the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, Ministry of Education, and the New Zealand Geographic Board

Statement of Intent 2021-25 for the Department of Conservation

Ministers reports on non-departmental appropriations for Vote Business, Science and Innovation, Economic and Regional Development portfolio, and Vote Education.

SPEAKER: I present the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2021 of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I also present the report of the Controller and Auditor General entitled Our observations on local government risk management practices. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the briefing on the commemoration of the Māori Affairs Committee’s 150th anniversary

report of the Petitions Committee on petition of Margo MacVicar

report of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Daniel Todd.

SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made regarding economic support for businesses facing restrictions as a result of the Delta outbreak?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has provided significant support to businesses and workers in response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak. So far, we have paid out $4.8 billion approximately through the wage subsidy scheme and Resurgence Support Payment (RSP) since August when the outbreak began. We do know, however, that it has been particularly tough for those in Auckland, and, as part of the move to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework, we’ve announced an enhanced business support package to help businesses through this transition. The core of that is a significant boost to the Resurgence Support Payment, moving to fortnightly payments at double the current rate, and the first of these will open on 12 November. Currently, the RSP is a three-weekly payment of $1,500 per eligible business and $400 for each full-time employee up to a total of 50 full-time equivalents (FTEs) or $21,500. For the payments starting on 12 November, this will be $3,000 per eligible business and $800 per FTE up to 50 FTEs, making a maximum fortnightly payment of $43,000. The wage subsidy will continue to be available on the current criteria while areas of the country are still in alert level 3, and the cost of providing both the weekly RSP, as it effectively becomes, and the wage subsidy is estimated to be up to $940 million per fortnight through this transitional period.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the Government decided to use the Resurgence Support Payment to provide assistance under the new COVID-19 Protection Framework?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The decision was made to use the RSP because it’s the mechanism that gives the greatest flexibility. It’s also an existing mechanism, which means it can be implemented quickly. The RSP is now, effectively, targeting Auckland businesses, with payments going to Auckland having grown to 70 percent of the payment from 40 percent when it was first paid out in this outbreak. This enhanced support will be paid fortnightly until Auckland has been able to move into the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

Dr Duncan Webb: What will happen to the economic supports when the new COVID19 Protection Framework is fully in place?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Cabinet’s made in principle decisions on the financial supports that will become available when the framework takes effect, and the details of that will be confirmed next month, but as we said on Friday, some of those decisions we are able to announce now. The first of those is that a transition grant will be made available to support businesses, particularly those in Auckland, when they move into the new framework, and our planning is for this to be based on broadly similar criteria to the Resurgence Support Payment. Once the framework is fully operational across New Zealand, this will be the time to replace the current support schemes that we have with something that better reflects the new framework. We have said that, as businesses are able to operate as normal under the orange and green levels, there will not be across-the-board support. I will be proposing to Ministers financial support that targets the most affected businesses for when areas of the country are in red.

Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why didn’t he make the increased resurgence payment available immediately to cash-strapped businesses rather than make it three weeks before they can even apply?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a Resurgence Support Payment opening for application this week, and so that happens on the 29th and then we move to the fortnightly payments as soon as possible after that, giving the effect of a weekly payment.

David Seymour: Well, was the Minister aware that making the resurgence payment weekly was first floated by ACT on 6 September, and, if not, would he like to go on our mailing list so he can get some more good ideas for dealing with COVID?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While I am deeply interested in the views of the member, I don’t follow each and every one of his press releases, and were I to have taken all of his advice over the last 20 months or so, I don’t think businesses in Auckland would’ve appreciated that.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s announcement on Friday on our next step in our response to COVID-19. The COVID-19 Protection Framework will provide a pathway out of lockdown and will allow businesses and events to open to those who are vaccinated in New Zealand. By setting a target of 90 percent fully vaccinated across each of the 20 DHB regions, we’re balancing the need for New Zealand to return to some additional ways of life that we have not had for some time and do everything we can to ensure no one is left behind. We’re supporting this transition with up to $940 million per fortnight in our business boost package and $120 million to accelerate our Māori vaccination rates, but the responsibility, of course, lies with all of us to continue to do all we can to support one another to be vaccinated.

Hon Judith Collins: What advice has she sought regarding the mental health impact of keeping Auckland under lockdown for at least another four weeks?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, of course, the length of time that will be spent in level 3 restrictions is dependent on a number of things. Firstly, we have set a target of each of the DHBs there reaching 90 percent. I note this morning that we are just 11,000 vaccines shy of reaching that 90 percent target for first doses. So, of course, the quicker that that is achieved, the quicker our second doses and, of course, the quicker that those level 3 restrictions will be removed. I note the member herself has not proposed anything earlier than 1 December. The second thing that it is contingent on, of course, is the outbreak itself. We’ve still kept the step-downs available to us so that if we are able to ease in the meantime, we will continue to do so. To answer the member’s question on mental health, I receive a range of pieces of information, both contacts made to things like our Youthline—I’ve recently received a report from the Child and Youth Wellbeing unit on the impacts of lockdown on children and, of course, I do receive information from the chambers of commerce and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, daily, on the hotline calls that they’re receiving. So we know, of course, the strain across the board that restrictions place on people.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she accept that her Government’s inability to produce something as basic as proof of vaccination means a million vaccinated Aucklanders are still stuck in lockdown with no end in sight?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: Why didn’t she use the last 18 months to expand our ICU capacity, and is this failure the reason we now need a traffic light system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: Do we currently have enough ICU capacity to manage COVID?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Will she apologise for her slow vaccine roll-out and failure to prepare for an outbreak that caused thousands of small businesses to close?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, no one—no one—wants to have the impacts that COVID is having on our communities, whether it be the health of those who have experienced COVID, those who’ve experienced the loss of life within their families, or, indeed, the impacts on the economy. But relative to other countries, of which none have come away without an impact being felt, of all countries, New Zealand has fared amongst the best: some of the lowest cases in the OECD, lowest hospitalisations, lowest death rates, and an economy that has fared extraordinarily well, and that is because of the choices that we’ve made, and that will need to be the case going forward. Our ambition, through high vaccination rates, is to still minimise and protect the general population against the impacts of COVID-19, particularly when we know that even with a highly vaccinated population, if it’s not properly managed you can still have impacts on business and, of course, people’s lives.

Hon Judith Collins: So how does the traffic light system announced last Friday interact with the Auckland roadmap steps system announced just 18 days earlier; isn’t it true the Government is just making it up as it goes along?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not, and if the member had listened to either the announcements on the day or even the reference I made in my answer just now, then that would have become clear. The traffic light system has been designed to work in the environment where you have a highly vaccinated population, because it does remove some of the things that we’ve used previously when we haven’t had the tools of vaccine. It, for instance, uses much more localised lockdowns if you have a situation with low vaccination rates in a population, but it does not use things like alert level 3, and so that is why it can only really be safely used in a highly vaccinated environment. In the meantime, as I’ve just said to the member, the step-downs continue to be available to us, but we assess those against both the outbreak as well as vaccination levels.

Hon Judith Collins: How does she think the New Zealand economy is going to respond in the future to the 4.9 percent increase in inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, we’re not alone in having experienced that. The likes of Canada and others are seeing similar impacts, and of course, you can point to, in many ways, the impacts of COVID, particularly the pressure that it’s putting on supply chain. Most speculate, or many speculate, that this is not something that will be long term. But in the meantime, we need to do what we can to ensure that we are meeting the needs, particularly, of those lowest-income New Zealanders as they feel the impacts of COVID-related increases in the cost of living.

Question No. 3—COVID-19

3. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has the Government made on the management of COVID-19 in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Last week, the Prime Minister announced the new COVID-19 Protection Framework and shared the plan with New Zealanders that will help to keep us safe from COVID-19 into the future. The new protection framework sets a pathway forward that rewards the rapidly growing number of New Zealanders who have been vaccinated with more freedom to go about their lives safely. The simplified framework has three levels: green, orange, and red. Vaccine certificates will provide greater freedoms at each of the levels. There will be extra public health precautions built in at higher levels to minimise the impact of COVID-19 and suppress the spread of that virus. Our current alert level framework and an elimination strategy have kept us safe and our economy functioning while we got vaccinated, but now as more Kiwis are protected by the vaccine we need a new plan that moves away from lockdowns as the primary defence against the virus.

Ginny Andersen: What will the new protection framework mean for people and businesses in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: For individual New Zealanders, it will mean more freedom. For businesses, it will mean being able to open up and get back to doing what they love doing with a greater degree of freedom. Businesses that choose to open to the unvaccinated will face greater restrictions in order to suppress the virus amongst those most likely to have it. Fully vaccinated people will be able to reconnect with their friends and their families, they’ll be able to go to bars and restaurants, and do the things they love with greater certainty and confidence.

Ginny Andersen: When can New Zealanders expect to transition to the new framework?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve set a target of 90 percent fully vaccinated across each district health board region as the milestone to trigger moving the country into the new system. That target ensures a good regional spread across the country and it will help us to address equity issues within each region. Our modelling shows that having 90 percent of eligible people fully vaccinated provides a high level of coverage, and that will help us to keep New Zealanders safe, slow and control outbreaks, and assist public health authorities to do their jobs. Auckland will be able to move sooner; the plan provides a clear path for Auckland to move out of lockdown as soon as 90 percent of the eligible population are fully vaccinated across the three DHBs. There are around 11,000 vaccines to go for every DHB to hit the target for their 90 percent first doses in Auckland. When that turns into double digits, that’s when the new framework will kick in.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What responsibility, if any, does the Government take for the Consumers Price Index reaching 4.9 percent in the September 2021 year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Responsibility for the Consumers Price Index (CPI) is shared across different areas of Government depending on what aspect the member is referring to. For example, responsibility for keeping the CPI at a reasonable level over the medium term is part of the mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ). The RBNZ has operational independence in the way they perform their role; however, I would note that they have tended to put more weight on measures of core inflation rather than risk over-reacting to transitory factors that might not be a good indication of the state of the domestic economy. However, if the member is asking whether Government decisions have led to recent increases in inflation, I would point out to the member that commodity price increases and global supply disruptions are affecting all economies around the world. This is evidenced by the August 2021 inflation across the OECD being at an annual rate of 4.3 percent.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept spending billions of dollars outside of Budget allowances and direct COVID support has pushed up inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I’d accept is that the support that the Government has given to New Zealand businesses, workers, and communities has meant that we have had one of the strongest economic responses to COVID-19 at the same time as having one of the lowest mortality rates and hospitalisation rates.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that economic commentators are now predicting that inflation will get worse before it gets better, with price increases particularly notable in petrol, food, and housing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In all three of the areas that the member mentions there, there are global supply chain disruptions that are causing significant impacts. There is a large debate taking place among economists around the world as to the persistence or the permanence of inflation. Those supply chain disruptions are ones that we continue to work on, but they are, in fact, ones that are global.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he still believe the inflation increases for June and September will “wash out” as he said in July, and does he agree that when they do, even higher rates are likely to wash in?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, there is significant debate among economists around the world about the persistence or the permanence of these levels of inflation. That will emerge over time. What I do know is that on this side of the House, we remain committed to supporting New Zealanders through COVID-19.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, does he accept that the economy is not in a good position for many New Zealanders experiencing rent increases of up to 7.8 percent over the last year and wage increases that pale in comparison with inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, if we actually look at the data that is in the inflation statistics that is in the member’s primary question, I’d point out that the annual rent increases were 3.2 percent—not the number that the member gave—and 0.7 percent for the quarter. It is challenging for people at the moment in many parts of the economy. That’s why the Government has stepped up and supported them.

Question No. 5—Small Business

5. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Small Business: Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. What announcements has he made about advice and mental wellbeing support to help Auckland businesses during the transition to the new COVID19 Protection Framework?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Last Friday, along with the Minister of Finance, I announced a $60 million package for business advice and mental health support to be made available to help Auckland small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through the transition period to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework. There are three parts of this package: firstly, a $20 million business advisory service, of up to $3,000 per business, with no co-payment from the business, to enable them to receive expert advice and support; secondly, $30 million in grants for SMEs to implement business advice, with up to $4,000 per business and, again, with no co-payment from the individual business. These two parts will be delivered by the Regional Business Partner Network run by Auckland Unlimited, the Auckland Council’s economic development agency. The third part is up to $10 million additional funding to support mental health and wellbeing initiatives for business owners and employees. This will be co-designed with the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association.

Barbara Edmonds: What are the benefits of this package?

Hon STUART NASH: The package is what the Auckland business leaders and representatives told us they required to help deal with the uncertainties caused by the Delta outbreak. This package will help better position SMEs to seize future opportunities and productivity gains when restrictions reduce, and improve their ability to operate in the meantime. We estimate that up to 10,000 Auckland SMEs will be assisted by the business and advisory support and that up to 7,500 Auckland SMEs will be supported by the implementation assistance. By delivering the package through the Regional Business Partner Network run by Auckland Unlimited, the Government is partnering with existing proven providers on the ground so assistance can be delivered far sooner than if we had to start from scratch.

Barbara Edmonds: What feedback has the Minister seen on this package?

Hon STUART NASH: Brett O’Riley, the chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, has said—and I quote—“The $50m for the RBP to provide 10,000 businesses with mentoring and advice to help them recover and grow into the future is an excellent practical step to support our businesses and economy.” Michael Barnett, the chief executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, has said—and I quote—“The $60 million package for the Regional Business Partner Programme including $10 million for mental health support, will be a lifeline for many and help build resilience and a recovery strategy.”

Question No. 6—Oceans and Fisheries

6. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What advice, if any, did Fisheries New Zealand provide him on potential risks to Māui dolphin from increasing the total allowable commercial catch for snapper off the West Coast of the North Island?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I received advice from Fisheries New Zealand that extensive trawl and set netting prohibitions are in place to manage the risks of commercial and recreational fishing to Māui dolphins along the West Coast of the North Island. The measures are part of a suite of actions under a wider threat management plan, which include creating and extending set net bans and extending trawl closure areas. Together these provide a high degree of certainty that the current risk fishing has to Māui dolphin mortality is close to zero. If I receive evidence to the contrary, I can impose further restrictions. I also note that the rules include a provision allowing me to act immediately to impose further restrictions if a single dolphin is caught in the Māui dolphin habitat within the West Coast of the North Island.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he stand by his statement to former Prime Minister Helen Clark that, “I don’t want to be part of a Government that oversees the extinction of a species.”, if so, why has he taken a decision that Fisheries New Zealand considers may increase the risk to Māui dolphin?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I reiterate that the measures provide a high degree of certainty that the current risk fishing has to Māui dolphin mortality is close to zero. In addition, if I do receive evidence to the contrary, within the parameters, I can impose further restrictions.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What advice, if any, has he sought from his ministerial colleague the Minister of Conservation about the latest Department of Conservation survey, which reportedly shows there may be just 54 Māui dolphins remaining, and will he consider further measures to protect critically endangered Māui dolphins from being caught and dying in fishing nets?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I can confirm that I am in regular contact with the formidable Minister for Conservation and we engage closely in discussions about a range of issues. I’m aware that the new Māui dolphin estimate is 54, but, as said before, I am confident that the advice that I have received is that there is a high degree of certainty that there is currently a close to zero risk that fishing has to the Māui dolphin mortality rates, and if I do receive evidence to the contrary, I can impose further restrictions.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Did the Minister receive any advice on whether the increase in allowable snapper catch and potential risk to Māui dolphins will affect New Zealand’s seafood exports to the United States in the light of Sea Shepherd’s court action in the US Court of International Trade?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I don’t have any information to hand that can assist with that answer, but I’m happy to seek further information if she so requires.

SPEAKER: I just want to check on that one, whether the Minister answering the question is saying that or is she saying that Mr Parker is saying that?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of Minister Parker, I don’t have any information to hand.

SPEAKER: OK. I think I’ll interpret that as the Minister answering on behalf saying she does not have that information, but if the member wants to put it down.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Happy to assist.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Eugenie Sage: How does the Minister respond to the call of the International Union for Conservation of Nature to “urgently extend dolphin protection for Māui and Hector’s dolphin.”?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I’ll reiterate that to date, we don’t have any information that has been provided that the dolphin mortality will increase. It is close to zero. I have the ability to make amendments and impose further restrictions if there is any evidence to the contrary that this is indeed required.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: On what dates, if ever, did Cabinet authorise the development of COVID-19 vaccination certificates, and on what date will vaccination certificates be available for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Ministers have been considering formally introducing a vaccination certificate since the beginning of the year. Cabinet formally authorised the development of a COVID-19 vaccination certification on 5 July, as part of the reconnecting New Zealand work which was announced in early August. Since then, we’ve been working through a variety of details and options around what a vaccine certificate might look like in New Zealand. I expect that vaccination certificates will be available from mid to late November.

Chris Bishop: Why did it take the Cabinet until 5 July to authorise the development of vaccination certificates?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Up until that point, the focus of the vaccination certification work was primarily on the international border and on making sure that people could validate their vaccination records for the purposes of international travel. The work around considering how a vaccination certificate regime could be used domestically started before July, but it was formally noted by Cabinet in July.

Chris Bishop: Would a vaccination certificate regime be in place now if the Government had moved earlier than 5 July to authorise the development of a domestic vaccination certificate regime?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The development of vaccination records and how people can access vaccination records has been ongoing throughout the year. I would note that the IT systems that that relies on were the very IT systems the member confidentially predicted in the House were going to be a flop—like Book My Vaccine and the COVID Immunisation Register. They have been hugely successful, and I have absolute confidence that the team developing this will produce a very successful vaccination certificate system, as well.

Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who stated this morning that should an eligible area reach 90 percent of double-dose vaccination before mid-November, “If in the worst of all worlds, if we had to, we could use a paper-based system for a period of time”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: People can access their vaccination records now. They can go and download them off the internet right now if they wish to do that, and if they wish to print them out to show other people that they have been vaccinated, they can access that now. But one of the issues is that people want to know that they have been validated, and so making sure there’s a technological solution available that respects people’s privacy and that allows for digital vaccination certificates to be validated is one of the pieces of work that is now in its final stages. Of course, though, one of the things that has to be resolved, and that did need to be resolved before this system could go live and be finalised, is exactly how they would be used. I can say, on this side of the House, we’re very clear on how vaccine certificates will be used.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that some countries, throughout the use of vaccination certificates, have used a paper-based model, but what the Government is working to develop enables an app to be used for the purposes of scanning and a quick response code certification that is an accurate vaccination certificate, so enables large-scale events to use them much more smoothly?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can, in fact, confirm that. Many other countries’ vaccination certificate regimes aren’t anything more sophisticated than the little card that people get when they go to be vaccinated. Our system will be significantly more advanced than that, and it will allow for the validation of someone’s vaccine record. It would help to prevent vaccination fraud, in the sense of people passing off that they have been vaccinated, when they haven’t been. Those things are important. People have the ability to produce evidence to show that they have been vaccinated now. Some people use the little vaccine cards already. And people can download their records off the internet today if they wish to.

Chris Bishop: Is he comfortable with every country in the OECD, plus Cuba and Burkina Faso, having a vaccination certificate available right now, and New Zealand not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if the member’s setting a very low threshold for what a vaccine certificate is—such as the little blue card that people get after they have been vaccinated being the equivalent of a vaccine certificate—then he’s welcome to make that claim. But that is about as sophisticated as many of those systems get. We’re developing a system that will be a lot more robust, that will stop people ripping off the system and claiming they’ve been vaccinated, when they are not. One of the things that we’ve been working through, as I just told the member, is being very clear on where vaccine certificates will be used and where they won’t be, and on this side of the House we have clear answers to those questions.

David Seymour: Were all of the parameters of the vaccine certificate decided by Cabinet on 5 July, and, if not, when did Cabinet last meet to make decisions about the parameters of the vaccine certificate to be contracted out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends what the member is talking about. If he’s talking about the IT systems, those answers were dealt with some time ago; I’m happy to come back to him with a specific date. If it depends on how vaccine certificates will be applied, Cabinet is still working its way through that process. That will almost certainly involve having to bring legislation to the House. I look forward to the member’s support for that legislation, given the previous encouragement that he has given the Government, in this House, around issues around vaccine mandates.

Question No. 8—Health (Māori Health)

8. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcement has he made about supporting the acceleration of Māori vaccination rates and supporting Māori communities to prepare for the implementation of the new COVID-19 Protection Framework?

Hon Member: He said it was Māori’s fault.

Hon Member: What was that?

Hon Member: He said it was Māori’s fault. He was on TV saying it.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Is that another supplementary? Thank you, Mr Speaker. Alongside the Minister for—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It’s pretty hard to get a valid interjection before a member starts an answer.

Hon Member: But I did.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that the member did at all, and he’s testing me.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Alongside the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, Kelvin Davis, and the Minister for Māori Development, Willie Jackson, we announced a further $120 million to establish a Māori Communities COVID-19 Fund, that supports Māori, iwi, and community organisations and providers to accelerate their responses and plans and to build resilience ahead of the planned shift to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework across two phases. Phase one will look to accelerate vaccine uptake amongst Māori in a very targeted way, and phase two will look to build whānau and community resilience, and we expect to do this alongside iwi, hapū, whānau, and communities.

Tāmati Coffey: How does this funding announcement align with the new COVID-19 Protection Framework?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The introduction of the Government’s new COVID-19 Protection Framework will increasingly rely on locally led responses to COVID-19 events. Māori COVID-19 vaccination rates need to increase within each DHB as we look to reach 90 percent coverage. Within this context, additional resources are needed to put extra efforts and incentives to our current approaches, led by our Māori leaders, providers, and community groups. As we’ve travelled across the country and my colleagues have heard firsthand experience from our communities, it is important that these extra funds go towards the COVID-19 efforts. Phase two of the Māori Communities COVID-19 Fund will support the efforts to increase Māori vaccination rates and empower Māori to prepare for and lead an effective and safe transition. The timing of this announcement is also important, because, as we have seen through the COVID-19 lockdowns across 2020 and 2021, Māori whānau and communities often also have compromised resilience due to enduring economic hardships.

Tāmati Coffey: How can iwi, Māori providers, and Māori communities access this funding?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Access to funding for phase one is now open from today to the end of the year. The fund targets Māori and iwi community organisations, and we expect groups already engaged in vaccination mobilisation and outreach activities through Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Health (MoH), and Te Arawhiti will be interested in accessing funding to maintain and build momentum, and we will work with them in the first instance. However, we will also look to work with other groups with funding proposals. Information on how to access the fund will be available on the Te Puni Kōkiri website, Te Arawhiti website, and the MoH website. Access to funding for phase two is expected to be available in November 2021. This fund will support Māori-, iwi-, and hapū-led communities to respond to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework, which in some cases will involve adapting and implementing existing pandemic response plans and resilience planning, and more information on how to access this fund will become available before November 2021.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement that “The most important thing people can do to prevent themselves, children and vulnerable people getting COVID is to get vaccinated. However, it’s important we have medicines to help those who pick up the virus to avoid having to go to hospital.” That’s why I stand by the Government’s decision to ring-fence funding for the purchase of COVID-19 therapeutics, and I welcome the decision by Pharmac to enter an agreement to purchase 60,000 doses of an antiviral molnupiravir. Interim evidence from clinical trials suggests this drug may halve hospitalisations and deaths from COVID-19 and could play a central role in the treatment of mild to moderate cases of the disease in the future. As we evolve in our response to the Delta variant, I’m pleased that we have one more highly promising tool to add to our tool kit.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement, “We have looked at all of the evidence, talked to experts, looked at modelling for our situation, and set a target of 90 percent fully vaccinated for each DHB in New Zealand.”; and, if so, has she received any modelling on what day that 90 percent target in every DHB is likely to be reached?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the first half the question, yes. The second half of the question—it’s obviously easier to make predictions based on those DHBs that are closer to the 90 percent on their first dose. So, obviously, with Auckland, there’s been some suggestion, of course, that it could be late November, early December. As I just said today, on Friday, we were 16,000 doses away from hitting the 90 percent for first dose. That’s now down to 11,000. So, as you can see, Auckland could hit that first dose target as early as this week. And then obviously, if you follow on with the three weeks for the second dose, then you can see the likely time frames.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister answer the question about the last DHBs to reach 90 percent full vaccination since her policy requires the whole country to wait for the last, not the first?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the member misunderstands. We have, of course, said that for Auckland, they will shift once those three DHBs—and that’s because that’s possible. And that was very clear in the announcement: Auckland will go first once the three DHBs within Auckland reach that target, and that’s because there’s a hard border around Auckland that enables that. The second reason is, as I’ve already outlined, for other DHBs, it’s not as easy to make a prediction at this stage, but, of course, you can make some assumptions that notifying that the use of things like vaccine certificates may incentivise extra uptake. The other point that I would make is for those other parts of the country outside the Waikato region—obviously, they’re in level 2 at the moment; very different circumstances than what Auckland is living with. But my very clear message to them would be if we do have cases in those communities, while we have lower vaccination rates, we will still have to use more blanket restrictions. We want to be able to use the traffic light framework. The safest way to do that is to get vaccination rates up to the targets that have been set.

David Seymour: Is there any limit on how far past 1 December the Prime Minister is prepared to keep Auckland or the rest of New Zealand locked down; and if so, how long is it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would highlight to the member that the majority of the country is actually in level 2. Of course, we have a very specific eye on trying to move Auckland as quickly as possible, and they, obviously, are within the range of being able to do that, you know, within possibly even three to four weeks. Again, we want to make sure that we’re providing all the support we can to support the uptake of vaccination there and, in the meantime, we have also kept on the table the step-downs for Auckland as well so they’re not totally reliant on that shift. The final thing I’d say is Cabinet has said we’ll have a check-in on 29 November to assess the progress of both the Auckland DHBs, if they have not already reached the target, but also the rest of the country.

David Seymour: Has she received any modelling on the level of vaccination required in the community before it is safe for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) to be shortened or skipped altogether in favour of home isolation for pre-departure tested, fully vaccinated Kiwis returning from overseas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The modelling hasn’t tended to get into that level of specificity, but what you will have seen from the modelling that’s been released to date is that they all assume some level of check at the border that goes beyond just a pre-departure test. So even Te Pūnaha Matatini’s modelling does include ongoing restrictions at the border to try and prevent the ongoing seeding of cases in the community, even when there are cases already within that community. And that’s just to stop the prevalence or the growth of outbreaks. We have already said, though, that as part of the reconnecting New Zealand work, we would move to shortened MIQ, we would move to self-isolation. We are trialling self-isolation over the coming weeks, and that enables us to work through some of the logistical challenges of ensuring that people are able to safely move from the airport to their homes without putting others at risk, but with a view to being able to use that tool more widely in the future.

David Seymour: Has she had any communications about travelling to Europe herself in the coming weeks; and does she anticipate she’ll be able to take advantage of a shortened MIQ stay or home isolate by the time she returns?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The decisions that we make on MIQ are made for the safety of New Zealand and for the context of all New Zealanders, not for any one individual.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Local Government: Will councils be informed of the proportion of ownership and control they would have of the water entities that would be established by the Three Waters reforms; if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The Government has been engaging with local government on the three waters proposals for some considerable time, and also on the governance arrangements as part of that, and we will continue to do so. The Government’s proposal is that local authorities are the owners of the entities on behalf of their communities. This proposal also includes legislative safeguards to ensure that these entities stay in public ownership.

Nicola Willis: How much of the proposed entity A would Auckland Council own and therefore Auckland ratepayers have control over?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have the specific percentages in front of me but what I can say is that local authorities will be the owners collectively on behalf of their communities. It is also very important for us on this side of the House to make sure we protect the public ownership of these entities lest the National Party ever get in Government and try and hock them off.

Nicola Willis: How would ratepayers have direct influence over the water entities in the way they do now over their elected councils when in a typical entity up to 20 councils would be represented by just six seats on a regional representative group?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the member has answered her own question, that the regional representative group will cover the councils. It will also cover mana whenua in the area. The important thing for the member to consider here is whether or not she thinks that the way water assets in New Zealand have been managed over previous decades is adequate, and I think the member, of all people, would realise that water assets in New Zealand have not been well managed. The status quo is not working. If we stick to the status quo it will cost thousands of dollars on ratepayers, and the member just might want to think about the good people of Wellington who want their water to be better than it is now.

Brooke van Velden: Were councils informed about the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill before it was announced, and, if not, did the National Party housing spokesperson lobby her to ensure they were informed?

SPEAKER: I think that might be described as a nice try but not a proper supplementary.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If a question is asked about the practice of the Government informing local government, how is it not a valid question to put that in context and ask what the practice of informing local government normally is? How is that not a valid question?

SPEAKER: If the question was about the relationship generally between the Government and local government, then it is possible that that supplementary could have been worked in. This question was about water.

Nicola Willis: Will the Minister, as rumoured, announce plans this week to legislate to require all local authorities to give up their water assets for a “nationwide all-in model”, as preferred by her Government?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is rumour now adequate authentication of material for the purposes of supplementary questions?

SPEAKER: If I thought it was necessary for the substance of the question, then the answer would have been no. But, actually, it was a superfluous, unnecessary addition that didn’t actually affect the sense of the question and therefore I chose not to be officious and rule it out. There’s a new liberal, reasonable me.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the Government continues to work with local government around making sure that we involve as many councils as possible as we can in this proposal, and when it comes to rumours, if I believed all of the rumours that I’ve heard around Wellington, the member would already be the leader of the National Party.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is the Government considering having more than four entities to provide better community-of-interest representation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, we have put out our proposal for the four entities. We believe that that is the best aggregation of those assets to provide New Zealanders with the kind of water infrastructure that they need and deserve.

Hon James Shaw: Given the National Party’s concern about the Government seizing the assets of local government, would the Government consider inviting the National Party to help to create a supermajority vote to ensure that that legislation can’t be overturned and that those assets do actually stay in the hands of local government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I am very confident that the legislative proposals that we have ensure that public ownership is guaranteed. I would invite the National Party to vote for that and reject their decades-long attachment to asset sales.

Question No. 11—Conservation

11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcement has she made regarding Jobs for Nature funding for the Sustainable Business Network?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): More good news, with respect to Jobs for Nature. Last week, I announced further Government support for New Zealand’s longest-standing sustainable business organisation, the Sustainable Business Network, to open up opportunities for workers impacted by COVID-19 to jumpstart a nature-based career. The Partnering to Plant Aotearoa project involves collaboration with local community groups to undertake small-scale but valuable ecological restoration, supporting projects which provide positive impacts on conservation, keep boots on the ground, and aid in our economic recovery is what our Jobs for Nature programme is all about.

Rachel Boyack: What has the Partnering to Plant Aotearoa project achieved to date?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Since September 2020, the three earlier phases of the project have delivered $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding to 10 community-based conservation partners across the country, including in areas where there were significant jobs losses. More than 120 people have been employed through the project to date, connecting businesses struggling to keep their staff employed, as well as unemployed workers, to nature-based employment opportunities.

Rachel Boyack: What will the next phase of the project aim to achieve?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Mr Speaker, fantastic question. A further $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding announced last week—

SPEAKER: It almost got ruled out.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well I think it’s—yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. A further $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding announced last week will allow the Sustainable Business Network to provide two more partner groups on board, opening up 60 jobs across the country, delivering formal training outcomes, and generating more than 53,000 hours of conservation work. This work includes extensive planting, weeding, and fencing to improve habitat and food sources for native species—

SPEAKER: Enough.

Question No. 12—Health (Māori Health)

12. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Is he satisfied that Māori health providers and commissioning agents have been well positioned to support the roll-out of the COVID-19 response for Māori?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Yes.

Harete Hipango: Knowing that COVID first struck 18 months ago, why did the Minister wait eight months to secure accelerant funding to lift Māori vaccination rates rather than at the beginning of the vaccination roll-out, as advised to him by officials?

Hon PEENI HENARE: To be very clear, we’re talking about two different things here, and I can understand how the member might have got this wrong. So, if I can, let me be quite clear: the COVID response plan is the broader plan. That is the plan that, since the start of the pandemic, we have thrown significant support into the response that’s led by Māori. With respect to the COVID Māori vaccine plan, that was the plan that was announced in the beginning of March of this year, and since that one announcement, we have made two further announcements to continue to support the Māori vaccine roll-out.

Harete Hipango: So, as the Minister says that the Government has thrown—thrown—significant support to Māori, if it was so good, why are Māori vaccination rates lagging?

Hon PEENI HENARE: As I’ve travelled around to a number of DHBs and Māori health providers, it’s now quite clear that the Māori communities we need to reach now to bring up Māori vaccination rates are communities that might not be connected to Māori health providers, acknowledging that 86 percent of Māori actually go through their GPs and primary health organisations (PHOs) and not Māori health providers. Secondly, many of them are in rural, remote, isolated areas, which means that in order to reach them, we must give more support, because if we actually supported our Māori health providers on a per-jab basis, then they wouldn’t be able to meet the overheads to get into the rural, remote communities to reach the community that we’re trying to target over the coming weeks.

Hon Kiritapu Allan: On the basis of the conversations that the Minister had going around the country, and in order to support those rural and remote communities, what support has he provided to Māori providers like Ngāti Porou Hauora to support such initiatives?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I thank the member for the question. To support the already free mobile clinics that are utilised on Te Tai Rāwhiti, over the past week, working alongside the DHB and Māori health providers, proud to announce that more support for mobile clinics across Te Tai Rāwhiti has been expedited. In fact, my understanding is that the wheels of those clinics will be hitting the ground in the next 24 hours.

Harete Hipango: So why did the Ministry of Health refuse to give Māori health providers data that would’ve helped them increase Māori vaccination rates and keep the wheels of that bus going on?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The situation with data is that through the Ministry of Health, we are already providing quite a granular data set to Māori health providers. We are supported by PHOs and GPs to continue to give data, and good data, to Māori health providers so that they can reach those communities that we’re finding it hard to engage with. But I will say this: a number of Māori health providers in this country have actually acknowledged something that we’ve all come to realise now, and that is that even they have lost connection with a number of these communities over many years. They are keen to re-engage, and we’re keen to support them to do that.

Bills

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I move, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 2 December 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

New Zealand’s housing crisis has not just cropped up in the last few years. It has been developing in our country over decades. New Zealand has simply not built enough homes in the right places to meet the needs of New Zealanders. This makes our housing increasingly unaffordable. Our Government firmly believes every New Zealander deserves to live in a warm, dry, and secure home. This bill deals with one of the barriers to boosting housing supply: overly restrictive council planning laws. Rules that have stopped density in our cities, have outright banned them, or have required lengthy and costly haggling with council in order to make them happen. We don’t for one moment think that this is a magic solution to all our housing woes in New Zealand, but we know that this is one piece of the puzzle that we need to put in place if we are to address our housing crisis.

New Zealand’s housing shortage is being made worse in our largest cities by the limits on the number and types of houses that can be built. They can be confusing and they can be arbitrary, causing expensive delays as people struggle to meet the expectation of individual council consent offices. We can’t just keep doing what we have been doing and expect different results. We can’t just keep doing what we have been doing for decades and expect that the housing crisis will solve itself. This bill makes one of the changes that we need in this country to get more houses built.

Evidence from here in New Zealand and overseas shows removing these rules results in more affordable houses being built. For example, a 2017 report by Superu and Sense Partners further found land use regulations contribute between 15 and 56 percent to the cost of housing in our cities. We need to do what many other countries have successfully done to deliver more housing supply and to cut the red tape to allow more density and affordable housing options.

Working across this Chamber, working with the National Party on this bill delivered stable, enduring policy on housing density. This gives homeowners, councils, developers, and investors certainty around enduring planning rules and laws. Last year, our Government took a step to address these overly restrictive planning rules by introducing the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, known affectionately in some circles as the NPSUD. The NPSUD is a powerful tool in getting more houses built faster. It enables greater housing intensification in our cities and directs councils to better plan for future growth.

Housing intensification is important because it fosters more housing variety in areas with access to jobs, transport, and community facilities. It also makes the best use of existing infrastructure, amenities, and services like public transport, and bolsters the efficiency case in more investment in this critically needed infrastructure. It also helps to address climate change through changing transport modes to meet our emissions targets. Cost benefit analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the NPSUD intensification policies found that 72,000 additional houses can be expected by 2043 in the tier 1 urban areas of Auckland, in Greater Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch. PricewaterhouseCoopers now considers this to be a conservative estimate.

It will be in 2024 when the impacts of the NPSUD really start to be felt, but we need to do more now so that we can get more houses built faster. This is why this bill tackles two things: process and density. The intensified, streamlined planning process creates a new process to cut through red tape and speed up the NPSUD implementation. The tier 1 councils will be required to use this process, so new rules and policies allowing for intensification are in their plans by August 2023, at least a year earlier than under the current timelines. The new process is based on the Resource Management Act’s existing streamlined planning process, and key features include having a standardised set of process steps, using an independent panel to ensure a transparent and efficient submissions and hearing process, and removing all appeal rights other than judicial review. Primary decision-making sits with the council, with the Minister for the Environment settling any disagreements between it and the panel. We’ve made sure the new process supports Māori participation and engagement. Councils must consult with iwi authorities before publicly notifying their planned changes, and all decisions must be consistent with relevant iwi and Māori participation legislation or joint management agreements.

Secondly, the bill enables more medium-density housing across our main city. Tier 1 councils will need to change their planning rules so most of their current and future residential areas are zoned for medium-density housing. This allows more town houses and units to be built, but, importantly, it does not require it. This is enabling legislation that will give people in our cities more choice. The bill does this by introducing medium-density residential standards that provide a minimum level of development in these areas. What this means is people can, as of right, build up to three homes of up to three stories on up to 50 percent of most sites, without the need for a resource consent. Currently, most council planning rules may only allow for one home of up to two stories.

A wider range of housing types will be supported, including additional units for extended family living and those popular with first-home buyers, as well as bigger and higher homes than under current plans. It also reduces the need to get a resource consent when building, extending, or renovating a home, making it quicker, cheaper, and simpler for people to do work on their own home. The standards work together as a package. They are designed to be truly enabling of medium-density housing, and the recession plane standard as a good example of this. The bill states buildings must not project beyond a 60-degree recession plane measured from a point 6 metres vertically above ground level along all boundaries. This has been done to ensure three stories can be built on a variety of site sizes, something that has not always been possible in existing medium-density zones.

Additionally, this bill also makes changes to the NPSUD to clarify some intensification requirements and to reduce the workload of councils. The NPSUD is very directive about the need for a minimum of six storeys in areas walkable from rapid transit and city metropolitan centres. These are often the areas where housing density has the most benefit and we get the most value out of infrastructure investment. What is trickier for councils, and what we heard in feedback from councils, is the requirement to assess demand and accessibility across all of their urban areas and then up-zone accordingly. No one has policy 3D, and in the bill this would provide odd results, such as enabling six storeys in high demand but relatively inaccessible areas. So to make it easier for council, the bill removes the demand assessment criteria.

So there is no silver bullet to solve the housing crisis that has been so many decades in the making, and it will take time to fix it, but these changes complement other pieces of the puzzle. Other initiatives our Government has under way to address the housing crisis, including a $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, $460 million—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I stand today in proud support of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill is a win-win. It enhances the rights of property owners today, and it will, in time, enhance the choices and options available to those currently locked out of property ownership in this country. It is a bill that is the product of an unusual bipartisan process in which we in the National Party have constructively engaged with members opposite to develop what we think is a pragmatic piece of legislation built on important principles. I want to acknowledge National Party leader, Judith Collins, who in January kicked off this process by writing to Prime Minister Ardern, acknowledging the sheer emergency we face in this country around housing. Judith Collins put to the Prime Minister that we will not make sufficient progress in addressing that emergency unless we amend the Resource Management Act (RMA), which so badly constrains development.

In late June, Ministers Woods and Parker wrote back to the National Party and took us up on the opportunity to work constructively together on amendments to get rid of some of those barriers, and here we are today. I want to thank Ministers for their bipartisan approach and I want to thank the officials and all of those who worked in a way that I believe will help the New Zealanders we are here to serve. I acknowledge fully those who say, “Well, Nicola, you didn’t come to Parliament to work with Minister Woods.” And I would say, “Well, actually, I came to Parliament to serve not only New Zealanders voting today, but those who will be here for future generations.” It is incumbent upon all of us in this House to work together constructively where we can.

The important principles in this bill—the first is: it cuts red tape. It comes from the perspective that Government regulation at all levels can prevent good outcomes. Whether it’s well intended or not, it can create consequences which run contrary to policy goals. So this bill removes some of the resource consenting processes that currently add cost, time, and complexity for those wishing to add more dwellings, more homes to their sections. It removes Government regulation.

The second principle that brings National to support this bill is that it clarifies and enhances property rights by creating a default right to build. It takes power away from town planners and gives it back to the people they serve by clarifying the circumstances in which they can add homes to their own land. And, thirdly, at a principled level, this bill will create more competitive markets in which supply of housing is better able to respond to the demand for where that housing should be, that is: it will allow cities to grow and have more housing where people want to live.

So having established those principles, I turn to the mechanisms in the bill that will deliver upon them. The first is that I acknowledge that it’s hitched to the RMA wagon and the RMA is not a piece of legislation that we on this side of the House love, but we acknowledge that the replacement process for it is long and, in the meantime, we must act. So this is a pragmatic response to that.

It first strengthens and speeds up the National Policy Statement for Urban Development, which already allows for some intensification in our cities. I want to acknowledge the National forefathers who first promulgated a national policy statement for urban development capacity, and which this builds upon. It brings forward the good things in that policy statement and then it creates a new medium-density residential zone. Now, I call these zones “the right to build zones”. These are the places where everyday New Zealanders can expect that, where it makes sense to do so, they can build granny flats, they can build apartments, they can build townhouses. It then allows for rezoning of land for greenfields development. It does that by allowing councils to adopt and incorporate private plan changes within their intensification plans and to progress them through a fast-track process. That fast-track process is incredibly important because, right now, even if councils want to zone more space for development—and there are councillors and councils out there who want to do that—they say to me, “I am stopped by the delays caused by the appeal process and the planning process, which the Resource Management Act requires of me.” This bill creates a mechanism to fast track through all of that. Finally, the bill clarifies, in the national policy statement for urban development, the requirements on councils in order to make changes. In simple words: it makes it easier for councils to do that.

So I want to acknowledge those stakeholders in the community who have reacted so positively to these proposals. I quote Oliver Hartwich from The New Zealand Initiative who said: “This is great news for landowners. Rather than having to spend time and money navigating regulatory hurdles, they can focus on developing their property. It is equally great news for anyone wishing to buy or rent a home with fewer planning restrictions. More houses will be built.” That is the critical thing here: by enabling these changes we will allow more homes of a variety of types to be built in the places where people wish to live.

Now, I acknowledge the concerns that have been whipped up by some, and I want to address those. First of all, there will be design standards. Nothing in this bill changes anything in the Building Act. These homes will be required to be of the same quality currently required. Second, there are sensible development requirements in this bill, and, for those who are ignorant of that, I encourage you to look at Part 2, which sets out in quite clear detail the parameters in which new development can occur, including things like having a 50 percent site coverage maximum. Third, this bill does set out qualifying matters, which councils will be able to demonstrate in order to exempt some areas from development, whether for environmental or heritage reasons. The difference is: whereas at the moment councils have carte blanche to do that—just about—this bill will require them to prove why that is necessary and to set that out. The burden of proof has switched.

To those who have said, “Yes, housing is a crisis in this country. Yes, it saps the economic productivity of our country. It saps the hope of a generation of New Zealanders. It leads to a distorted market, and, yes, we need a circuit breaker” but who have somehow found other reasons to oppose concrete progress, let me address those arguments. One of those arguments is that we already have enough zoned land. Now, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll give you an analogy, because at its simplest I would say, “More competition leads to more choice”, and it is the same for land; the more land available for development, the better choices people can make about where development should occur. But I would give you an analogy of our education system, where it would be perfectly reasonable for the Minister of Education to say, “There’s already enough room in our schools. There’s already enough ability to build more classrooms and provide more spaces for pupils.” I would say to the Minister of Education: “That doesn’t mean you should rob people of choice.” The market should be able to respond where people want to have their kids educated, and the housing market should be able to respond to where people wish to build homes. Where we can remove Government regulation, we can. To those who are concerned about infrastructure: I would put to you that a core responsibility of local government is to fund the pipes, to fund the footpaths, and to ensure for the growth in our cities that is necessary to them being flourishing processes.

I welcome the select committee process. I think it is very important that contributors from local authorities, existing homeowners, and existing interest groups have their say on this legislation. I also acknowledge, as the Minister did prior to me, that this is not a silver bullet. There is so much more work to do to enable more greenfields development, to encourage more investment in housing, and to ensure that more people get that first rung on the property ownership ladder within sight. But this is a great step forward. We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I am pleased to support this bill.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to rise to speak on this bipartisan—for National and Labour—bill that we have in front of us today. I want to start by talking a little bit about my childhood, which was in a villa, and I’m wearing a villa necklace today. A villa is a beautiful thing that I was pleased to grow up in, except, of course, it was Dunedin and there was no insulation, so there was a little bit of bronchitis there.

But, over time, my parents have done up that villa. It is now insulated, there are heat pumps, and it’s a lovely place to be, and if Dunedin was a tier 1 authority or if this villa was in Auckland, there’d be no need for that villa to be torn down and replaced with these buildings. But it is an option for that villa owner to develop that land in the future. As the Minister said, this is “enabling legislation”—it doesn’t require that sort of thing. Also, as the Minister said, this is important climate legislation, because, in fact, when we can all live close to public transport modes, where we have very good active transport, that is a good thing for climate.

So what this bill does is two things—two prongs, and we’ve heard about it from both the previous speakers to some degree—and both avenues really use zoning as a tool. So the first thing is that it’s speeding up the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development—the NPSUD, it’s referred to—and so that is to increase growth and densification. Then it’s doing the second thing, which is inserting these new medium-density residential standards. There are some caveats—as the previous speaker just spoke to—about those medium-density residential standards, and they are called qualifications in the bill. They include things like open space, designations, and heritage orders. Now, these medium-density residential standards are found in new Schedule 3B in Schedule 2 of the bill, and, as the previous member said, that’s a very good part of the bill to go and look at if people are interested in what this legislation is really enabling.

So what will happen is that if you can comply with those standards that are in Schedule 3B, then your activity will be permitted, which means no resource consent is needed. If they don’t comply, then it’s a restricted discretionary activity, which means a resource consent is needed, but the discretion of the consenting authority is restricted to that matter that’s not being met. So some of the things in Schedule 3B include a maximum height of 11 metres—so that’s the three storeys—a 2.5-metre front yard, 50 percent building coverage, and 60 percent impervious surfaces, along with a number of other factors as well.

Now, these medium-density residential standards are only applying to tier 1 local authorities, so those are the councils of our biggest cities. They do not include—relevant to my part of the world—Dunedin or Queenstown. These are both tier 2 authorities, as is already set out in the existing NPSUD. However, should a tier 2 authority—and these are set out in the bill—have an acute housing need, then they can talk with the Minister and the Minister can make regulations to make them part of the system.

So there’s a streamlined planning process, and we’ve heard about that. There are no rights of appeal, and the Minister can make final decisions if there’s a difference of opinion between the independent hearings panel and the council.

As the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, I’m very pleased that this bill is coming to us, and we will pay very careful attention to it. We look forward to the submissions, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a rare thing for me to say in this House it’s a pleasure to follow the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, but on this occasion I am, because I think she’s very neatly and concisely outlined the broad detail of this piece of legislation. It’s because on this side of the House we believe in the principle of limited government, it’s because on this side of the House we believe it’s about individual freedoms and choice, it’s because on this side of the House we believe in competitive enterprise, and it’s because we believe in sustainable development and strong families and communities that we have accepted the invitation that came from the environment Minister, David Parker, and the housing Minister, Megan Woods, to engage with the Government on a piece of legislation that will be quite instrumental in years to come in solving what has been a decades-old housing emergency—some call it a crisis. Whatever you like to label it, it’s a real issue for many, many New Zealanders who simply haven’t been able to have an opportunity to buy their own home in some of our largest cities.

So this is a piece of legislation that cuts red tape, as others have indicated. What it really does, in terms of National Party principles, is that it frees up the rights of property owners, existing property owners, to release the capital in that property which they own. Now, previously, and under current settings, that has largely been the preserve of professional developers. In order to build large properties with a higher density in our urban environments, actually you’ve needed a very large bank account, the support of probably independent funders and equity providers, and then you’ve had to have the fortitude of doing battle with the existing Resource Management Act (RMA)—its rules, its complicated processes and regulations—and then, on top of that, the myriad of planning and consulting and council interactions that have limited so much of the building development that has been needed in our cities. So freeing up that ability for mum and dad investors in property who already own a property to now develop further on their existing property, I think is a good thing. I think that speaks very much to National Party base core principles.

Back in January of this year, when the National Party leader, Judith Collins, wrote to the Prime Minister and offered bipartisan support, that was an initial very good step, because essentially what this bill does is it’s very close—it’s almost identical, in fact—to policy matters that we campaigned on in the last election. Judith Collins wrote to the Prime Minister, didn’t initially get a reply, and then, when a reply came, it was vaguely dismissive and we thought, well, that’s just politics. We had not forgotten about it, but we had certainly continued to move on. And then it came as something of a welcome surprise to receive letters from the Minister of Housing and the Minister for the Environment to myself and to our housing spokesperson, Nicola Willis. That was an offer to work collegially on some of the aspects that they had in their minds for some of the issues that are in this bill and to use much of what was in our policy and also a member’s bill that Judith Collins had put into the ballot. So that was sort of the genesis of how it how it arose.

Now, many people listening and maybe watching on television will think that this is quite unusual, for the National Party and the Labour Party to be working collectively and collaboratively. But I want to assure members of the House and those that might be listening that, actually, sometimes very good things can happen when party politics is put to one side and a greater good is recognised and a need for positive change. I’m sitting next to a colleague who had quite a bit to do with the zero carbon legislation, Todd Muller, and I was involved in that process as well. We saw there a situation where the greater good for future generations will be achieved by collaboration, cross-party support, and I absolutely am convinced that in years to come, in generations to come, this piece of legislation will achieve results for people of my children’s generation and my grandchildren’s generation that simply would not be possible if this legislation did not proceed through the House.

So we are supporting it, on this side, and we do so with a degree of pride and enthusiasm, because we’ve felt for a very long period of time that the answer to much of New Zealand’s housing emergency lies actually in our own backyards. That if we can get a greater density of building and homeownership in some of the larger sections in our metropolitan areas, well then, that’s a good thing, because this piece of legislation is going to give people choice about design and style and size that they previously haven’t been able to achieve, simply because of the red tape that’s imposed by the RMA.

We saw the portent of this, actually, in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes in Christchurch, where very similar enabling legislation was passed at that time for an urgent need that was a crisis—Canterbury and Christchurch needed new homes built quickly. So the kernel of this model of fast tracking and removal of red tape—actually, the genesis of it was back then. And then subsequently, my former colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith tried on a number of occasions to achieve the same kind of result. Now, regrettably, he wasn’t able to secure cross-party support in the way that has occurred with this piece of legislation. But that actually is a shame because we could have, I think, achieved some of the outcomes years ago—well, probably at least a decade ago—had that cross-party support been available then.

If our largest urban cities are to become modern, future-focused, outward-looking cities, then they, by definition, need to become cities that have dwellings that provide for a greater population density. I think that’s a good thing, and I particularly like the aspect of this legislation that enables tier 2 councils to engage positively with this process should they wish. Now, there’s not a degree of compulsion, but should they wish—and there will be tier 2 councils who I’m sure will want to take up the options and the flexibility that this piece of legislation will provide. Again, I think that is a good thing.

So, as the Minister has indicated, there are essentially two elements to this piece of legislation. They focus on the process, on the removal of the red tape, cutting through it, streamlining the RMA process. While the broader, larger resource management structural reform is going on as a separate piece of work, this legislation allows progress to be made while that other work is under way, and I think that again is a good thing.

The second pillar of the legislation relates to density, where tier 1 councils will be given an opportunity to still protect heritage areas, still protect boundaries, still protect environmental, still protect a whole range of issues, but the basic premise is that this is a right to build. As a firm believer in property-owning democracies, I think that’s to be lauded and to be congratulated. I think that the options for change, for desirable new dwellings of different shapes, forms, and sizes, will be something that will enhance the fabric of our large cities and even the tier 2 councils. Natural light protections will be maintained, environmental protections will be maintained, boundary protections will be maintained, height protections will be maintained, land coverage protections will be maintained, and that flexibility to build something attractive and desirable, but at a fair and reasonable price, without the costs and overheads of mind-bogglingly expensive red tape compliance will help us achieve those results.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process. I’m looking forward to hearing from a range of stakeholders who so far have been, I think, overwhelmingly supportive of this collaborative approach that I think will achieve terrific outcomes for not just the generation that is next behind us but for generations yet to come. So I welcome the first reading of this piece of legislation, and look forward to it making progress through the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging Minister Woods for her leadership in this space, and acknowledge that this is actually a problem that is a hangover from previous Governments, and, actually, it is going to be both of those major parties who are going to be working together to be able to fix this. The National Party, obviously, have agreed to put party politics aside, and so have we, to be able to solve the number one issue that Kiwis have sent us all here to fix, which is our housing crisis. They’ve said, “Put aside your party colours, just get on with it and do it.”

Everybody is going to look at this bill differently. I look at it for the region of the Bay of Plenty, the Waiariki rohe. In that area we’ve got a tier 1 council: Tauranga. Tauranga are desperate for solutions when it comes to housing. In Rotorua, which is listed as a tier 2 council, they are desperate to apply for consideration to be part of the solution in building houses in that area, as well. Both of those councils need this to pass because not having this means that we will continue to have homelessness on a grand and increasing scale. Not doing this means that we are going to continue to have more need for housing in our community. Not doing this means that we are going to end up having more fights with all of those people that want housing but don’t want it there and don’t want it there and don’t want it there and don’t want it in their own backyards.

What I’m really proud of, though, is that we’ve run a Māori lens over this, too, and we’ve made sure that the new intensification streamlined planning process supports Māori participation and engagement in this process. It means that councils are going to have to consult with iwi authorities as they prepare their plan changes before they notify them publicly. They’ll have to consider that relationship that tangata whenua have with our cultures, our traditions, our ancestral lands, our water, our sites, our wāhi tapu, and our other taonga are in there, too. Councils and independent hearing panels will need to address that relationship when they consider any kind of exemptions.

There is a saying that “You can go faster alone but you can go further together.” I look forward to working with Opposition members of the Environment Committee as we progress this through. I commend it to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This is a really interesting development and bill to be standing on, and I do speak in support of the bill, although I do think that there are a number of ways it could be improved and some additional changes that central government will have to consider in order for local government to be able to provide the infrastructure and amenity that will go along with increasing density in some areas. First I just want to say, as a planner, a qualified planner, I’ve basically spent my entire career, pre-politics and during politics, trying to get rid of bad planning rules which prevented us from delivering the types of cities that we wanted, and so this is a step in the right direction.

What we want to see is more walkable neighbourhoods with small local shops, early childhood education centres, pocket parks, green space where appropriate, good public transport links, streets that welcome walking and cycling, and, of course, neighbourhoods that have a good supply of affordable, accessible housing. That housing can be provided in a way that reduces energy use and provides healthier, more comfortable environments. There are just so many win-wins in developing our cities in this way: it’s cheaper for Government, it’s cheaper for the people who live in those homes, it gets better environment outcomes. So that’s the goal, and this is a really interesting way to start to free up some of those rules, but it really doesn’t quite go far enough in some ways and in other ways it needs some additional work.

So the Green party will be looking at a number of amendments, although I do note this is a very short select committee process. I hope the Government will be open to making some changes. I just want to acknowledge that for councils, they may not have sufficient time to prepare their submissions, and there are some really important considerations that need to be taken into account. For example, the reduced setbacks from the front are good, but, arguably, you could go further, and particularly if you want to get a reduction in site fragmentation and you want that nice streetscape environment.

It’s interesting: I’ve heard some people comment in this debate that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the problem. Zoning roles, and some of the bad zoning rules, pre-date the RMA; they’ve got nothing to do with the RMA. I mean, yes, the RMA is the framework under which they are implemented, but they were implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act. A lot of the really bad zoning rules were adopted from the United States, like minimum parking requirements, which I was very happy to see removed by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Of course, removing those minimum parking requirements in and of itself has immediate benefits in terms of reducing the cost of housing, like, for example, in Minneapolis, when they cut their parking requirements, within a short period of time rents dropped from $1,200 a month to $1,000 a month, almost a 20 percent savings. Of course, that provides more choice for people not to have to own a car if they’re living in a central city and they’ve got good public transport options, they’ve got a car share they can join. There’s no need for us to build in the cost of car ownership to every single home.

But back to the bill at hand and this legislation. So, to enable terraced housing without amalgamation of land parcels, with a more efficient use of space, we could reduce the front setback to reduce site fragmentation, and we could clarify that through existing provisions, owners of adjacent properties could mutually waive the side setback requirements, where this applies, and this could help enable some of that more contiguous development that we see that’s really—you know, it’s just classic good design that we see in a lot of European cities, of, like, perimeter block - style developments that enable some semi-private public space that’s shared between homeowners and then it creates that nice, walkable frontage.

We think that it would be useful to consider providing development bonuses, enabling height to four stories where the planned dwelling location enables more contiguous green space. What we don’t want is just a lot of little boxes plopped next to each other surrounded by very short, very small green space areas that aren’t really usable by anyone. What people really want is access to a space that is a comfortable size, that enables their kids to play or for them to do some planting, that helps us achieve some of our goals around reducing stormwater runoff.

We do need some provisions around protecting significant trees. That is a real concern the Green Party has had, that as we allow more housing into our cities, we still have a need for urban trees. You know, you can’t just cut down one really old significant tree and replace it with a bunch of new ones. It’s not the same outcome. So we do need some provisions for tree protection that make it really clear for landowners and developers what trees are protected. That helps improve certainty. We need to enable councils to have strategies and funding to enable the provision of green space, whether that’s pocket parks or whether that’s more significant green spaces. Our cities do need green space, and, again, that will provide multiple benefits in terms of reducing stormwater runoff and the pressure on our stormwater pipes, reducing the temperature of urban areas, providing a habitat for birds and other things that we do want welcomed into our city. So as we’re confronting climate change, it’s really important that we provide more affordable housing in our urban areas but also that we provide for green spaces and for trees in an appropriate way.

An additional opportunity is to bring in bonuses for green roofs, for solar panels, for grey-water recycling, and other soft infrastructure that will, of course, benefit the city and benefit homeowners and renters. I think my philosophy would be we want our planning rules to make it easy to do the things that will have good outcomes, and not hard. Up until now, it’s mainly made it difficult to do the right thing and made it very easy to do those stand-alone houses that are very car dependent, which, of course, just increases congestion, emissions, costs for everyone.

Additional changes that we think should be considered are enabling more flexibility for papakāinga developments on whenua Māori. I note there have been interesting developments in some Canadian states where the First Peoples are actually exempt from any sort of zoning, and they’ve made quite different choices. I think that’s something that we should consider here. Extending the applicable zoning to ensure that it’s enabling mixed use: this is something that’s been a slight bugbear of mine since the special housing areas. We need more affordable housing, but housing alone doesn’t make a community or a neighbourhood or a city. The people who live in the houses need access to shops, amenities, schools, early childhood centres, transit, and it’s really important that we’re not just enabling a whole lot of housing in one area. As there’s more people living in an area, it can support local shops, and, again, there’s a benefit to the people living there, there’s a benefit to the transport infrastructure.

We saw that when Auckland city centre removed density requirements and allowed new residential buildings and got rid of minimum parking requirements in 1996, the population of Auckland city centre went from about 2,000, or less than 3,000 people, to over 20,000—I think it’s over 30,000 now. In just 10 years, it increased almost tenfold, and, of course, increasing that population in that small area meant that it became a much more attractive place to live, because up until that point the 2,000 people living in the city centre had no supermarket. They had no place to shop or to eat. The city centre was completely dead after 5 p.m. So it does show that as we allow more intensification in some areas, there is the potential for more of those amenities to support the people living in that area, but we need to make sure that the zoning rules are allowing that to come, along with the increased number of houses. So we’ll be looking very closely at that in the select committee.

Finally, one concern we really have is that this is enabling housing in the places where we need it most, where people want to live, that’s close to amenities. I think there will have to be a real review and change to the way councils are able to charge development contributions, because this is a shift in risk. We’ll be giving people who are building more houses more certainty about what they can build and where, but there’s also going to be more risk for councils in terms of where the infrastructure might need to be provided. It’s only fair that that’s reflected in development contributions and that they’re able to provide the infrastructure that’s needed to support this housing wherever it does end up being built.

So the Green Party is in support of this bill, but we will be looking to make constructive changes. Above all, we welcome the consensus across the House from all those people who are really committed to seeing more affordable housing in Aotearoa.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill was described by Nicola Willis of the National Party as coming from an “unusual bipartisan process”. Well, that is entirely accurate. Neither Labour nor National has any credibility on the issue of housing. That’s why they’ve decided to abandon attacking each other. Like tired boxers at the end of a fight, they’ve gone into a clinch. It’s boring for the spectators but much safer for them. The problem with this extremely unusual bipartisan process is that the secrecy between Labour and National meant they couldn’t tell anyone else they were doing it, and the result of that is that people like, say, Chris Darby, the chair of the planning committee at Auckland Council, wasn’t asked, wasn’t consulted, and wasn’t even given a pre-announcement briefing before it went out, contrary to the Government’s memorandum of understanding with councils. This total lack of consultation has meant that the policy is going to fail. Because if they’d asked, they would have been told some very basic things. It’s a shame the policy’s going to fail, because the problem they’re trying to tackle is a worthwhile one to try and tackle.

I’ve lived this policy issue in two countries for over a decade. For years I was the face of the Demographia housing affordability study—the international study that appears in New Zealand, too. From sea to sea across Canada, I got up and appeared on Canadian screens and said, “Zoning is the big problem. If only we got rid of zoning.” I even wrote a book at the time. It’s got a chapter saying about as much as that. I returned to New Zealand and I talked to people day after day about housing policy. I talked to homeowners. I talked to people who want to be homeowners. I talked to people about the impact of not having good housing in New Zealand. I talked to principals of schools where they have different sets of kids every term because those kids are passed from auntie to uncle without secure housing and spend half the time living in motels—on Great South Road, going to Newmarket School right now; or they would be if not for COVID restrictions.

I’ve also talked to people on councils. I’ve also talked to people in Government. I’ve talked to people who are developers who actually build houses, and I’ve done all of that, just in the last few days, about this Labour-National policy. They say things like, “It’s hare-brained, it won’t work, it’s a political stunt, it’s hollow, it’s going to ruin neighbourhoods, and it won’t deliver the houses that a whole generation of millennials have been promised.” Here are some other things that they say, and I want to quote one of them: “The biggest barrier to increasing housing supply in urban growth areas and beyond is the cost in provision of infrastructure, e.g., three waters, transport, and community infrastructure.”

Now, does anyone who’s been very vocal on the National Party benches want to tell me who said that? Can we listen? Oh, well, that was, ironically, the Minister of Housing in December 2020, and that’s what the developers are saying. That’s what people on councils are saying. That’s what the planning experts I consulted said—actually, simply adding more zoned land to solve a shortage of infrastructure is like buying more cars to end a shortage of fuel. So that’s the first reason that it’s not going to work. You hear them say, “Well, just a second. We’ve had some modelling done by an accounting firm that says that it’s going to work out.” Well, here’s how that modelling actually worked. It said, “You know what? When the Auckland Unitary Plan came in, in 2016, people built more homes in areas that were zoned for higher intensity, in mixed housing urban and mixed housing suburban; ergo, logically, if we zone more areas as this new medium-density residential standard, people will build even more homes.” Now, if you were doing any kind of rational problem definition and policy formation, the first question you’d ask is, “Is it still true that the reason more homes don’t get built is a lack of zoned land? Because that’s not what all the developers and people in councils and the planning experts say. They say the opposite.” That’s not what the Minister of Housing says. She says that, actually, it’s a shortage of infrastructure. So the analysis is wrong. But the problem is that this medium-density residential standard is not actually like the zones that the modelling used when they tried to establish that intensifying would lead to more home building.

This medium-density residential standard (MDRS) is going to be in every residential area in the five largest cities. It says that you can have an 8-metre wall, 1 metre from the boundary. I don’t think that people have actually recognised what this MDRS means. It says there can’t be any more building standards other than what is in this legislation. So it’s much taller, much bulkier, much closer to the boundary, with much less outlooks. There’s so many fewer restrictions than the very stones and standards that were used in the study that they’ve used to try and justify this policy, and that is just completely nuts.

So there you are, with a policy that won’t lead to the outcomes that a whole generation have been promised. They think that this is somehow going to fix the problem, except the problem is not the zones; the problem is the infrastructure. Then they’re going to irritate beyond belief a whole group of people who actually, generally, are happy with intensification, by the way. When I was a local MP I studied what people think and I asked them. They’re happy with intensification, but they actually have concerns about what it looks like and how it happens.

So they’ve introduced this new medium-density residential zone. It’s far more radical that the mixed housing urban zone, and far more radical than the mixed housing suburban zone that the Government’s modelling said would deliver more housing. I don’t know if they’ve done it as something they can sacrifice in the policy process or if they really believe that it’s necessary, but what I do know is that it’s highly divisive. You see, one of the things that I hear constantly from New Zealanders is, “There’s too much division. The Government rushes things through under cover of COVID. They rush the laws through. They don’t ask us. They don’t consult us and they call us names.” Well, this Government and the National Party are now trying to aggravate a battle between people who want homes and people that they call “self-interested nimbies”. That’s what it’s got to—rushing through laws and sneaking them through and name-calling. I don’t think that that’s going to help, especially when if you don’t fund the infrastructure, you haven’t solved the problem.

Here’s the final problem: they are rushing it through. So the councils weren’t told, even though this severely affects where they’re going to have to build infrastructure and do planning and follow the rules for a very long time. And the next question that happens is that they get three weeks in order to make submissions to the select committee. It would be more honest to tell councils like Auckland and Hamilton, which are operating under COVID conditions, that they don’t want to hear from them, because realistically they won’t be able to make proper submissions.

The ACT Party has written to Megan Woods and Judith Collins, who hatched this hare-brained scheme, in our view, and we’ve said, “Here’s a couple of things that could be done if you really want to make it work. Number one: fund the infrastructure.” Last year central government got $2 billion in GST collected on residential construction of new homes, and they kept it all. Councils have to do all the infrastructure but central government gets all the money. We say, split it 50:50. A billion dollars to councils that issue resource consents and building consents for new residential homes would fix and fill the infrastructure gap so they could actually afford to make this policy work. The second thing we’d say is that “If the modelling relied on using Auckland’s mixed housing urban and mixed housing suburban zones to increase housing, why not just use those zones?” Dump this new radical medium-density residential standard that allows an 8-metre wall 1 metre from your boundary and there’s nothing you can do about it, and actually use familiar zones already in place.

If they were to make those two policy changes, this policy would actually probably work—that’s the tragedy. But instead, they’re going to rush the policy through. And that’s the final thing ACT says, “Do a proper select committee process, actually listen to people, actually work together to solve the problem for the next generation without needlessly antagonising current homeowners—and then we’d have a deal.” But, sadly, this hollow political stunt does not deserve any party support.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise in support of this bill and will take a brief call. I certainly welcome the general consensus from right around the House. I have to say, however, just reflecting on the Leader of the ACT Party’s contribution—he talks about credibility but what he has confirmed for members of this House and for people in this country is that his party actually has zilch, nil, none, zilch credibility when it comes to seeking to solve what many and all would actually accept is a significant crisis in this country. I also say that Mr Seymour and the ACT Party have confirmed that actually they’re not in favour of cutting red tape, they are not in favour of enabling first-home buyers to actually have a shot at the market, ACT is not for the element of choice, and that they will do nothing—and that’s a real shame. That is an absolute shame—where we get bipartisanship and other parties who are prepared to, when a solution is placed before them, take it with both hands, go through a select committee process. It is a real shame that there are members in this House that don’t feel that it is serious enough to deliver for our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a move to reduce bureaucracy. When we reflect on the contribution from the Minister—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Megan Woods for her contribution, because it indicates how serious most members in this House—including all members on this side of the House—are in addressing what is a significant issue. Much has been talked about the role of tier 1 councils, but I also want to pick up the opportunity for tier 2 councils, because my own community of Palmerston North and their city council is a tier 2 council, and if presented with an opportunity to come on board in terms of medium-density opportunities, then that will be available to them if the timing is right.

So, I think it’s timely, it’s good to see collaboration and cooperation from most members of this House, and I look forward to seeing this progress through the Environment Committee.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is great to speak on this Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Tangi Utikere said, it is great to see a bipartisan approach on this very important development. I look back to what happened in Christchurch after the earthquake, where the land was freed up, where bureaucracy got out of the road—it actually kept house prices down for many years. In fact, house prices in Christchurch have only really started to accelerate faster than the rest of the country now, and they’re a long way behind as a result of that period, or respite, put in place by the National Government at the time. I think that we have to remember these things very clearly, because we should remember the lessons from the past, and I’m sure this will be a great example for the future as well, of working together to get those roadblocks out of the road.

I had the pleasure of having Nicola Willis in my electorate a little while ago, and we visited not only the council and their resource consent team but also had a meeting with some developers and some builders, and it was very informative. We got a good feeling for what the councils were expecting and where they saw the roadblocks, and then we actually got the real oil, if you like, from the people on the ground who are having to deal with these things day in and day out. I can tell you that, yes, infrastructure is really important—absolutely it’s important, and I’m not belittling that at all—but the issue with resource consents and developments in subdividing and greenfields developments is not only the cost of that to the councils, it’s the costs to the developers of all the uncertainty. They have no idea, often, of how long it’s going to take.

You might be a very experienced—not you, of course, Mr Speaker. But for those very experienced developers, who have had many developments, they still have no idea how long it’s going to take to get through the resource consent process. That has a huge impact on their ability to trade, if you like. They have to ensure that they have enough capital to be able to weather that period and come out the other side with a development and with still enough capital to get that development under way. This will actually help this process immensely. In my own town—and while it’s not a tier 1 council, I know that, in Blenheim, there are a huge number of sections, so called, available. When you look at that, that’s a whole lot of houses that have got potential for subdivision, where those owners may or may not want to subdivide their properties. But when we talk to the developers, they say “Well, you’d have rocks in your head if you wanted to subdivide your property, unless you had good assurance that the process would go very smoothly.” Often it doesn’t, and we end up with people coming out the other side, costing them money to subdivide their property for a section on the back of the property.

The beauty of the ability to do this is that it frees up more homes and, potentially, smaller places for first-home buyers to get a foot on to the property ladder, but it also unlocks capital for those people that own those properties that are subdividing. This is obviously a huge generalisation, but more than likely the people that are subdividing will be later on in their lives—when they’ve built up their capital, paid their mortgage, and they’re looking to free up a bit of capital—and the buyer is more likely to be a younger person at the beginning of their establishment of their home and their family life. We are therefore making an opportunity for both of those parties to go forward. If we end up with three-storey buildings on some of those, fantastic. I note David Seymour’s comments before, and I thought “This is the champion of the free market calling for some regulation.” I thought that was a bit ironic, and fortunately we’re not asking him a question, or that wouldn’t be allowed.

But look, in closing, this is a great move. It’s a great day for young people in New Zealand looking to get on to the property ladder. It’s also a great day for those people who are not so young and wanting to free up some of their capital for the greater enjoyment of their lives, and I think this is a win-win all round.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The member’s time has expired.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise as the member of Parliament for Tukituki in the Hastings, Hawke’s Bay region. I would like to take this opportunity to say how impressive it was when the chair of Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi, Ngahiwi Tomoana, stood up and said, in the media, he would love our region—a tier 2 region—to join this housing drive. Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi, they want to build 400 homes over the next couple of years, and this is the type of legislation that is going to make this opportunity happen. When you have got leaders in the community, where they see political parties working together, that’s why this legislation is going to work.

I’d like to quote Ngahiwi, and he says this: “That the iwi’s goal is to build 400 homes across the region in the next two years, and this is attainable because we have a region where councils are working together.” He said, “We want to empty out the motels and hotels, and put people into housing.” This is why this legislation is going to work, this is why we’re getting cross-party consensus, and I commend this bill, wholeheartedly, to lead housing for New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very delighted to stand and take a call on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I’m really delighted because I’m sure we’re all aware that Tauranga Moana is one of the tier 1 communities and in such need. But also, for those of you who may not be aware, so is the Western Bay of Plenty counted in that tier, so Mayor Garry Webber is delighted by that fact. As we all know, our community is suffering from a lack of land more than anything in terms of development. In fact, our kiwifruit land—our greenfields land that may happen—is more expensive than residential land. So in our outer suburbs it’s very difficult. But I think this is a piece of legislation that is really going to change some of the levers and support our community to have a real diversification of buildings.

So what does this bill do? I had a query from a friend recently. She said to me, “We’ve got two incomes—two good incomes. We live in Tauranga. We are really finding it difficult. We can’t get our deposit together. The prices: we’re looking at a million plus for a lot of our land in the community.” She’s like, “What does this bill do?” Well, this bill gives us up to 8,500 thousand properties in our community to support people around diversification of ownership, and I think that that’s an amazing thing. It also gives us the right to build. And as some of you may be aware, my husband and I own a building firm, and one of the things when we talk to a lot of the planners and a lot of people around consenting is the time it takes to get through the process. I talked to a good friend of mine yesterday about the planning, and changes that may happen, and she was able to express her real delight in the fact that they may be able to now look at place-making a little bit more and not have so much work just stacked up behind them pushing these consents through. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Well, it’s quite a day, isn’t it? Very significant, particularly in relation to dealing with one of the most significant issues facing New Zealand. The issue around housing, it permeates so many people’s lives, and the inability now of our younger generation to even have the desire to actually want to buy a house, given the increasing cost of it and how they are becoming increasingly out of reach for most young New Zealanders. It is not only a financial issue; it is actually becoming a social issue. I think this bill is one of the steps—it is not going to do everything, by any means, but I think it is perhaps giving a bit of hope to our younger people, and particularly people that are renting at the moment, with young children, also, who we don’t want to see moving from school to school, as David Seymour alluded to before, because I think that social transitional cost is just immense—on communities and on people. And how that is reflected and felt by many families, at a personal level, is one of the things that just makes this—we have to try and deal with this housing issue.

One of the things with building houses at the moment is the arcane planning rules, and also it often depends on the people that you have to deal with in council. And probably unlike Mr Seymour, actually I have been involved in doing residential developments, and they are difficult. They are difficult because, honestly, sometimes it will depend on how people interpret the rules, there is no consistency in many cases across councils—I’ve worked across councils—and that lack of certainty is one of the key drivers of making it more difficult for people to build houses in New Zealand. And that, of course, is leading to—not always, but significantly contributing to the lack of new houses that people want to take the risks and do the development, particularly at a time when building costs are going up rapidly.

So I think this bill is good in the sense that, first of all, it recognises that property owners have the right to build. That’s a pretty good fundamental principle. I know my colleague Nicola Willis talked about this in her address, but the right to build is an important imperative in New Zealand. It also has got to come with rules and responsibilities. But I think that should be the opening premise. Often, when you sit down with council staff in consenting operations, there is almost a view on why you shouldn’t build this particular building that you might be proposing. What we’ve got to do is turn that premise around and say, “Why should it not happen?” and that the right to build is the right approach. And, of course, that starts to deal with the supply issues that we’ve talked about before. It also allows councils to deal more quickly with greenfields.

So, I think, if we’re looking to expand the number of houses in New Zealand, there are two key strategies. One is intensification, which this will certainly provide for, and one is the issue of greenfield sites. Under this, one of the key parts of it is allowing councils to permit greenfield developments to take place, and to accelerate that under the new intensification streamlined planning rules, which, basically, will bring forward that process for zoning new land, greenfields land, into areas that can be built. And, obviously, there will be grey areas, also, that have already been built on that might be redeveloped. I think those are the key strategies, and so that is a fantastic part of this bill.

The other one is just this adopting the medium-density residential standards. And, obviously, as Nicola Willis talked about, there are quite specific rules around that. There are actually things like natural hazards, there are open spaces, there are heritage zones, and I think all those ones are important facets that a council can have regard for if it is going to permit much more intense area to occur in certain areas, so if there are overwhelming reasons why intensification shouldn’t take place, there are areas in the Act—well, if it does get passed—that will allow councils to show some reasonable sort of approach to that rather than just allowing every development to take place in a certain area.

But also there are the rules around the actual building standards. You still need to require to get a building consent, even if you no longer need the resource consent under the arrangement—but there is still a requirement for building consent. So that means that the building needs to be built—or the proper standards or the design aspects to it, all those sort of things to make sure we don’t end up just building a whole lot of poor-quality buildings that lead to issues over the long term.

I think one of the big issues is around the infrastructure, and Mr Seymour raised this, and I think that is correct. When we proposed this bill, we talked about giving councils $50,000 per additional dwellings—so if you did an apartment dwelling of 20 properties, that would mean a million bucks that would go to the council as a contribution towards meeting the infrastructure cost of that. It was directly tailored to incentivising councils to issue consents, but also to support them financially in terms of meeting those infrastructure costs. I think that is probably a very good mechanism because it is directly related to the building activity, as opposed to something around the ACT payback.

But I was fascinated by the member for Epsom and also the leader of ACT, I didn’t quite know in which capacity he was talking this afternoon. I think, in reflection, he was talking as the MP for Epsom, because his overriding fears about what this would mean for the leafy suburbs of Epsom, I think, was the key driver towards his opposition to this piece of legislation. Although, I suspect he is slightly miffed that he wasn’t part of the group. But the issue he raises about needing more control around building, and all that sort of thing, I did find slightly troubling, given where ACT sit and previously had made it very clear that they are a party of free enterprise and minimal regulation. So maybe when we get to the second reading, Mr Seymour, we’ll get more clarity on your position, but it was slightly confusing.

Hey, but, I think, this is a very important thing. I think we need to recognise there are two separate issues. There is an issue of “need” and there is an issue of “want”. The issue of need is that we need houses for our younger people to be able to afford, to be able to move into, and to be able to acquire. We also have this issue of want. Many people don’t want things to happen near them. I think the most important thing is this issue of meeting the need of people who are renting at the moment, whether they are young or people with young families, who want to get into a house, who have the desire to get into a house, but can’t see that opportunity. So I think that is really, really important.

There are other aspects, as I said earlier. I think we need to look at how the building industry is working and some of the supply issues with that, also the availability of staff, and, actually, the building regulations themselves probably need an overhaul. But, as I said at the outset, I think this is a very good start in terms of dealing with the most significant issue, which is one of supply—how can we provide more or make it easy for people to actually build houses? This is what this piece of legislation is about, and I think it should be supported and it is well worth taking to the select committee.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, te Māngai o te Whare. Housing is the most crucial and central aspect to rebuilding our communities. As the member for Whangārei, I am so delighted to be part of a Government that is making this a priority and that is providing the funds and the legislation to do it with. I really want to congratulate Minister Woods for this initiative, which is part of a suite of measures that are going to make a huge difference to places like Whangārei, which has—I am grateful—already been recognised as an area where housing is a priority because of our problems with supply. The Housing Acceleration Fund to build infrastructure of $3.8 billion—and now we have this: to increase the densification.

As someone who weekly meets with the officials and the members of council in my area to talk about the difficulties and the opportunities for housing in Whangārei, which we desperately need—the biggest consensus that we have is that the answer is urban densification. This initiative is going to make it easier to put our whānau into warm, safe, dry houses.

As someone who has lived in a densely populated area during my time as a post-graduate student in Cambridge—including as a mum of four children later, when I went back, in a villa—I can tell you the richness of living in a tiny little two-up, two-down apartment, properly built, on the edge of a greenfield and parks. It is an extraordinary way to build a community. It encourages participation, it encourages walking the streets, it encourages community activity. I commend this bill to the House with great enthusiasm.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to the Environment Committee

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 December 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion. This motion means that instead of the usual six months that a select committee would have to consider the details of a bill and actually listen to members of the public and hear what they think about the laws being made in their land—instead of all that happening over six months, it’s going to be compacted down to five weeks. Of course, the committee actually has to take some time to think about what people have said. Let’s say that’s two weeks. That means that there is three weeks available for people to prepare submissions on what is actually quite a complex and impactful matter. It affects a lot of people.

There’s so many reasons—and I hope I can get through all of them in 10 minutes—why on this particular piece of legislation it’s even more important that people have the opportunity to have their say and properly be consulted. I’ll just start with one that’s pertinent right now. It’s something that I’m hearing extensively from people. It’s about the political environment. It’s people who are saying “Our trust in Government and Parliament is being damaged by rushed processes. We feel like they’re rushing things through in the middle of a crisis.” Some of those things are actually quite untrue and outlandish. For example, people have told me that the abortion legislation was rushed through under COVID. That’s not true: the law was passed before there were any lockdowns. But it is true that people have been passing laws in this Parliament under urgency an awful lot under the COVID period.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)—that is being rushed through, and it involves allowing the Government to, effectively, confiscate the laboratory capacity of saliva testers. So that’s something that is damaging people’s confidence. It also allows all sorts of orders that some people find divisive. The COVID19 management measures legislation—that allows the Government to, effectively, retrospectively change people’s commercial lease contracts. All of these things in the current political environment are leading to a distrust of this institution and a distrust of politics in New Zealand, and that is extremely damaging to the future and health of our democracy. So I would argue that in the current political environment, in people’s current attitude and trust towards Government, this is a very bad time to be rushing through more legislation.

The unusual bipartisan nature of the deal, as one member described it earlier—that’s another reason, because usually people can say “OK, roughly half the Parliament, at least, has got out back and is sticking up for us.” But because you’ve had two parties that together represent—well, what’s 65 plus 33? About, you know, 98 out of 120 seats. So, roughly, 83 percent of Parliament has coalesced around this being rushed. That further damages—you know, people say “Well, you know, bad enough we can’t trust the Labour Party not to rush stuff through; now the National Party is doing it too.” That really damages people’s trust.

The next thing is that often legislation is rushed through Parliament, but there has at least been some consultation of people affected in the drafting of the bill. The problem with this particular legislation is that, due to the unconventional political deal that had to be done between National and Labour, they say, to get this over the line, it meant that while they promised that they were collaborating with each other—and isn’t it great working together—the truth is they didn’t work with anyone else. So there are people who are in councils in New Zealand who actually have a memorandum of understanding to develop policy together with Government, and they weren’t consulted. They’re very angry, frankly, because they spend their whole lives trying to work out how to allow development to happen and make it happen in a way that’s efficient for the use of infrastructure and so on, and they weren’t asked about this. They were insulted. They weren’t even given a pre-announcement briefing when they got wind of it and asked for one.

So the fact that there’s a whole lot of people that maybe, if they’d—I’m talking about developers. I’m talking about planning experts. Maybe if people had actually had some input, then it might be OK, but what you’ve had is the Wellington-based Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and an accounting firm have been asked to put together the policy, and, as a result of not asking those people, (a) those people have lost their right to be asked, and (b) all of those people have actually not been able to contribute to making the policy better. So, you know, given that we’re starting from zero in terms of consultation, that’s another reason why it would be good to have a proper select committee process.

Another reason why we should actually allow the full time to consult is COVID-19. Right now, Auckland Council and Hamilton’s council are affected by COVID-19 in two ways. First of all, they’re dealing with its impacts. So Auckland Council had to shave $750 million off its budget. They’re supposed to be going live on 1 December—which ACT would like to be freedom day from COVID, but that’s a separate subject. They’ve been trying to get a budget together. They’re trying to deal with the impacts and the restrictions of COVID as a task, but also the COVID restrictions make it more difficult for them to perform any particular task because they can’t collaborate and get together. And now they’re having this new thing that they haven’t previously been asked about put on top of them, and they’re supposed to respond in the record time of three weeks. There will be no genuine consultation of councils, and that is a huge mistake. I think it’s hugely unfortunate that councils are not going to have that opportunity.

The next reason why is that the facts of this particular issue are devilishly complex. So over the last few days, I have been talking to a lot of the people who probably should be making submissions, if there’s time, and who should have been asked about the policy before they had an opportunity. Now, these people will say, for example, one of the issues is understanding infrastructure capacity at a micro, street-by-street level. Councils don’t have that sort of data. They usually don’t know they’re overcapacity until something breaks. These are the kind of things that clearly have escaped the people behind this legislation, and I think it’s a real shame that they haven’t been able to do that.

Another reason why there should be a full amount of normal consultation on this is the division that this legislation has the ability to create if people don’t have their voices heard. Now, I think at the moment, at this point in New Zealand history, there’s too much division. People are feeling really quite separated by the actions of the Government on a whole lot of fronts, not just vaccine mandates in the last few days and the way that that’s been gone about by the Prime Minister, but I saw in the New Zealand Herald a headline saying “This is about nimbies being put to the sword.” Well, first of all, I don’t want to see anyone attacked with any kind of sword. I only want the metaphor. I don’t like violence. I don’t like division. I don’t like name-calling. You know, I actually want to see people treated respectfully, united behind good ideas and working together to solve problems, rather than this idea that it’s somehow almost good, it’s tough stuff, to really get in there and belittle fellow citizens. I don’t think that that’s a good way to go forward.

I have to say that I’ve been personally quite dismayed at the response of some members in the House—just in this debate, and I think that’s why it needs longer to dial the temperature down. I’ll give you an example of that, and there will be a few other members that will understand what I’m saying, and they might think about it, because it applies to them too. Tangi Utikere, the member for Palmerston North—now, not so long ago, I was at a Federated Farmers event, and he’s a new Labour MP. It’s fair to say that being a new Labour MP from a city at a Fed Farmers event is not one of the more popular areas to go. It’s a bit like me going to—well, actually, to be honest, I get a good reception just about everywhere now. But it’s not a particularly great place for him to be, and yet, you know, everybody there treated Tangi Utikere with enormous amounts of grace. You know, they clearly had policy differences, but they were able to treat him graciously.

Now, I listened to his snarky, sarcastic speech that he gave about me in the debate, and I thought “Wow. That says a bit about his character.” I know there’s a few other people not so far away from me now that probably just want to think a little bit about their maturity level and how they navigate policy and personal disagreements if they really think that they’re ready for the big time, because I’m seeing that actually maybe they’re not. But the facts are that not only would a longer and proper consultation process be better for relations between people; most importantly, it would be good for policy, and that’s why we should have a proper select committee process on this legislation.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member who has resumed his seat—the newly gracious member who has resumed his seat—and he calls in aid for his case the COVID pandemic and the outbreaks. I call in aid that as well, because one thing that we have seen with the COVID pandemic is just the extraordinary inequity in our communities and our society.

One of the indicators of that inequity is housing, and we’re seeing that playing out right now in the current outbreak: the fact that those people who are suffering the greatest risk of infection right now are those who are in overcrowded housing and housing estates where a lot of people are jammed together. That is the reason why there is real urgency to getting on with this legislation and having it examined in a meaningful, even if brief, way, so that this House can get on and do the job of creating the basis on which we can get houses built. So it is important that the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon Megan Woods, is approved by this House so that we can get on with the examination.

This is a piece of policy work that has been well consulted with, with others in this House and with the community generally in the housing sector, because everybody is saying that we need the rules to be rewritten. We need the rules to change to help us break through and get the modern, 21st century housing built at a pace that we know we can house New Zealanders. That’s what the bill is about, and we can take six months and we can pull apart sentences and clauses and the grammar and what have you, but, actually, there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are going without adequate housing right now, who are desperate to get into good housing. We have developers who are desperate to get the opportunity, with good planning laws driven by good guidelines, to actually get building under way so that we can address that very serious crisis.

This Government came in, four years ago, pledging to do whatever it took and be serious about our housing crisis. This legislation is part of that, but the urgency with which we approached housing four years ago remains today. There’s been a lot of construction and a lot of housing, but there needs to be a lot more, and it’s a category of housing that we have struggled through current planning laws and through current resource management provisions to actually get enough of. We’ve now got an opportunity to do something about it. Four years into the recognition of this crisis, we actually have a chance to tweak some rules and get on and get those houses built that are desperately needed right now.

So the member who has resumed his seat—David Seymour—quite rightly draws attention to the procedural requirements we expect to be observed when legislation is passing through the House, and it is right that the culture of this House and, in fact, the rules written for its conduct are, typically, to allow deliberate, measured consideration of legislation, because, in the end, it invariably cuts across rights and interests right throughout the community. Indeed, when we provide for these new provisions, there will be those who will say, “Well, what about my right to that stream of sunlight that cuts across my property? What about my right to live with less dense housing in my neighbourhood and in my street?” Well, actually, time has moved on, and the need for housing construction is greater than it has ever been.

The need to alleviate the poverty of housing is greater than it has ever been. The need to give people a chance—more New Zealanders a chance—to get a place where they can live in comfort and in a healthy way has never been greater. So we need this law. We need it in place because we need local authorities, local government, to do their work to prepare their plan changes in time for August next year.

So there is an urgency to it, and we should not call on urgency frivolously or wantonly because it is convenient to do so. But in the face of an obvious need and an urgent need, then it is appropriate for this House to suspend its usual rules. Not to avoid consultation altogether, and not to avoid the possibility of citizens having their right to have a say, but to accept that sometimes there are laws that have to move more rapidly than others and to enable us as a country and as a Parliament to seriously address the very difficult problems and challenges that we have. So, on that basis, I support the motion of my colleague, the Hon Megan Woods, and invite this House to continue to support a process that allows us to get moving on this legislation sooner rather than later.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the bill be reported to the House by 2 December 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.

Noes 20

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

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill, and the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Main amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We come first to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 12 and the Schedule, main amendments.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Mr Chairman, I won’t take too long just by way of introductory remarks, but this bill will be well-known to members of the House. It’s really an interim measure, pending a full review of the current legislation, but this addresses some immediate needs that have been identified by the He Ara Oranga report that looked into our total mental health administration. It called on repeal of the indefinite treatment orders—or, effectively, indefinite treatment orders—under the current legislation. It also effectively repeals the temporary provisions that allowed family members to attend explanations and meetings with patients by way of audiovisual link. It also allows assessments to be conducted, where necessary, by audiovisual link, and it allows appropriate restraint powers to be exercised by those escorting special patients to needed appointments, where restraint in transport is needed.

So this makes those immediate changes. It brings the legislation, such as it is, to a more human rights compliant sort of state, and that is a good thing. But otherwise, I look forward to the questions and the discussion.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and can I also acknowledge the health Minister and thank him for his time, being here today. I think, as the health Minister clearly outlined, it’s a fairly technical bill which makes a few important changes, and the National Party does support the bill.

There was some concern, though, in the select committee—and I suppose we did hear from submitters as well—we do want to move with technology. This bill clearly outlines the improved use of audiovisual link for those people who could be assessed and/or treated, and—as the Minister said—to include family and friends in the involvement of that.

With any change, and I suppose in the area of mental health, where we’re dealing with some very vulnerable people—I would like to hear from the Minister, is he assured that there are safeguards in place, that the use of audiovisual will be used for the benefit of the person involved? And what mechanisms are in place to ensure the reporting of audiovisual, the decision points where audiovisual was decided upon for that individual, and how that new practice will be reported back.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It is important that when these provisions that change the typical approach and mean that people aren’t physically present, that there are appropriate safeguards. There is provision for when a decision is made to use audiovisual technology, that that is recorded, and that the reasons for doing so are also recorded. I’m confident that there are safeguards in the bill in that respect.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Equally, there were changes to the transporting of special patients, the restraint or potential restraint in a vehicle. I think it would be helpful to understand what were the drivers of some of those changes around enhanced restraints of special patients? And also, again, to that idea of safeguards in reporting: how are we going to safeguard that those restraints are appropriate, and how will we ascertain the numbers or times restraints are used and whether that’s appropriate?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The reason why this has been provided for is there hasn’t previously been any provision or statutory power for those responsible for the care of special patients, in particular, and especially when they’re being transported, to exercise restraint powers. That has been a subject for comment by those responsible for inspecting mental health services, particularly forensic mental health services. The reality is that there are some special patients who are a danger to themselves and potentially to others, particularly if they are in the confined space of a motor vehicle.

So this has been introduced in order for there to be clear statutory provision to allow restraints to be applied so that people can be transported safely. This is for the purposes of bringing a patient before a court for their hearing or for a trial, or for bringing a person before the Parole Board for a hearing. In order for that to happen, there has to be a transport management plan—that’s provided for in new section 53A(2) set out in clause 9. That has to be approved by the Director of Mental Health. That transport management plan can authorise the restraint of the patient in the least restrictive way and the use of any other force that is reasonably necessary in the circumstances, and there are some other provisions there. In the end, in terms of preparing those transport plans, the Director-General of Health must issue guidelines for the purposes of developing those plans and for the execution of these powers. Once this legislation is passed, those guidelines must be in place within 12 months.

So a number of kind of braces and bootstraps are sort of being used to make sure every possible safeguard that can be in place for special patients to be transported is there and reflected in not only the legislation but the way it is implemented.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 1 also includes the elimination of the indefinite treatment orders. It has been said, for this part and other clauses, it’s the beginning of the Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the Mental Health Act. I was wondering if the Minister would be able to update the committee where that mental health inquiry recommendation is, of repealing and replacing the Mental Health Act, and when he thinks maybe that new bill will be introduced to the House?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. I can report that good progress is being made in the preparation of that legislation and I am hopeful that it will be introduced to the House very shortly. But that has been a big exercise, as the member will be aware, but hopefully a combination of this interim sort of change and the kind of permanent repeal of the current legislation, and its permanent replacement by more modern legislation, will give greater confidence not only to those who’ve been cared for in our mental health system but for those doing the caring as well. I assure the member that future is not far away.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wonder if we could get a little bit more definite timing than “very shortly”. It was certainly a very significant part of the submissions to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, that while submitters were pleased with the small changes in here, they were much more exercised by the overall repeal and replacement of the Act. I think a more definite timing than “very shortly” would be useful. If the Minister could give us a little bit more of an indication of where the progress is at and the time line for that final repeal and replacement. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The member will be aware that the legislation—in addition to being commented on in the way described by that member, as in urgent need of replacement—is a comprehensive and complicated exercise. But we knew that there were shortcomings right now that really needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. That is this legislation.

In terms of the long-term replacement, there is a consultation process under way specifically on that legislation. I expect that will be concluded in the early part of next year. That will form the basis of the drafting of the legislation. So, all going well, we’ll be in a position to have that new legislation at some point next year and, all going well, passed in 2023.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you, Minister. The use of audiovisual link, as my colleague Matt Doocey has spoken about, was also quite a significant part of the submissions, in that family and friends particularly were very concerned that the justification must not be just that it is the fall-back, default, easiest position for officials. We heard, in the submissions, that they felt there needed to be very stringent reporting arrangements. I wonder if the Minister could just give us a little bit more information about those reporting requirements—whether it is just going to be the guidance through regulations, or more stringent requirements than that. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): And, just while the Minister is taking some advice on that, I think it’s a very important question from my colleague Penny Simmonds, to ensure that we do have the regime in place to identify when audiovisual link (AVL) is being used—also the recording of that, and also the reporting of that. I think, if the Minister could respond to that but also maybe take a step further, in how we are going to have some trust in the Ministry of Health reporting. We know the Minister was severely let down recently by some of the reporting about the mental health annual report. So it’d be nice to think that some of the changes in this bill that we are debating at the moment will appear in some reports that will be public facing and the public can have some confidence in what my colleague Penny Simmonds alluded to—that what we don’t want to see is mental health patients just sidelined, basically, and that they will just be sidelined by the use of AVL. I think it’s important, especially in a mental health context, that they are meeting their mental health professionals face to face, they are included in their care planning and assessment, and that they know that we are there for them and caring for them.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I thank both those members, Penny Simmonds and Matt Doocey, for their questions. I think the simple answer is that part of the director-general’s guidelines have to encompass the basis on which a decision to use audiovisual link (AVL) is made. And so that is why practitioners who are assessing a patient would need to apply the guidelines issued by the Director-General of Health, including when the physical presence of a patient isn’t practicable and the use of AVL technology is appropriate. So the director-general will develop the guidelines for that. But the second part of it is, too, there will be an obligation to report to the relevant director of area mental health services on that.

I think, as I understand it, the committee was keen to develop a comprehensive reporting requirement. Members of this House should expect that to be part of the legislation that is the permanent replacement to the current Mental Health Act. I agree with both of those members: there does need, for the purposes of assurance to both patients and their families, for there to be some clear basis on which involvement of a patient in a way that is other than face to face is recorded and that we also build up a reporting track—a record—of the way in which a power like that is used. So members can be reassured that, notwithstanding the provisions in this particular bill, it goes some way to address that question. The permanent replacement will properly address and provide a proper framework for just that particular question.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you Minister for that assurance. I wonder if the Minister could further outline to us what monitoring of that reporting might take place so that we can be sure that parts of the country are not applying the guidelines inconsistently with other parts of the country. Just the reporting of it is good, but if the reporting isn’t monitored and consistency achieved, then only half the job is done. Thank you, Minister.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I think the member raises a very good point. I think, a couple of things. First of all, the Director-General of Health is responsible for developing the guidelines, so they will be a set of national guidelines. The Director of Mental Health, obviously, will have an involvement in that and the Director of Mental Health is responsible for ensuring provisions in the current legislation are applied and applied consistently.

I think what will give further reassurance to members is the legislation introduced, yet to have its first reading—the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill—is about a truly nationwide health system, so that any inconsistency that might have been developed between the proprietors of mental health units at the moment, which are any one of the 20 DHBs, there will be a mechanism to ensure a greater consistency of application of national guidelines in the future in a way that we struggle to achieve at the moment.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments relating to COVID-19

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 34—amendments relating to COVID-19. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: Title, Commencement, and Principal Act.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Definitions, application of Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, and interim classification assessments

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come now to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 7, “Definitions, application of Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, and interim classification assessments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): This bill will update the classification Act to allow for urgent steps to be taken to prevent and mitigate harms caused by objectionable publications. The amendments will ensure that Government internet service providers and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material and prevent the potential harm that this material can cause to New Zealanders.

Part 1 of the bill first amends definitions in section 2 of the classification Act. This provides certainty that the definition of publication expressly includes “a copy of images or sounds that have been livestreamed” in the definition. It amends the Act to expressly override the “safe harbour” provisions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 when the classification Act applies. The result of this change would ensure that online content hosts could be prosecuted for possessing or distributing objectionable or restricted content, such as violent extremist material.

The bill will also provide for a new urgent interim classification assessment processed for the Classification Office. This will cover all publications by the principal Act, in contrast to the rest of the bill, which only applies to online publications. The change provides an option for the chief censor to indicate a likely classification status and alert the public and enforcement agencies accordingly, as a result allowing public enforcement agencies and online content hosts to act sooner in dealing with objectionable content.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be speaking in the committee stage—and say it once again—of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. And again, congratulations to the Minister for, firstly, updating this bill. The one we debated before this was around mental health, and that was another bill that is moving with the technology of the times.

From coming into Parliament, I don’t think most of the public often realise just how things move and our legislation becomes quite outdated. Our existing system was designed in the early 1990s without the internet and focused on traditional newspapers and printing material and free to air for TV, so it was not fit for purpose. There’s one question, really, and it’s not really a question because we’ve talked this bill through and we’ve worked really well together. But the current system has been confusing for content providers and consumers, because consumers have no single complaints processes currently, and some content providers are regulated by multiple regimes. So just, really, for the Minister, I’m just hoping that you would just explain perhaps more to the committee and more to the public about how the new regime is going to be much more helpful for those who are current providers. Because I know in the select committee, when it came in, there was quite a bit of uncertainty around the current regime. So it’s been good to settle it down with the changes. Thank you.

So the next the next piece I was just going to ask was: the communities all have a role to play in reducing harm. This was widely consulted, and I just wanted to say how pleased I am that the Minister has taken this on board, because the main reason for this was the March 15th episode that we had in 2019, which was abhorrent. Maybe the Minister could just explain to the committee around “objectionable” actually being a term that’s already currently in the law. That was a question that most people had: what does objectionable mean? Because it means something different to some of us than it does to others, when we’re talking in general language, but objectionable is already in the law. And I just think it’s important, as we go through this process before we get to the final reading of this bill, just to make sure that the public is fully comprehensive of what we’re doing here. Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you for that, because that’s exactly true. The term “objectionable” in this case is already defined within the classifications Act, so this particular bill isn’t seeking to redefine that term “objectionable”. As the previous member that’s just sat down has just pointed out, that is already well defined within law. Going back to your previous question, what this bill seeks to do is give clarity through the issuing of take-down notices to those providers. So they will understand when the material is objectionable, because it’s already been defined. They will have a take-down notice that will give them that sense of clarity as opposed to the voluntary regime that currently operates. So this makes it clearer for them and I think that that’s a good thing that this bill is doing for them.

Since this has gone through select committee—and I do say thank you once again to the Governance and Administration Committee, who worked really diligently on this bill—we have heard come back from providers that that’s exactly what they are looking forward to, that sense of clarity.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just had another question around Part 1 of this bill, around the online content host description. I just wanted you to be able to elaborate a little around the role that online content hosts will be playing in the sense that—just trying to understand what difference this law will make when it comes into effect, when there are internet service providers (ISPs) and platforms already removing material voluntarily.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Exactly what I’ve just said in that this gives them clarity. So we’ve currently got a voluntary regime and a voluntary regime is up to the provider and the ISP. With the take-down notices, there is no question around whether this is objectionable or not. They’re not having to second guess. This gives them that sense of clarity, and that’s where this bill is seeking to improve what currently exists.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for clarifying that for the public at home—around content being objectionable and the ability for this legislation to issue take-down notices, as well; I think that’s really, really important. I acknowledge the work that the Governance and Administration Committee did and, of course, the work that the Minister did in terms of trying to pull this thing together. Our objection was around the internet filter and that has now been taken out, but I’ve been reflecting on this bill because it is about trying to futureproof technology. And so we started off in the 1990s and the 1980s, maybe even before, in the times of VHS and CD-ROMs and all that kind of stuff, and that’s when this legislation—

Hon Member: Good times.

TEANAU TUIONO: —good times, yeah—first came out and now we’re looking at social media, and so on, and so forth. But with that filter, I know it was a tool that was used to actually deal with some really, really serious issues and I’m thinking a bit further into the future and maybe there is scope in other pieces of legislation where we actually look at the problems around algorithms and social media and what potential work or what potential gap the Minister sees in this particular area as well. I see that we have gotten to a particular place with this legislation but there are still issues that have arisen out of the discussions that the submitters at the select committee submitted when we were going through this process with this bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Jan Tinetti, sorry.

Hon JAN TINETTI: All good, Madam Chair, I was just going to continue on. I think that’s a really good point that the member brings up because technology is changing all of the time, as the member well knows, and we have several lots of regulation that currently have the oversight of media regulation in this country at this point in time, and not all fit for purpose because technology has moved on so far. What we’ve done up until this point is that we’ve looked at piecemeal changes to each piece of legislation trying to bring it up to date; so what we’re currently looking at is a media content regulatory review to try and bring all that together and to look at futureproofing it.

So that’s currently under way. I’ve got officials who are working with members from the sector looking into this. It’s quite an exciting piece of work. I’m sure the member will understand that this is a big piece of work. We’ve got many from the sector who are very excited about it. But also, as I say, looking at how we can futureproof—that’s not easy, as the member knows; that’s quite daunting. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean to say it’s something that we shouldn’t be looking into, and so that’s where we’re working there.

As far as the filter is concerned, I also have asked my officials to look at maybe down the line a voluntary filter—that already does exist in the child sexual exploitation area—because it might not be filter as we currently know filter to be now because the member has alluded that technology is changing incredibly quickly. So there are no sweet answers to that right at this point in time, but how can we look at how we can be responsive to those changes that are happening?

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Minister. Minister, I’ve got a question for you on going back to the objectionable material, and my question is around it—well, sorry, I’ll make a statement first.

You’ve already said that it’s been defined in law so everybody should know what is objectionable and what is not, but I have some concern about whether or not those people out there, who see something on social media and immediately share it, not knowing what we know about the law and objectionable, and how does this Act plan to work within that regime of people accidentally—or, not accidentally but very quickly sharing something, not realising that it is objectionable because they don’t have that same outline as we do, or knowledge of the law?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): There are safeguards in this around that. I think that’s a really good question, because we know that that can happen, that people don’t understand or don’t understand that that is objectionable. It is clearly defined in law, but there would have to be intent around that. There’s the protection, again, here of the take-down notices, and it would go through the test of ensuring that the intent of knowing that it was objectionable would actually make that act illegal, and that is defined within the bill as it stands now.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): And just further to that, Minister, I just wonder, where content of material hasn’t actually been made objectionable yet—so it’s content that’s still coming to be determined as being objectionable, but has been put up before that determination. I hope that makes sense.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Gosh, that was just in time—Hon Jan Tinetti. I was just about to put the closure motion.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Ha, ha! I know you were, Madam Chair, but I did want to be as responsive as I could be, and I was making certain that I got that exactly as it should be the answer. So the rapid assessment within this bill allows for that to be made very, very rapidly. And so, again, then the take-down notice that will be issued to the internet service provider would enable that to be taken down very, very quickly. So it’s ensuring that people, the powers that be—the inspectors, in this particular case—can act very, very quickly, and that’s what that rapid assessment does.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Take-down notices for objectionable online publications, offences, and regulations

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 12, “Take-down notices for objectionable online publications, offences, and regulations”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Part 2 of the bill amends the Act to provide Department of Internal Affairs Inspectors of Publications with the power to issue take-down notices when they identify objectionable material online. This power would be in addition to the inspectors’ current practice of requesting voluntary take-down of content in individual cases. Unlike other jurisdictions, we have had to rely on voluntary requests to remove illegal online material. This change will provide certainty for Government and online content hosts by enabling statutory authority and accountability when a take-down notice is issued. An online content host that does not comply with a take-down notice as soon as reasonably practicable would be committing a breach and subject to a penalty of $200,000.

The bill also provides a definition for the term live stream, which notes that “livestream means to transmit over the Internet or any other electronic medium images or sounds as they happen”. This amendment makes it clear that a live stream of objectionable material is captured under the Act. Furthermore, the bill makes it an offence to knowingly live stream objectionable content or share objectionable live streamed content. This offence is not intended to have extraterritorial application. This offence applies to the individual or organisation that live streams the content, with the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for an individual and a fine not exceeding $200,000 for a body corporate.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Minister. I’m going to go back to this “objectionable” part, and specifically into new section 132C, where we’re actually talking about making it an offence to live stream material where we are knowing or have reasonable cause to believe that it is objectionable. And this is where I come back to my earlier questions about people, perhaps, live streaming or sharing a link to a live stream, not realising the content of that stream, of it being objectionable. And while I now recognise that there is a rapid assessment that would allow a take-down order, this bill would actually make it an offence to live stream such material before it has been made objectionable or even noted as such. So people are actually live streaming content that has not yet been made objectionable but are committing an offence in doing so if there is reasonable cause to believe that they knew about that. So I’m just wondering, Minister, how you could allay some fears of people who just go about live streaming things, not realising what the content is at that time. How can we allay their fears as to creating or committing an offence?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I think that’s a really good question, and I want to go back to that term “objectionable”, which is defined in the principal Act as it stands now. We are talking about some of the most abhorrent media that any of us probably couldn’t imagine. People will know that they are live streaming objectionable content because we are talking about abhorrent. I don’t want to be too definitive in my example here, but to give a broad definition of what that might look like, we are talking about terrorist material or we’re talking about child sexual exploitation. So for example, a young child might be being abused in a pretty abhorrent way, and someone else might be standing there live streaming them. Currently, that person live streaming would not be committing an offence of live streaming. They know that that is objectionable. That’s the level that we are talking about.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Minister, for that response. What about those people who are sharing a live stream, as new section 132C, inserted by clause 10, is specifically about sharing objectionable live streamed content? Rather than the person who is delivering the content themselves, it’s those innocent people who say, “Well, that person’s a friend of mine on Stalkbook, and not Facebook, and I will share their content, because usually it’s been quite good.”, but they’re committing an offence in doing so.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The bill will not penalise all instances of live streaming objectionable content. There is a threshold, as defined in the bill, that needs to be met, and I’d just like to read this particular part here. Individuals would commit “an offence if (a) they livestreamed content knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it [was] objectionable; or (b) [shared] content, or information about how to access content,”, and they need to meet these two points: “(i) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the content is objectionable; and (ii) with the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts or acts of terrorism.”

So there’s quite a high threshold there. It’s not just about “Oh, this is my friend.”, or “I’ve shared something from my friend.”, not realising as they get through the stream that it is objectionable. There are those two bullet points that need to be met which makes sure that that protection is afforded to those people.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Minister. I just wondered—I sat in on the select committee and I think we all agree it was all very technical and complicated at times, so for anyone, a layperson, could you please explain just the general process? If an objectionable live stream is occurring, how does the report mechanism work, how does the take-down notice work? Just in simple layman’s terms.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m seeking a call.

NICOLA GRIGG: Further to that, Minister, you’ve talked about the fact that there’s no extraterritorial application. I know that was a concern for many. I just have a couple of questions on that, in that how does one police multinational platforms like your Facebooks and your YouTubes? And secondly, how will this bill prevent those sharing objectionable material who are actively averting the law by using virtual private networks?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): So, Madam Chair, I wanted to just double-check on that because I think it’s really important that we get that, as you say, in layman’s terms, or laypeople’s terms, I should say. Because the member is so right—it is incredibly technical.

So, basically, right there we can—and this is simplifying it a little bit as well in this particular instance, because it is quite complex, even though it can be quite quick. So the department would ask the chief censor to make an interim classification. At that particular point in time, that interim classification is able to then determine the take-down notice, and so the department will be working on the take-down notice, and that gives them time then to solidify that interim classification into that.

I didn’t quite get the member’s question about the extraterritorial—I heard that in the background as I was listening there. I wonder if the member would mind repeating that for me, please.

Nicola Grigg: Certainly. I’m sure it falls within the Standing Orders, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): If the member seeks the call, it does.

Nicola Grigg: May I please, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Nicola Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Minister. I understand that you were talking at the time and fully appreciate that—there’s a lot to take on board—but it was around the extraterritorial nature of the application in that, how will we, as a jurisdiction here in New Zealand, police the multinational platforms like the YouTubes and the Facebooks when a live stream could potentially be being streamed from offshore? And, slightly related to that, how will this bill prevent those sharing objectionable material or live streaming it if they are trying to actively avert the law by using virtual private networks?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really happy that you could re-ask that, because it is a really important point there, that this work doesn’t happen in isolation, in New Zealand alone. We have international partners that we are working with on this material, and I think the member might have been part of a group that went over to the department and had a look and a talk with the people who are working in this area, and an understanding of just how wide this work is and the amount of collaboration that happens internationally. So the international partners work together.

The take-down notices here are really important, because it sends a signal from New Zealand law, which we haven’t had before because it’s been that voluntary process. But this take-down notice, as it stands at the moment, will send a message that that’s New Zealand law, and our international partners will be able to work in that area with those big players that are based internationally as well. I know that the member will get a sense of this from the work that you have done going over to the department and talking with those people, but the work that they do is incredibly important, and is a real credit to the people who are working in that area.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Maori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to our final debate; that’s debate on clauses 1 to 3: title, commencement, and principal Act.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The commencement date of the bill is currently set for 30 April 2021; however, COVID-19 has caused disruptions to the work, and this initial commencement date has since passed. I’m tabling a Supplementary Order Paper which amends the commencement date to 1 February 2022 to reflect the high priority of implementing the bill. The time frame for commencement does not need to allow for the promulgation of regulations. This will ensure that other key provisions, such as the live stream provisions, can take effect immediately after commencement.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question in the interim on the name of the bill. Given that we’ve had our fair share of laughs over the last few weeks around the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, did the Minister actually have a look and see if there was some way of simplifying the title of the bill, or did it just get too hard?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The member will be delighted to know that when this bill gets passed its third reading, it will then fold into the main Act and we’ll know it as the classifications Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Clause 1 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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Clause 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Clause 2 as amended stand part.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to

Clause 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I will report this bill with amendment.

Bills

Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 16, “Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I didn’t sit on the select committee that considered this legislation, so I’m coming to this with a view of a layperson. Some of the terms in the legislation are a bit perplexing, and I’m hoping that the Minister will be able to offer some advice about, for instance, the terminology in Part 1, clause 4(1), which refers to “fuel oil” at the bottom there. It means “any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including gas, distillate, [or] residual fuels”, and what I’d like to know is: how was that definition arrived at and is it extensive enough? For instance, does it include futureproofing fuel sources? So does it, for instance, include the prospect of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion, and what about the potential for some vessels—I understand that Wellington is soon to have an electric tugboat in place. So I’m keen to know about what those various types of fuel might mean.

Now there is a further section: the amendment to section 222(1)(b)(i) in clause 4(2) refers to dumping, but immediately above that it refers to discharge, and I’m wondering why the rather more pejorative term “dumping” is used rather than “discharge” and why there isn’t some kind of consistency in terms of the vocabulary around those matters. I’m hoping the Minister may be able to give some clarity on those. I’ve got some other questions later.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): In terms of laypeople, it’s the member and myself both. So my suggestion in that particular instance—and while I’m waiting for my officials to come in—would be that maybe the member could put those questions in writing, and I’m sure that the Minister in charge of the bill would be more than happy to give an answer to him.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Minister, for the kind invitation, but that’s not the purpose of the committee of the whole House stage. The purpose of this stage is for the Minister to reply to questions from members in this committee, and I would have thought that the member would be on top of this legislation. I understand that she’s sitting in for the Minister whose bill this name is in, but that doesn’t absolve her from the responsibility to be able to answer what I think are some reasonably basic questions—and it may be that with the arrival of the official, we may be able to get some answers. So I will give the Minister an opportunity for a brief consultation with officials, and then I have other questions.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps while the Minister is getting that advice, I could put some further questions forward. As my colleague just talked about earlier, this import of low-sulphur fuel is going to be required, and I wonder if the Minister could tell us about any modelling that has been done in terms of the potential cost to domestic operators and also a time line for implementation. Given that there is going to be this additional cost for domestic operators, I’m sure they will be wanting to know a little bit more detail about time frames and when they need to be budgeting for this. Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Implementing Annex VI requires expansion to a number of Maritime New Zealand and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) functions. Additional operational funding is needed to achieve this. We expect the cost of implementing Annex VI obligations to be approximately $1.9 million per year for Maritime New Zealand and $1,078,427 per year for MBIE. We expect the cost of the regime to be borne by the shipping and fuel industries through the maritime and fuel levies. This would be subject to further analysis and consultation as part of the funding review. However, in March 2020, the ad hoc Cabinet committee on COVID-19 response suspended all funding reviews across border and aviation agencies for 12 months.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I wondered if I could come back to the use of vocabulary. So in clause 4(2)(a) and (b), relating to “discharge”, there are sort of nice words about including the “release, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying;”, but then paragraph (b) goes on to say, “does not include—(i) dumping”, and I’m intrigued to know why there can’t be some consistency of vocabulary. “Dumping” is a pejorative word, whereas “release, disposal, spilling, leaking,” is a much kinder use of the English language. It seems to me that there is a specific exclusion in the legislation that precludes the evil dumping but that allows for the inclusion of disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Given the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment with supply chain delays and particular issues around shipping and delay of goods and services both in and out of the country, can the Minister give us an assurance that this has been considered in the time line and time frame for implementation to ensure that even greater shortages of goods and services don’t occur with a further breakdown of the supply chain?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I just wanted to go back to the previous member’s question about dumping, because I know that that’s twice that he’s asked it, so it’s obviously very important. It’s because it is consistent with the Maritime Transport Act as it stands at the moment. It deals with different provisions. The word “dumping” is in the Act, in four different provisions, and so it is consistent with what has already been in the in the main Act. So it is consistent with the legislation as it stands at the moment. It’s not pejorative; it is just around the fact of consistency and getting consistency within our legislation.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): That is my very point. So in the sentence in the clause immediately above, it refers to “discharge”. So why in that sentence are nice words like “release, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying;” used, but the word “dumping” isn’t used? I would have thought that a polite way of using the language was actually to say what is meant, and if dumping is what is meant, then the word “dumping” should be used throughout the legislation, rather than just in a way that is selective and not consistent.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): So just to confirm that we’re talking about two different parts of the Act. We’ve got dumping and discharge used in different parts of the Act dealing with completely different provisions, so to make that distinction, we’ve got the different language that’s being used in that particular point because we’re dealing with completely different provisions. It could be something that eventually, down the track—when we’re looking at the Plain Language Bill for example—could be tidied up for that purpose, but at the moment, that’s how it stands.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So what, then, was the policy initiative behind not taking this opportunity to tidy up the vocabulary to actually bring consistency across the two regulatory statutes? It strikes me that that would have been an obvious and simple thing to do. The Minister in the chair has available to her an army of officials to bring logic and sense to legislative changes of this sort.

But while the Minister is consulting with the officials on that matter, there is a further matter I want to raise, and that relates, again, to clause 4(2)(b)(ii), and it provides the statutory exclusion for “the release of harmful substances for the purposes of legitimate scientific research”. I’m keen to know what the parameters of the disposal and/or dumping may be of harmful substances could be for the purposes of legitimate scientific research. In what quantum would be permissible scientific research to pollute, to dump, and to give waste to toxic materials in the name of science? How would that be quantified, when would it be justified, and who would make those decisions?

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. If we could return to the issue of supply chain disruption, can the Minister assure us that there will be low-sulphur fuel available for domestic operators, and has that been factored into the time line for implementation? And is she able to give us an assurance that there will not be further delays to our supply chain by the implementation of this Annex VI?

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Just following on from that question, it is actually quite similar. So in clause 4(3)(b), it talks about “anything that comprises, or is intended to comprise, any part of a ship, offshore installation, or pipeline, … that is or … intended to be installed on or fitted or supplied to a ship,”, so we are, again, talking about marine protection. This bill was done in a global context, and we are looking for new fuels. So, in terms of anything being installed on a ship in the future, does that include any new plant or any new pipes or anything that might be used to use a new fuel that’s going to go through that ship so everything will be caught in the intent of this bill? That is my question. Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I just wanted to take a very quick call around the supply chain issue. I have been assured that where—I can give assurance around the supply chain in that particular point in time. There is a bit of a side issue, of course, with the closure of Marsden Point, but I have been told that we’re OK.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Just wanted to remind the Minister in the chair, Jan Tinetti, I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions around the release of harmful toxic substances for “legitimate scientific research” in terms of quantum, who makes the decision, and what possible examples might the Minister have for that.

But while the Minister is consulting with officials on that one, I’m keen to go on to clause 4(4), which repeals the definition of “reception facility”. In the spirit of plain English, I would’ve thought that as a layperson, most New Zealanders would consider a reception facility to be a wedding venue, possibly one that required the deposit be paid. But here we have it in this piece of legislation; a reception facility is nothing further from a wedding venue than could possibly be imagined. It seems that a reception facility is to now include “a facility for the reception of—(a) harmful substances from ships … (b) sediment (as defined in section 444A(3)” and “ballast water from ships” has been removed. But I’m intrigued to know again, given the clarion cry for plain English, why the term “reception facility” is being used when the popular context for reception facility bears no relevance at all to this piece of legislation. I wondered whether officials might assist with that and whether a deposit had been paid on the reception facility.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I just wanted to go back to the question around exemptions. This would be used very rarely and would be decided upon by the Director of Maritime New Zealand and would be carried out in times when there was research into areas such as emissions reduction, which are very important areas. So, as I say, it has to be put into there because it’s very rare that it would be used in New Zealand waters, but when we’re talking about research of that nature around emissions reduction, it’s really important that we give the Director of Maritime New Zealand that ability to be able to do that, to be able to make those exemptions.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Surely, that can’t be. I can’t imagine a situation where, in the name of climate change and emissions reductions, there would be a need for the release of harmful substances. What kinds of harmful substances does the Minister have in mind? What possible situation could arise where that could occur? I know that the limits of science are forever expanding, but this strikes me as literally a statutory exemption to pollute, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of this piece of legislation. It seems to me to be quite illogical that on the one hand, we are trying in this bill to provide for shipping that is cleaner and greener and more environmentally friendly, and yet we have a statutory exclusion that allows for the dumping of harmful substances—toxic substances, probably—all in the name of what we’re told is emissions reduction.

Now, I and, I think, some of my colleagues—Stuart Smith, who is our spokesperson on climate change, looks as perplexed as I feel about this issue. Again, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here that hasn’t adequately been explained, and just using emissions reduction seems to me to be nothing short of a mere convenience to try and justify a statutory exclusion for the dumping of toxic waste by parties unknown in quantities unknown in circumstances unknown for purposes unknown. The Minister can surely give us some insight into what limitations might be provided and what protections there could be for our beautiful natural marine environment against this statutory exclusion.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): This is a provision that has to be there as part of Annex VI. It is part of the trials for ship emission reduction and control technology research. It is something that there is no choice around; it has to be there. As I’ve said, it’ll be used very rarely in the New Zealand context. That is why it has been given to the highest authority in the Director of Maritime New Zealand to be able to make that exception.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve come very late to this debate, but I’m coming representing the wonderful port of Picton. We have significant issues with emissions, and MARPOL VI can’t come quick enough for the people in Picton. The latest airshed readings from the ferry terminal in Picton, in particular, are quite worrying. In fact, this has come quite late and I’m very concerned about the health of the people of Picton due to the air quality issues. I know, in particular, the soot that comes out in small flakes and contaminates washing on the line, for example, in less than favourable conditions.

So MARPOL VI, I know, decreases the emissions from ships in general, but Picton has greater issues with emissions than Tauranga does, which has a hundred times the number of ship movements that Picton does, and it’s related to the geography in that port. So does this bill in any way take any account of the particular circumstances in particular ports that will exacerbate the issues that otherwise might be fine in places like Tauranga or Auckland’s port or Lyttelton rather than a small port with particular geographical issues, with hills around it and the comings and goings of ferries in particular, rather than the giant ships that are coming and going—container ships, particularly—in Tauranga or Auckland or other ports around the country?

It’s a very confined space. It is subject to a lot of wind, but some days there isn’t any and that’s the days when we have issues, and I know that some of those ships are not emitting in large quantities as they would be in the case of those aforementioned large ports. So my question is: is there any account of that in the bill, and, if so, can the Minister please explain how that would work?

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): The answer to my previous question about the availability of the low-sulphur fuel was “We’re OK.”, and I don’t think that’s a terribly technical explanation of really what amount of low-sulphur fuel is available for domestic operators. Is there sufficient low-sulphur fuel available, and over what time frame will it then enable implementation of Annex VI?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister’s seeking an answer to my colleague Penny Simmonds’ very good question, clause 4 of the bill relates to an amendment to differentiate between the terms “ballast water” and “sediment”, and my simple question is: what does the Minister understand to be the distinction between ballast water and sediment?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add to that, I’d like to know what assurances the Minister can give that any requirement for reception facilities may be negotiated to the satisfaction of the port operator to avoid any unnecessary costs.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Scott Simpson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I have started. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 and 18, “Amendments to Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999”. The question is—

Hon Scott Simpson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): —that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Member: He’s very quick.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Goodness me! It’s the quick and the dead today. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. When we were debating Part 1 of this legislation, I asked some questions about the exclusion that allowed for the dumping of harmful substances for scientific research, and the answer that was given was “Well, it’s part of the annex. It’s part of what we’re doing.”, and there was sort of no answer given to it.

So what I would like to know in Part 2 is it says that “This Part amends the Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999.”, and then clause 3 of the order is amended by clause 18 so that certain international conventions are declared to be marine protection conventions: “After clause 3(b), insert: (ba) Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,”. So my question to the Minister is: what would be the implications and why can’t this Parliament, as a sovereign Parliament, make an exclusion to prevent the dumping of toxic waste in the name of science when, in fact, this is a piece of legislation that is going through the Parliament of New Zealand?

I would have thought that we didn’t need to simply adopt holus-bolus what is being thrust upon us from another jurisdiction in another part of the world, and when we are going to adopt clause 18, why can’t we carve out an exclusion that would make this piece of legislation uniquely Kiwi in much the same way that we did with banning—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is to refer to measures that are contained in the bill, not matters that he thinks should be contained in the bill.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Also to the Minister: have they considered what liability may be incurred by ports which are required to accept sediments from visiting ships, and what support does the Government think is appropriate to ensure that the environmental costs and risks are not left with ports?

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I’d just like the Minister to clarify, because it’s my understanding, as we debate this committee of the whole House on this bill, that we are one of the last two countries to sign up to this convention. So if the Minister could just clarify that for the committee, please. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): My understanding is also that we are in the final 3 percent of countries to join in implementing MARPOL Annex VI, and given that we have waited this long, it would be useful to know a little bit more about the time frame for implementation. Clearly, it hasn’t been something we’ve wanted to rush into, and so we would hope that the implementation isn’t going to impact unduly on the domestic operators and, therefore, our supply chain—so if we could get a little more information about the implementation timing, given that we are at the very end of countries adopting this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Cabinet was advised in 2019 when agreement was sought from New Zealand to accede to MARPOL Annex VI that November 2021 would be a realistic time frame for New Zealand to accede. This provided a reasonable balance between competing stakeholder views, some of which asked for earlier accession; some later. It was also thought that accession at the time would insulate New Zealand ships from any initial price spikes that were expected.

In January 2020, when new low-sulphur fuel requirements came into force internationally, COVID-19 initially dampened fuel demand, allowing more time for switching to low-sulphur fuels, but demand is now growing. Cabinet’s decision to accede was subject to parliamentary treaty examination, which was completed in June 2020.

Since September 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Maritime New Zealand have been engaging with industry stakeholders to build awareness of the forthcoming requirements and to develop an understanding of the impacts and how specific aspects of MARPOL Annex VI can be implemented. Parliamentary Counsel Office started drafting the bill in January 2020, a process that takes approximately three months. The bill was then introduced in May 2020.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that additional information. Given the changes that have occurred in the last few months, particularly around supply chains and delays, does the Minister still believe that the time frames and time lines originally looked at are reasonable for domestic operators?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes.

Dr James McDowall: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the member, if members want to take a call in a committee stage, they’ve got to get up and take a call. Otherwise, I will close the debate. However, we have Dr James McDowall.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I was just going to say, “Point of order.”, but I’ll sit back down. My apologies.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to—

Hon Members: Dinner.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Members, when I feel I need assistance when I’m ruling, I’ll certainly let you know. But in the meantime, the Chair is going to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and we’ll see you all at 7.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā rā tātou katoa. The committee is resumed. Members, before the dinner break, we had just arrived to the debate on clauses 1 and 2 of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. Therefore, the question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is now in committee on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 10 and the Schedule: amendments relating to drinking water. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave to have all questions taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore, the question now is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Mr Chair, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to speak to the House in committee tonight on this very important bill. I think it’s worth just recapping some of past events, because it’s been some time since the bill was last in the House. Just one of the things that I reflected on in our second reading debate most recently was that I think every party that spoke in the debate agreed on the importance of fluoridation as a health intervention to make sure that all people, but particularly young people, are able to enjoy good oral health. In a time when many important health interventions are subject to misinformation, I thought it was a heartening reflection on the state of our democracy that all parties would align themselves with science on such an important decision.

To recap the journey of this bill, the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill came to Parliament and was submitted in 2016. It sought to respond to the request of territorial authorities to take the decision making from a local government setting into a health setting because the territorial authorities were often lobbied very vigorously on decisions about fluoridation and they felt poorly resourced to be able to respond to those questions.

At the time of this Parliament, the bill had already been to the Health Committee and it had had extensive hearings in the past. In this Parliament, what the Government has sought to do is to move decision making from district health boards, as in the original bill, to the director-general, and we’ve done that to seek a nationally consistent approach. We know that, currently, we have a patchwork of different approaches across the country, with only 50 percent of the population having access to water supplies that are fluoridated.

We also wanted to give the decision to an official who is resourced and equipped to make the decision and take the science of fluoride away from being from being litigated in every part of the country. So that is the purpose of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38 that was referred to select committee.

I want to thank all the members of the select committee who considered the bill. They were focused on the—sorry, that considered the SOP, because the select committee hearing was just on that matter, and I appreciate the time in which they applied themselves to those questions. Of the submissions that they received in relation to the issues in the SOP, the majority, as is documented in their report, favoured the approach that we’re outlining in this SOP—that the decision maker should be the director-general—and mostly from the perspective of promoting national consistency.

I notice the select committee has also made a very helpful suggestion that the director-general should consult with the Director of Public Health. Our intention is to support that SOP as well. It’s a very constructive suggestion and, of course, it reminds us that there may be situations in the future where the director-general is not a public health physician and the opportunity to get that extra advice from someone specialist in public health would add to the consideration that these issues are given.

So I’m very happy to take questions from members on the SOP and the bill.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I had the privilege of being on the Health Committee and hearing the submitters. There were a number, and it was quite emotive at times.

One of the big fears was around the decision making being taken from the community, and I wonder if the Minister can outline beyond the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward just what sort of consultation might take place at a local community level, given the sense of distrust that we did see coming from a number of the submitters.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a privilege to take a call on this fluoridation bill. It is interesting. As the Minister outlined, we did the first reading in 2016—I think I might have spoken on it back then—and then the second reading in about June or July last year. So, as the Minister outlined, it’s good that the parties are taking a science-based approach and agreeing on the principle of fluoride, but as we know, especially with this Government, the issue is going to be around implementation. With the Government’s announcement of the traffic light system, I think the irony wasn’t lost then when it was about all DHBs going to be 90 percent, and I suppose with this bill as well, it is based on DHBs. Now, tomorrow, a bill will come before this House where DHBs will have a bulldozer driven through them and, unlike the health and disability review, which advocated for maybe five or seven or nine DHBS, we’re going to go down to none. So it will be interesting to hear from the Minister how this will line up with the abolishment of DHBs.

Then, probably, it will be also interesting to hear, of course, how is the actual implementation of fluoride going to work under the proposed three waters programme as well. Who will be responsible if the three waters are going to be taken out of local councils or—I don’t think we can even call them local democracies in this bill now. It changes to “local authority”. So will we have to come back and change this as well?

So there are some competing priorities here, although, as we said, the bill arrived in 2016. But now, in 2021, we face a very different landscape. So we won’t be able to talk about the decision making going to DHBs, because we won’t have any, and who will actually provide the fluoride or who will put it in the water system if we move to three waters and that is moved to some entity that we can’t see in the legislation yet?

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can’t resist taking a call on this bill. I want to congratulate Minister Verrall for getting into what I’d call probably a fight she’ll never win. I’ve been around the fluoridation issue for 20 years now and I’ve never seen a consensus achieved anywhere on fluoridation, and I can’t see it happening now.

But the really interesting thing about the whole fluoridation issue is it’s been with councils. We proposed it went to the district health boards in 2016, I think Matt Doocey said. In my view, that was never going to work. I don’t think this will work either, because I just think it’s such a contentious issue, this fluoridation of drinking water. Frankly, I’ve got to say, I support the fluoridation of drinking water. When you have teeth as bad as I’ve got and you were never in a fluoridated water supply, you’d know why I support it, and it’s pretty obvious that we should support it. So I don’t really have a constructive question of the Minister on it, but I do think it’s worth commenting that I think it’s a very brave move, and I think it’s worth trying anything we can to achieve the objective that this bill sets out to achieve, but I’m just not sure how you’re ever going to get a consensus on it. So that’s all I really wanted to say.

I do think, though, that it’s an issue that we should persevere with as a Parliament, and I don’t think you can make one rule for Bulls, where I live, and another rule for Rātana or for Whangaehu, where you live, Mr Chair. So I think that the issue that we’ve got is it’s got to be consistent across New Zealand, and we should, effectively, where we can, supply fluoridated drinking water, particularly for our young people, because it’s just the way it is. So I don’t want to ask you a question, Minister; I want to congratulate you. Good luck.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I want to thank Mr McKelvie for that honest contribution and his wishes of good luck—I appreciate it. To address some of the earlier questions, the Supplementary Order Paper does require that the director-general engage with local authorities on their readiness and the cost of implementing change, but, as I stated earlier, it does not relitigate the decision about the public health rationale or science of fluoridation. There will be a need to seek information on the health status of the local population, as well. I’d just note that the original bill did not require any community engagement in its original form, either.

I do not view concerns about the proposed reforms of district health boards as problematic for the passage of this bill; in fact, it is required. It makes an even stronger case for the need for this bill, because there will not be district health boards in the future health system. The three waters bill would change the role of local authorities to that of water entities in terms of the bodies that would be responsible for having to fluoridate water on direction by the director-general, and consequential amendments to change the entity referred to would have to be made through the Water Services Bill, should that bill pass.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister Verrall, for your answers to those questions. Minister, the concern, I suppose, is the context in which this bill is sitting of a number of centralisations of vocational education, of DHBs, of mandating of vaccinations, and so it’s really a question around implementation. Around the roll-out for COVID vaccinations, there was a vacuum which allowed all sorts of other opinions to grow legs. My concern around this is the implementation of the fluoridation of drinking water. What education or what implementation information is going to go out so that there isn’t a groundswell of people who are anti the fluoridation of drinking water, because we definitely heard in the submissions that a number of people are deeply suspicious, and I suppose, when we see this sitting within the context of a lot of centralised decision-making, it will add to that sense of distrust. So my question is around information sharing, education, and ensuring that people are in the right space to be able to accept fluoridation of water supplies.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Those matters are not directly relevant to the bill we’re debating, but the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has recently assisted with that important matter of making sure that good information is available to the public by publishing a detailed report of all of the decades of science around fluoridation. So I think there is access to New Zealand - specific, high-quality information, and I think that it is important that those sources remain up to date, as the Ministry of Health has also kept up-to-date sources of information throughout this time, in the many years that the bill has been before Parliament.

The other point to make, though, is that I think it will not be possible to address all of the concern and opposition about the bill in the community, but it is important to have gone through a process of having those proper, evidence-based reviews by an independent person, and that’s what’s been done.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister. I think we’ve probably seen from experience around the COVID vaccinations that the science and evidence often isn’t enough for communities to be won over, or certain elements of our communities to be won over. So the process of consultation and getting communities on board I think is an incredibly important part of the implementation of this legislation, and I’m not sure that we’ve had spelt out to us how that process is really going to play out.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 79, which is in the name of my good friend and colleague Dr Shane Reti, who is actively up in the North of the North Island now, vaccinating, and I want to wish him well. Now, what he says in his SOP is to amend clause 4A: “after new section 116E(2)(b), insert: (c) the views of local … authorities legislated to represent regional health interests where the local authority supply is situated.”

I suppose for us on this side of the House, we believe in having strong communities. They’re a place for local democracy. They’re a place of our local economy and, of course, where our public services are delivered from, and it is quite concerning—and I think my colleague Penny Simmonds alluded to this—the continual ideology of centralisation.

I note that in a bill we’ll debate tomorrow, it says about the health reforms that “Government intervention is necessary to address these longstanding issues; indeed, only Government can take the steps needed to reform the structure and operating model of the … health system.” We would argue that it’s not only Government; it’s actually the communities as well that are needed to reform and restructure, and that’s why I think this is a very good SOP that will require the director-general to consider the views of local health authorities in this region.

What we do need is to still consult people in their local communities. There’s probably a feeling that they’re getting dealt to a bit at the moment, and we’ve seen Groundswell NZ be part of that. I think that’s why it is important, as set out in SOP 79, whether it be the centralisation of our health reforms or, of course, what the Government will announce tomorrow for their three waters announcement, that in an issue like fluoridation of drinking water, we should also ensure that our local communities are consulted about this on whether they agree to this or not. I do hope that the parties tonight will have read Shane Reti’s SOP 79 and that they will support local consultation, because, of course, decisions we make in Wellington affect everyone on the ground around New Zealand, and we should make sure that we provide adequate consultation.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this bill has had an interesting history. It was first introduced into Parliament in 2016, at the tail end of the year, and here we are coming towards the end of 2021. I think I’m right in saying that it managed to spend the entirety of the last Parliament on the Order Paper with no progress—I think I’m right in saying that. So here we are, five years later, and time has kind of caught up with the Government because the bill seeks to transfer power to district health boards and away from territorial authorities, but, contemporaneously, the Government is abolishing district health boards.

So I have a very simple question, and I apologise if it’s already been asked by members on this side. It is a very simple question. What happens when this bill is passed and it becomes an Act, and the new Governor-General, Dame Cindy Kiro, gives her Royal assent to the legislation and it comes into force and, then, in a year’s time, district health boards are no longer in existence? What will happen to this Act, or is it the intention of the Government to move an alternative form of legislation? It is a very simple question, and I think people will want to know what the answer is.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38, which was recently considered by select committee, does indeed make all those changes that the member is requesting because it is a change to move decision making from district health boards to the director-general. Therefore, the bill as amended by the Supplementary Order Paper does not require the continued existence of district health boards in order to give effect to the increase in fluoridation that we want to see.

I want to return to the contribution of the speaker before last around SOP 79. Firstly, as I previously noted, there are local issues that are relevant to fluoridation decisions, and the director-general is required to take this into account: local health factors, the oral health of the population, the feasibility and readiness to start fluoridation, and its cost. But the Supplementary Order Paper goes further than that and asks us—well, actually, it was Mr Doocey’s speech in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that was prepared by Dr Reti. Mr Doocey said that it’s not just about local government, but about involving community, but it doesn’t appear to me that that’s what Supplementary Order Paper 79 does. It asks for “the views of local health authorities legislated to represent … health interests where the local authority supply is situated.” So it’s a slightly wordy presentation, but I don’t think the intent of it is about community involvement. No, it’s about representatives I’m not even sure exist, and, in fact, the comment that Mr Bishop was making actually applies to Mr Reti’s SOP, not to the Government’s bill or SOP.

So we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper 79 because it’s not entirely clear what it means, and it’s not clear that it will be an advance on the existing Supplementary Order Paper. It’s interesting to note that this bill started its life out as a National Party bill in which there was no requirement for local consultation, and nor is local consultation enabled by the Supplementary Order Paper.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, if I may: as you’d be acutely aware, I live in Northland and we’ve got some of the worst teeth in the country. Very quickly, and if I contextualise the problem about where I live, a lot of rural New Zealand, especially in Northland, is on rural schemes. Can you speak to, quite specifically—and we’ve canvassed this in the House, and I think it’s going to come up again and again and again. In the Water Services Bill, on this side of the House, we asked for an exemption for 30 end users or less. By virtue of what we’re discussing tonight, there’s a real possibility there will be a penalty regime in place inside that piece of legislation for such things as fluoridation or the absence of it, and I would be interested to know what that will look like, what part of rural New Zealand it will affect, and how this policy would be policed, or the lack thereof.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in having the Minister explain to us how there might be consultation and a flow of information up from the communities. She has talked about there not being consultation with the communities, but what if a community should decide they want fluoridation? What is the process and what is the ability for the community to send their message that they want fluoridation in their water?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. This time I will have a question for the Minister. Just one of the things that occurs to me—and it’s really interesting, because we’re in a sort of interesting time at the moment—is we’ve got the issue with the COVID vaccine acceptance, and, certainly, remoter parts of New Zealand are more difficult to penetrate with respect to that than perhaps Wellington or Auckland.

We’ve also got a bill up later on tonight which deals with statistics, and, of course, people have got to fill out statistics forms. We’ve got in the House, this bill, where there’s an inherent distrust in some people of fluoridation, and you’ve got to wonder whether the real issue we’ve got is that, slowly but surely, people are starting to distrust the Government when the Government makes decisions for them. If I knew the answer to this, I wouldn’t be here, but I think it’s a real challenge for us, because if you don’t fill out your statistics correctly, the Government doesn’t get the information they need to manage the processes we’re talking about here, actually, amongst others. If you don’t get vaccinated, it would appear, then, that other people are at risk, and the same thing applies to this. If we don’t get this fluoridation thing accepted, then we’re going to get to the point where people, effectively, opt out.

So I suppose my question for the Minister is—and it might be very difficult one to answer—that I just wonder: it’s all very well to provide health advice to members of the public, but they don’t accept it, necessarily, and, certainly, the more remotely you live in New Zealand, it appears the less likely you are to accept advice from the centre. So I suppose my worry with this—and, as I said, I don’t have the answer—kind of bill is, if we’re going to put these in place, we’ve got to find a way of generally getting acceptance. I accept we won’t get everyone to accept it, but we need to find ways as we manage these processes of getting people to accept that, effectively, these decisions are made for the better of their own health, just like getting vaccinated is, or filling out your statistics correctly is.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr McKelvie, for that important question. Look, I’m an optimist about the issue of acceptance, and I think one of the things is that 50 percent of our population already live in places with a fluoridated water supply and, day to day, most people think nothing of it, to be honest, and people who visit, for example, Wellington from around the country where they don’t have fluoridated water don’t seem to raise it as a concern when they visit this great city.

I wanted to address the question about what if a community was to decide they want to fluoridate their own water independent of a direction from the Director-General of Health. While there’s nothing in this bill to stop that; that would still be able to occur as it currently has, and, indeed, a number of cities and towns have rolled out fluoridation on that basis.

To my colleague from ACT, the questions about supplies in rural New Zealand are very good ones. Firstly, this bill only applies to reticulated water supplies, and it excludes private supplies.

I’d also point to one of the requirements for the director-general to consider the cost. Modelling done—an assessment done a few years ago now suggests that the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation gets lower the smaller the population that is served by the water supply. It starts to look to be of lower value at water supplies that serve fewer than 500 people. Now, that isn’t the only factor that the director-general has to consider, but for small water supplies, there may be a discussion about whether or not the costs of fluoridation are, in fact, worth the oral health benefits.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Minister, would you be so obliging: when you just made the iteration about a reticulated supply, in the Water Services Act it very specifically talks about a reticulated supply, and more than one family or dwelling off that supply is deemed a system, and, by virtue of that, it is a reticulated supply. So you can see, going back to my previous remarks about having a caveat for 30 end users or less in the Water Services Act, by virtue of what you’ve just said, it would actually encapsulate everyone other than a single dwelling. Do you want to speak to that, perhaps?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually am interested in the answer to the question raised by my colleague Mr Cameron down the back—down the back both in terms of the country but also in the Chamber. But I am also interested in, and I’ve been reading—

Mark Cameron: I’m up the top.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, I mean in terms of Northland. I suppose you’re up the front in some ways. Anyway, it’s a long way away from here is the key point. I wasn’t meaning to be pejorative, Mr Cameron—far from it.

It’s been so long since we’ve considered this legislation. As I said earlier in my contribution, it was two parliaments ago, and I for one am a strong believer in fluoridation. I wonder if the ministry or the Government has conducted an updated cost-benefit analysis (CBA). I’m reading the regulatory impact statement, which is from 2016—in fact, March 2016—which notes that there was a CBA done in 2014 by Sapere Research Group, which found that “extending water fluoridation to those areas that do not currently have fluoridation would be associated with net savings of over $600 million over twenty years”, which is obviously a sizable sum of money, if you think about that. That’s $30 million per year times 20, with most of those savings to consumers and a small amount to Vote Health, and I actually was just reflecting on that.

I found that interesting, because I thought it would be the other way around. I actually thought the majority of the savings would accrue to Vote Health in terms of better oral health outcomes for the kids, for example—so less demand on the public purse for childhood dental services—and, I suppose, also adults as well. Having just had a wisdom tooth extracted last week and endured the pain of that, mainly fiscally, I know that dentistry can be very expensive, and so I was surprised to see that—

Ian McKelvie: Fluoride wouldn’t have fixed it, though.

CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that—fluoride wouldn’t have fixed it, no. There’s too much sugar in my diet. But I was intrigued to see that the cost-benefit actually shows that the majority of benefit is for consumers.

So I just wonder if there’s been an updated cost-benefit since 2014. It’s now seven years on, and perhaps the Minister could advise the House if that’s the case. If it’s higher than that then that’s a wonderful thing, and if it’s lower than that, then, well, that’s interesting as well, I suppose. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you for that question. It’s always good to be able to talk more about the financial benefits of public health measures. The answer is no. That cost-benefit analysis has not been revisited. That cost-benefit analysis was part of what kicked off this bill in the first place.

But I think the member is correct to think that if there was any change, the change is likely to be in the increasing cost of dental services over that time, so I can only imagine more benefits would accrue to the community than was originally expected.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am interested also in taking the questioning of my ACT colleague Mark Cameron a little further. When the Minister replied that the fluoridation was only for reticulated supplies and not private supplies, and indeed the Water Services Act has the “last person standing” clause in it that requires that if a water supply is going to be abandoned by private suppliers, then, in fact, the local authority does have to take up the provision of that supply. So it may well be that the rural water supplies that my colleague was referring to might fall within this, having been taken over by a local authority.

I guess one of the concerns that we have is that it’s a bill with very good intent: we all want, particularly for our children, to have better oral health, and what we don’t want is for it to be put at risk by a lack of plan or a lack of education or a lack of information or a lack of consultation. Therefore, my questioning really is around that provision of ensuring that the notion of fluoridation in drinking water—that is not now in at the moment—is well sold to the public and that the good intent of the bill isn’t lost by it not being well sold and people being well-prepared for it. So if you could expand on what is being done there, thank you, Minister.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Clearly, permission to start on implementation on the bill will be given when Parliament passes the bill. But I am comfortable undertaking to that member that being able to communicate clearly to the country the benefits of fluoridation and why these decisions are made will be ongoing work for the Ministry of Health. In addition, I’ve already cited the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s report, which is a definitive piece of work that reflects several decades of scientific research on this matter. So I don’t believe that there’s any lack of activity on the Government’s part in terms of making sure that the basis for these decisions are clear.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Anyone else want a call—no? We’ll go to the question, eh? The question is that the Hon Ayesha Verrall’s amendment to the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 4A in Supplementary Order Paper 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 as amended be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.

Part 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with 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 Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Retail Payment System Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Retail Payment System Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Retail Payment System Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 March 2022.

The Retail Payment System Bill introduces a new regime to ensure that the retail payment system—that is, the way we pay for goods and services—delivers long-term benefits to consumers and to small businesses or merchants. It does this in three ways. Firstly, it enables the Commerce Commission to regulate participants in designated retail payment networks. Secondly, to reduce merchant service fees sooner rather than later, it sets an initial pricing standard for the MasterCard and Visa credit and debit networks, and that standard targets interchange fees, which are the larger part of merchant service fees, making it less costly for retailers when accepting payments. Thirdly, it enables the Commerce Commission to issue merchant surcharging standards to limit excessive surcharging, and the bill enables the commission to monitor, investigate, and enforce the rules. This bill fulfils a Government commitment—indeed, a Labour manifesto promise—to regulate merchant service fees charged to retailers and bring them in line with the other comparable economies that we look to.

COVID-19 has changed the way we spend our money. We spend more and more time online transacting, with contactless transactions as well. There is growing pressure for all retailers, including the local dairy, to accept the available technologies, but they do come with an added cost. Reducing these fees is a priority for this Government and is critical to the recovery of the economy from the impacts of COVID-19.

So in December 2020, I began looking at the merchant service fees regime and the broader retail payment system, and the findings of the research generated by officials as we looked broadly showed that the system could indeed benefit from regulation. The first finding was that the costs merchants are charged to accept some payments are indeed high. Evidence shows that in many respects, some of our payments are parallel to what happens in Australia, but they’re actually about twice as high for credit card payments and for online debit transactions.

The second finding was that there are barriers to competition in the current regime. Retailers want to accept payment types that are widely used by consumers and vice versa, and that means a few large banks and card schemes dominate the retail payment system, making it difficult for new entrants to offer fresh payment options.

A third finding was that merchant service fee pricing has particularly adverse impacts on small businesses. In part, this is due to their smaller scale and their limited ability to negotiate good terms, but also they’re at greater risk of losing customers if they decide to surcharge or to steer customers away from certain payment methods. For many small businesses, they are simply forced to accept payment methods and then absorb the costs. It’s a cost of doing business for them.

Lastly, consumers like to use higher-cost payment methods. Indeed, we know credit card loyalty schemes are popular. They earn rewards for those that can participate in them, and banks encourage this because they in turn get higher returns as well. But that creates an equity issue, because someone has to pay for those rewards. Every consumer gets charged the same price for an item, typically in a store, but some get rewards back, and that tends to be the wealthy, who can afford and are offered those higher reward schemes. So, effectively, that amounts to a transfer of wealth from poorer folk to wealthier folk as a part of those loyalty schemes. So the Retail Payment System Bill helps to alleviate some of these pressures consumers and small businesses are facing as a consequence.

I’d like now to go into further detail about the proposed regulation of designated payment networks. The bill allows the Commerce Commission to make recommendations to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs as to which retail payment networks should be designated. The Minister then, of course, makes a decision, and it futureproofs the regime by allowing it to respond to any changes in the system that come up along the way, such as new payment methods that may emerge.

Once a network has been designated and a Minister has accepted that advice and designated a network, the commission will have a broad set of tools to regulate aspects of the network. For example, the bill seeks to address the lack of competition by enabling the commission to issue access standards. They could require established participants to open up access to parts of the network to make it easier for new entrants to use crucial infrastructure as a part of the payment system. The commission could also issue directions to network operators to set or amend network rules, and the bill enables the commission to monitor the retail payment system and impose information disclosure requirements, if it wishes. It can also improve the transparency of fees through describing how fees may be presented, and that will all make it easier for small businesses to compare the different offerings in the market, the different merchant service fees they might be charged for using this network system or that system.

In addition, the bill directly addresses the problem of high merchant service fees by enabling the commission to regulate pricing through network standards. Now, the network standards could cover pricing principles and limits on fees, as well as pricing methodologies and how prices are expressed. Small businesses then will have greater transparency, greater clarity, about how the different systems compare and, as I’ve said, they can choose to use the ones that suit them best, and that will put overall downward pressure on fees that are charged to merchants.

The second key aspect of the bill is that MasterCard and Visa credit and debit card networks have been designated off the bat for an initial pricing standard. Now, that makes sure that we get to one of the challenging issues that’s in the system straight off the bat, and we’re doing that by regulating the interchange fees that they can charge, which are a big part of merchant service fees. So that will be something that, immediately it comes into effect, people will see the change.

There are also some anti-avoidance provisions that are coming into play. So this is to avoid something known overseas as the waterbed effect, where you regulate one part of the merchant service fee, like the interchange fee, and see fees for other parts of the merchant service fee go up to compensate the issuers. So we’re alive to that, and that standard is there to ensure that that waterbed effect doesn’t happen here in New Zealand.

I want to see merchants benefit from lower fees as soon as possible, and I want to see them pass on those savings to consumers in New Zealand. Both small businesses and consumers will be better off as a result of these changes.

Now, the initial measures target card products issued by MasterCard and Visa because they cover the lion’s share of the market for retail payments. With the other schemes present in the market, some of them don’t have interchange fees—they have different models—but we think that this will make a significant difference. That initial pricing standard will commence six months after the initial enactment of this bill, and that allows regulated parties sufficient time to ensure that they do comply with the new standards. Those standards are meant to be an initial and interim measure while the Commerce Commission gets up and running, and then it will be able to adjust—

Hon Todd McClay: What do you mean if it gets up and running?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —the pricing standards as needed—in this particular regime, sir.

There are, finally, limits on merchants’ surcharging that I’d like to mention. Sometimes, retailers use surcharges to recover the costs of merchant service fees, but where they charge more than the actual cost, that can cause a harm to consumers. So if the true costs are not being passed on, the commission can issue standards to ensure that surcharging is not excessive.

Hon Todd McClay: There’s not a problem that a good standard won’t fix.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Those standards could include information disclosure and record-keeping requirements, and may also set out how merchants must represent surcharges. That’s a very similar approach to that taken in Australia, and I’m sure Mr McClay will have something to say about that.

To conclude, retail payments are central to the economy. Consumers continue to demand that more innovative payment methods are available to them, but we know that the fees being charged are indeed too high. This bill ensures that consumers are supported. As we’re in difficult COVID times, consumers are supported, small businesses will be supported, and they will help with the economic recovery. It’s an important step in the right direction to ensure that our retail payment system delivers long-term benefits to consumers and businesses in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Consumers around New Zealand had such high hopes for David Clark as the consumer and commerce Minister. Nine and a bit years ago, when he made his speeches down in Dunedin to be selected for the Labour Party to come here, I’m sure he started his speech by saying, “The reason I want to go to Parliament is to set some standards.” because that’s all we heard there.

Look, we will be supporting this because it is a very small step in the right direction, but when it comes to steps in the right direction, this is one of the tiniest ones this Government and this Minister might have made. He introduced this piece of legislation as a proud father of a tiny little bill of significance, he said, but of great insignificance to retailers and consumers in New Zealand. You see, during the campaign last year when Labour announced this, the day after or the day before they said, “There’s $2.8 billion worth of costs we’re going to impose upon business in New Zealand if we’re re-elected. But don’t worry, we’re going to fix these tiny little fees that merchants have to pay and that will fix it.”

You see, Minister Clark just said that actually the fees that merchants pay when it comes to credit card transaction in New Zealand compared to Australia are higher. What he didn’t tell the consumer was rents are higher in New Zealand than Australia. House prices are higher in New Zealand than Australia. Food prices are higher in New Zealand than Australia. Petrol is higher here, transport costs are higher, cars cost more, hotels costs more, electricity costs more, doctors visits cost more, medicine costs more—but don’t worry, we’re going to set a standard for the amount that Skycity can charge you as a result of the card that you may use when you get there.

So it will level the playing field to some degree for smaller merchants compared to larger merchants but what we also heard from Minister Clark was that envy of people who had done well. He’s saying rich people benefit because poorer people end up paying those same fees when it comes to the use of the cards and some fanciful rewards scheme. So he’s going to set a standard to perhaps deal with that but actually nothing in as far as consumers are concerned when it comes to rents, houses, petrol, electricity—all the other things that mean the cost of living in New Zealand has gone up so very, very much that people are struggling and that we have such a thing as the working poor. What that means is people having to choose to pay their bills before they feed their kids often because, under this Government, actually prices have run away. But don’t worry. The solution is at heart. We’re going to jump on board and beat up on a couple of credit card companies that charge a small percentage on a transaction because that is a solution.

Now, there is no question that actually where there is a charge, it should be fair, it should be equitable. I do notice in some of the submissions that have already been received in the one year the Minister has been considering this legislation to fix it for consumers that actually the transaction costs by two of the credit card companies he mentioned, at least on their network, Visa and Mastercard, have fallen by almost 18 percent. That suggests to me something’s happening in the market, probably around competition—could be a number of other things. But, in effect, there are so many other things that this Government should be doing to help consumers than this very, very small piece of legislation that the Minister spent 10 minutes talking about.

You see, Kiwis were doing it very hard, long before the effects of COVID, long before the now 270 days that New Zealand has been in some form of restriction imposed by this Government. You see, in Auckland there’s not very many small businesses that are sitting there losing sleep because of the cost of the transactions that they have to consider if ever the Government finds a way to allow them to get back to business. Most businesses in New Zealand are struggling; they are not trading at the moment—in Auckland, sorry, you’re not trading at the moment. They need all sorts of other consideration from the Government than this piece of legislation, a small-time fix for the retail payment system.

I hope that the Government will allow the full period of time for this piece of legislation, this bill, to be before the committee, because it was announced more than a year and a half ago and it has taken the Minister almost a year from when he thought to get around to doing something to bring legislation before the House, and all of a sudden we have a sense that he might rush it through because this is the big fix. I think it is very important that we hear from all of those who are engaged in the sector: the banks themselves who run the system, the credit card companies that actually do have costs upon them—and they want to find ways to minimise these so that people can enjoy different ways of paying for the goods and services they may consume. But to leave it to the Government by way of setting standards, I don’t think is the very best way. So the committee will need to take a full period of time to allow proper submissions and full consideration of this unless the Minister is saying that this is so urgent to fix the ailments the businesses suffer as a result of the $2.8 billion of costs annually this Government has imposed upon them through extra regulation, extra cost, and the effects of the extended long-term lockdown that Auckland businesses are facing but almost every business in New Zealand is suffering from.

This is a very small piece of legislation. If it goes a small way to levelling the playing field and assisting small businesses with some of their costs, we’ll take the time in the committee to consider it, we’ll work through it. But very, very clearly when it comes to commerce and consumer affairs, I hope the tin is not empty. I hope Minister Clark has more to bring to the House. I hope that there is a step change—a step change that will shake these things up and make everything work all of the time. I’m sure that actually he didn’t start his speech when he went for selection in Dunedin almost 11 years ago with “Send me to Parliament. I want to set some standards when it comes to retail payment systems in New Zealand.”

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to move beyond our previous speaker. The previous speaker did mention something several times around this tiny piece of legislation. He mentioned only several million dollars of money that was going on on this side of the House, but I did look it up: this is going to save merchants $74 million a year. We know where that goes. It gets passed on, right? Seventy-four million gets passed on. So I’m really proud to be standing and supporting this piece of legislation this evening.

I look at the different systems around credit cards and fees, and, to be honest, you know, there’s early adopters, there’s the early and late majority, and there’s the laggards. For many things I’m a bit of a laggard, to be honest, but for many things I’m an early adopter when it comes to social change, when it comes to technology and systems. I do remember particularly payWave when it was introduced, and thought “What a ridiculous, stupid, weird idea. It’s fast enough doing your four digits and pressing your buttons—that type of thing.” But now I can’t do without payWave. It’s just something we use all the time. It’s been great that we have ensured that we froze payWave fees at this time, obviously, in a global pandemic, to ensure the safety of our people. But this piece of legislation is ensuring that we get it right when it comes to merchant fees.

Now, I won’t go into too much detail, but many years ago I actually owned a coffee cart. I was a small-business owner myself, and so I know the challenges when it comes to what types of cards, because of the fees that I had to pay and that I wasn’t able to provide for my customers, because I had a very small but effective business. So I’m really glad to be supporting this legislation. As a member of the select committee, of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I look forward to hearing submissions on this and to supporting this piece of legislation through to the next stage.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I’m standing here to talk on the Retail Payment System Bill, first reading. Wow, I’m just sitting, looking at the Minister, and saying: is this as good as it gets? Obviously we want to see fees reduced over time, but, gee, we’re going to take up—what—an hour and a half. What’s that worth in terms of time spent in Parliament? What’s that worth? About a million bucks—a million bucks? And so no doubt the select committee is going to have a great deal of time looking at this and considering it.

Look, there’s no doubt that we want to see fees reduced as much as possible. But as my colleague the Hon Todd McClay said, in the scheme of events this is pretty small beer. I can understand why Retail New Zealand, Hospitality New Zealand, and the Restaurant Association all wanted to support it. It’s fine; it will do some good. But it’s not going to be a game-changer, unfortunately, particularly right now, when you’ve got those industries—retail, hospitality, accommodation, events sector—who are just crying out for support, and we’re putting up a bill like this tonight.

Why, on Friday, didn’t Mr Grant Robertson actually do something meaningful for them? He did nothing in his thing, because nothing will help them more than actually helping them with things like insurance schemes for the event sector, allowing retail operations to actually operate, and allowing people to come in and buy stuff from their shops, or, in fact, for the restaurant people to actually work in the streets, actually have places out on the street so they can entertain people and get some money coming in. Instead, what we’ve got is a bill like this tonight. This is not that important, Dr Clark. What we should be talking about is what is really important—those thousands of businesses, particularly in Auckland, and the Waikato now, who are just going to die over the next three weeks until they finally can apply for their next increased resurgence payment, which has been delayed for three weeks before they can even apply for it. That is the difference between this bill and what the Government really should be focused on.

I think it’s just interesting how much time that the committee will spend debating a thing like this. Look, just get it through the House. Everyone agrees with that. It doesn’t need a lot of time. As a Government, Labour should be focusing on the big stuff. And I think you’re missing the big stuff when it comes to a bill like this, because right now, in the next three weeks, thousands more of those retail, hospitality, accommodation, events people who will use these types of payments will fail—will fail—and as a result, they’ll lose all their life savings. And, worse than that, the people that they employ will end up on the job seeker benefit and they will stay there, as we’ve got, and we’ve seen since the first lockdown, 56,000 who have joined the job seeker unemployment benefit since the first lockdown in March last year and are still on the job seeker benefit.

So, of course we support this, but this is not that important in the scheme of stuff. What the Government should be talking about is some real stuff to stop these people losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and all the other stuff that’s really creating carnage in places like the Auckland and Waikato regions.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak, but I must say that on the other side of the House the volume seems to have been getting louder. There is a microphone there. We can hear you. The emotion that is coming from the other side of the House is just unbelievable—he might need a bit of Berocca!

Anyway, back to the bill—back to the bill. This bill is actually a very, very practical bill; a practical bill that is going to have an immediate impact on the shoppers, the people, the customers, saving money—$74 million. Apparently that is not even worth it on the other side of the House. This side of the House believes that every dollar is a dollar well spent. It goes round and round into the economy. That’s what is important and that is why this legislation is so critical for just keeping things going for small businesses as well.

How many of us have gone into a shop and gone to use the card, and the business owner says, “Oh no, we don’t have payWave, because they’re charging us too much.”? Those little transactions, those quick things, and in a COVID world where we want to make sure that we have every safety mechanism possible.

The other thing I would like to say is businesses are resilient. I’ve been a small-business owner. In fact, I might be one of the only small-business owners that are in the House speaking tonight. I can tell you that I know what it is like—20 years in small business. People are innovative. We work through things like this. That is what makes small business the big part of the economy that will keep going strong and we’ll keep going for it. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to acknowledge the verbal Berocca that we got over there from that corner of the House. I won’t need my credit card for that one, but I believe that will keep me going for the rest of the night.

This bill will create a regulatory system for merchant fees for debit and credit networks, payWave and other similar service fees, which are increasingly used more than EFTPOS, and this delivers on a Government commitment made in 2020. So, good on them. We will be supporting this bill, because we know that credit card transactions are the main method of retail payment in Aotearoa New Zealand and are routed through either the “switch to issuer” or the “switch to acquire” systems, and so ensuring those technologies and systems work for everyday people is critical.

We heard about the carnage—they used the word “carnage” in the corner there as well. It’s so good to hear that passion about merchant service fees. I would like to see that passion sometime around climate change or the COVID crisis and all those other sorts of crises in front of us.

The Greens support reducing compliance costs for businesses. We know—and I’m taking this from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) March 2021 regulatory impact statement—that our payment systems are not fully working for consumers and merchants. Merchants end up paying a disproportionate cost of retail payment systems, which end up being passed on to the consumers, and for too long, we’ve relied on voluntary industry initiatives to address these issues, without meaningful outcomes.

Just going back briefly on the issue of costs of merchant service fees being passed on to consumers through the price of goods and services, we know this disadvantages low-income people while only occasionally benefiting high-income earners. Some of the retail payment cost that is passed on to consumers is used to fund rewards and other inducements for using credit cards. MBIE estimates merchants have to increase their prices to all consumers by around $187 million per year to fund rewards paid to certain credit card users. Due to the way credit card rewards schemes are structured, this leads us to an annual regressive cross-subsidy of $59 million from low-income to high-income households. This is effectively a trickle-up scheme, where some of our lowest-income people are subsidising a system that only works for those with the means to reap its rewards. That’s why we are supportive of this bill, the Government’s intent to create a regulatory system for merchant service fees for debit and credit networks. On that, we support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Retail Payment System Bill. ACT opposes this bill for a number of reasons, but mainly because ACT believes in free markets and the less Government has to do with things, the better outcome for all. Having a Minister put his two cents in—or her two cents in—often creates more problems, even if it might look good on paper. I suppose the Government can espouse how much they care about and understand small businesses, but the unintended consequences in this bill must be considered, because Government intervention in private transactions over time will eventually hurt the very people it purports to help.

This bill will reduce competition in the sector. Why bother coming up with new innovations, new technology if you’re going to be told how to use it? Why would new providers want to enter the market knowing that there will be a Minister making sure they’re not too successful? A sector that’s constantly changing needs investment, not restrictive regulations. Submissions in the select committee from ANZ, Business New Zealand, Visa, and Westpac said that the Government should not intervene by way of regulation. They noted that market forces have been and continue to drive competition, and if the profits available within the payment system can be reduced by regulation, their ability to develop new services that will benefit merchants and consumers will be adversely impacted. This sort of tinkering and interfering with the way business is run as unhelpful.

Several years ago, I met with my business banking manager to discuss merchant fees, among other things. After some negotiation—and I mentioned other banks in the process, during that negotiation—the fees were reduced to what I thought was fair. Negotiation with providers already happens. Businesses don’t need someone to hold their hand to make sure they run their business the way the Government thinks they should, to be told what surcharge they can charge if they choose to charge one.

Over the last two years, providers have cut merchants fees for a period of time to reflect the COVID-19 impact. It shows that there is already competition in the system. Small businesses are going through a hard time—in fact, they have been for the last four years, and it’s great that the Government are trying to help. Taking control isn’t helping. It just seems like the Ministers want control of everything. We’ve seen many examples of that over the last year, and there’s a name for it.

It’s estimated that a 20 percent reduction of credit card interchange and a 30 percent reduction in online fees would equate to savings, for consumers, of merchants’ fees of about $74 million. There are 550,000 businesses in New Zealand. Divided up, it amounts to about $130 each. Businesses are doing it tough during this pandemic. They’ve continually been hit with more costs by this Government. We’ve had two minimum wage rises with no expectation of increased productivity and at a huge cost to businesses. The first rise was two weeks into the pandemic, when businesses were forced to close their doors. We’ve had a new public holiday, which will cost businesses between $377 million and $444 million. There’s been the doubling of sick leave provisions, which will cost businesses almost $2 billion. Seventy-four million dollars isn’t to be sneezed at, but pales into insignificance when we compare it with the extra expenses that have been thrust upon businesses by this Government.

The Government will trumpet about how they care about small businesses while business owners roll their eyes. It’s incredibly frustrating, but it’s quite understandable when we have a Minister of Finance who daily blows his own trumpet and tries to convince the public that the COVID wage subsidy is an example of looking after businesses. The wage subsidy looks after workers, and rightly so, but costs the business money. The business has to administer it, pay holiday pay, and it costs them money, otherwise staff would be on a benefit. I’m sure tomorrow he’ll tell the New Zealand public how the wage subsidy helps business.

This is unnecessary legislation, Government getting involved when there’s absolutely no need. There are many other ways this Government can help business—just by not hurting them any more would be a good start. ACT opposes this bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m intrigued—I’m intrigued by the contributions of that last speaker, Chris Baillie, and I’m intrigued by the contributions of the National Party. You would have thought by listening to Andrew Bayly that they oppose this bill, but, in fact, they agree with it. And you would think, from the party that’s supposedly anti-regulation, apart from when, of course, that impacts on those living in Epsom—they don’t want to see regulation on their flash neighbourhoods—that they would support this too. Well, we’ve just heard a contribution saying how we need to support small business. Well, this bill does exactly that, because what we found is that merchant fees are a disproportionate cost, particularly on small business where they don’t often have an alternative way to accept transactions. And this fee, this regulation, that they may hate, actually will help the people that they stand and advocate for, because it is without regulation—the supposed free market—that is imposing costs on small business. And I note that Chris Baillie has nothing to say. He had a lot to say in support of small business. And I think it might grate him—it might grate him to know that perhaps his business and the businesses of those that support his party will benefit from this bill. It makes absolute sense.

There is no rationale to allow high, unjustified costs on merchant transactions, particularly in the COVID era when many businesses who want to do the right thing—in terms of a public health response, they are limiting or restricting cash transactions—get stung by this because there is no alternative. This Government is acting on it. We campaigned on it. And I can say with the utmost sincerity and honesty that when this policy was announced, I was contacted by local business owners in Wairarapa who said, “Good on you. This will make a big difference for us.” Small business: this Government is delivering on it. We are being consistent in our support for small business. And Chris Baillie may laugh, but he wants to support small businesses. The wage subsidy has supported small businesses, the Government continues to support small businesses, and this bill will do exactly that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It’s really interesting listening to Government members talking about business, because nothing is more obvious than, actually, they know very little about business. They don’t understand the basic way businesses work, the way capital works. They don’t understand how customers are motivated. They don’t understand supply. They don’t understand business. This has been a failing of socialist Labour Governments in New Zealand and around the world for years and years and years, and this Labour Government, this socialist Labour Government, is absolutely no different.

But on this bill, we will support this piece of legislation, not because it is a piece of Labour Party ideology but because, actually, there is a time when, occasionally, small regulation is required, and this is one of them. But Labour’s great plan is actually to regulate business at every opportunity, to issue proclamations from the Beehive about every aspect of individuals’ personal lives—how they live their life, how they spend their money—and particularly when it comes to business. This is a Government that just loves to tell people and businesses how to operate their business. They like the grand gesture, but my colleague Andrew Bayly so clearly and loudly articulated to the Chamber earlier this evening that, actually, this is only a very, very small step, a very modest step, by a Labour Government that usually likes to impose far bigger restrictions and costs on businesses and regulate in a far grander way than just this.

If this is the only way that they were deciding to impose regulation upon business, well, then maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, but over the last few years businesses have had to endure enormous extra cost foisted upon them by this Government for very little reason other than ideological ideals that are more from the textbook in academia than they are from the practical commercial or business world. Those extra costs have added nothing—zero, zip, nada, nothing—to the productivity of New Zealand businesses and actually have done exactly the reverse, and the statistics are very stark.

So when this bill goes to select committee, the select committee will need to be cognisant of the fact that pre-Delta something like 12,000 New Zealand businesses have ceased to trade—and that was pre-Delta. Goodness knows what the number is now, after what someone has just reminded me is the 70th consecutive day that Auckland has been lockdown. There will be literally thousands of businesses—many of them small businesses—where people have put in their capital, they’ve mortgaged their home, and they’ve put their entire life savings into that business, and then, through no fault of their own, a Government that is cruel and heartless has seen fit to provide extra cost on variety of parts of their business: an extra week’s sick leave, rapid increases to the minimum wage, an extra public holiday, and a whole range of other things—and fair pay agreements are coming very shortly. All these extra costs that businesses have to absorb, and without any increase in productivity, are simply something that they either pass on to their customers or try and reduce, and often—too often—the way they reduce costs is actually by reducing the labour component in their business, and that means putting people off. So 12,000 businesses ceased to trade in the last year before Delta; goodness only knows what it is after Delta, after 70 days of lockdown.

One thing that COVID has taught us is that cashless forms of payment have become more common, and there’s actually nothing wrong with that. There will be many, many small businesses who have had to absorb the cost of the fees that are associated with cashless payments, and this is a bill that’s designed to at least create an even playing field. But we should never forget that we are a very small market place, and when we regulate even in a light-handed way, it has consequences. We are a small market place, something smaller than the size of metropolitan Sydney, which we should never forget, and we are a nation of small businesses. There are always going to be winners and losers when consequential regulatory reform of this sort takes place, and someone will pay, and, ultimately, it will be customers. Someone will pay, because those costs don’t disappear; they just get moved around and shifted somewhere else within our economy.

So, look, we’ll support the bill. We’ll have a look at it at select committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Retail Payment System Bill. I just want to make the point that—because members opposite have been claiming that this somehow is regulating small business—this isn’t a bill that regulates small business; it is a bill that regulates the merchant service fees charged by banks.

Just in the short amount of time I had to do some research on this bill, I just want to note that a KPMG report from June this year showed that, in the March quarter, banks made an increased profit of 20 percent on the previous December quarter. Banks are the ones who are charging these fees, and they are making billions of profits at the expense of small businesses.

I’ve visited a number of small businesses in my electorate, and often, if I go to pay and they don’t have payWave, they’re incredibly apologetic and they say to me, “I really would like to have payWave. I’d really like to be able to use it, but I can’t afford it, because the fees that are charged to me are just far too high. They stop me from being able to offer the technology that, I know, customers like.”, and also the Government wishes for them to use it in order to protect customers from touching buttons, and the like.

So, look, this is an excellent bill. It is disappointing to hear pot-shots about it being regulatory against small business—it is not. I note it has gone very quiet on the other side there. This is a bill designed to support small businesses—our cafes, our restaurants, our accommodation providers, and our retail sector—so that they can offer a technology that is safer for customers and safer for their staff, so that they are not continuing to be stung by outrageous fees that make that technology unavailable. So, on that note, it is a pleasure to take a call and I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It’s often said that the less you believe what you’re saying, the louder you say it, and, certainly, some of the speeches we have heard from the opposite side of the House would be an indicator of that. But I say good on them, because when you are confronted with a very good piece of legislation like this, there’s really nowhere else to go but to actually support it. And so support it the Opposition generally have done.

Anyone who goes around their electorate over the next few days and explains what’s happening here to their local dairy owner, to any other small retailer, will get nothing but praise for this. Because you’ve only got to have a look at some of the figures we’re talking about here: average of 1.6 percent per transaction when it’s done with a credit card, 1.2 percent with a debit card. Often, we’re told here that we should be doing it more like the Aussies, more like the English. Well, perhaps, in this case, we could, because in England it’s a 0.2 percent fee on average; in Australia, 0.6. This piece of legislation is designed to bring us in line with those two countries, certainly, and most others, because our retailers, and, as a consequence, our purchasers, are paying far more than they need to.

Some of my colleagues have already spoken about the profits being made by banks. This will come off their bottom line, not off the bottom line of those small to medium businesses and not off the bottom line of consumers. Therefore, it is a very good piece of legislation, which this whole House should support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House does support this bill. Despite a few ribbings and rebukes, I can say that Mr McClay thought that Dr David Clark was campaigning on lowering merchant service fees in his candidate speech 11 years ago. I can tell the members that it wasn’t that but eliminating poverty. He’s having a damn sight better go at eliminating merchant service fees than he is about eliminating poverty.

I’m just going to take a—

Hon Simon Bridges: Poverty of ideas.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s exactly right, Mr Bridges. I’m going to take a bit of a walk down memory lane, because my first job after school was actually in retail banking. I was in the National Bank in Dunedin North branch at a time of cheque writing and zip-zaps. That was the way we transacted business, and a couple of our—

Hon Simon Bridges: And look at him now!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —clients—thank you, Mr Bridges—were student pubs in Dunedin. And on a Monday after a busy weekend they would come in literally with a satchel full of cheques, and the cheques were written in various stages of inebriation, usually not for very much—about $10 or $15—and often by the same account holder three or four times during the evening. It was quite interesting to watch: the handwriting changed the more cheques they wrote.

Of course, in those days cheques were subject to bounce, and so the merchants took quite a bit of a risk in accepting a cheque. You would probably hand over some form of ID, but those poor students, with their bursary backstop accounts, often got into overdraft more than their limit, and those cheques bounced back. With credit cards, of course, payment was guaranteed, and that’s where the zip-zap comes in. I’m sure Mr O’Connor remembers the awful, awful National Bank ad of that fellow in a three-piece suit dancing along the Parnell shopping mall, saying something like “Zip-zap, the only card you really need is National Bank Visa.” And it was a very good card, but, of course, there was a whole pile of paper to be processed and the overhead of the Visa companies guaranteeing payment.

So in the 1970s and 1980s, when credit card use was a growing but very manual process, it was probably quite acceptable to the merchants to have what was then a 3 or 3.5 percent service fee in return for the fact that once that transaction was completed, it was guaranteed payment into the merchant’s bank account. Now, if you fast forward through the advent of the ATM and then the EFTPOS machine and then tap-and-go technology, we are long past the point where there was any risk, firstly, either in cheques—because I don’t know if anybody writes a cheque these days. Most banks don’t even issue them. So there’s—

Hon Simon Bridges: Stuart Nash knows—Nashy knows a bit about tap and go!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Ha, ha! I won’t even repeat that to put it on the Hansard—or maybe I just have. But, obviously, there’s guaranteed payment through the EFTPOS system, and, of course, there’s no advantage to the merchants with the tap-and-go system for Visas, because they already had a guaranteed payment. The banks, of course, had the great benefit of not having to process manually those millions of bits of paper, and so they, I think, for years have been generating merchant service fees for a reason which has long since been made redundant. As Mr Bennett said, I think, the cost was something like about $74 million, not on the merchant; almost probably three quarters of those costs are passed on to the customers. One could argue that the customer has a choice not to use their credit card, but it has become a very convenient way of paying and then getting interest-free credit for 55 days. So there is actually a real benefit to doing so.

Normally, I would say that the State should not interfere with the private arrangements of purchaser and provider, but I am going to suspend that philosophical view on this bill because, actually, I think unless there’s a circuit breaker, this will continue to be free money for banks, because, as I say, the reason for having the fee in the first place has long since passed. There’s a small fee maxima in here. That makes sense. I hope—well, it is a forlorn hope—that the Government doesn’t take this as carte blanche to interfere with other transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. Indeed, they’re already doing that. They’re doing that in private contract law between landlord and tenant through the omnibus bill and COVID-19, and a plethora of other unnecessary State interventions on private transactions. But on this one, I can see the need, if not the merit, for doing so.

So we’ll support this at first reading. We’ll be interested in what the merchants, the customers, the banks, and, of course, the credit card companies will have to say about this. They’ll probably have to swallow the rat and pretend that they like it and that it’s good for their business. I doubt that it is, but I also doubt that they’re going to be losing too much sleep over the lost revenue. What will be good, though, is that this will ultimately benefit the consumers as much as the merchants, and, for that, that’s a good thing.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It was interesting to listen to the speech of Michael Woodhouse, and at around five minutes I was able to work out that he was actually supporting the bill and his reasons for it. And I did get a good lesson in cheque writing and student behaviour, so thank you for that. But Andrew Bayly talked about this bill as being a small affair, and I think that’s really indicative of the attitude that the other side of the House shows to small business in New Zealand. They’re suggesting that $74 million doesn’t mean much. Actually, the Stuff website has done an analysis that shows that small businesses stand to save around $13,000 difference in fees each in the hospitality business compared to their Australian counterparts. That’s a significant amount of money for businesses that operate on small margins. And if we look at how many small businesses there are in New Zealand, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand, have 50 employees or under. So this is not a small deal to them, and they make up a third of New Zealand employees. Lots and lots of people stand to benefit from this legislation. This is not a small deal.

Chris Baillie, I couldn’t quite understand his logic around the wage subsidy not helping businesses but the workers. On this side of the House, the workers are the business. When there are 50 employees or less in a business, those people make up that workforce. It is their sweat that makes up those businesses. And that wage subsidy that this Government has introduced is not only helping those workers and the business, it’s helping cash flow, and getting cash flow into the economy is helping the economic recovery. And can I just remind the House that the economy expanded 2.8 percent in the June 2021 quarter and 12 of the 16 industries recorded growth in the June quarter. So this is not a small deal.

I also don’t think it’s fair to my friend and colleague and fantastic MP for Dunedin, David Clark, to say that this is the bill that he’s standing on. Minister Clark has introduced a suite of measures around unfair competition, including the section 36 amendments in the Commerce Amendment Bill. He’s done the reports into the dominance of the food and grocery sectors, and a number of other things that look specifically at anti-competitive behaviour. So this is a fantastic bill. I am really thrilled to be supporting my friend and colleague Dr Clark and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Retail Payment System Bill be now read a first time.

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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Retail Payment System Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Instruction to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Retail Payment System Bill be reported back to the House by 3 March 2022.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Remuneration Authority Legislation 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 STUART NASH: I move, That the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. This bill will enhance public confidence in our judicial system by making changes relating to the responsibility to determine the remuneration of some of our statutory and judicial officers. Judicial independence is a core pillar of any democracy, and independent judiciary protects the citizenry from the arbitrary use of power by the executive. Security of remuneration is one of the measures that enable officers to discharge their duties without fear or favour or any undue influence.

There are currently two mechanisms in New Zealand for determining the remuneration of judicial and statutory officers. One is the Cabinet Fees Framework, administered by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission on behalf of the executive. The other is the Remuneration Authority, an independent statutory body that determines remuneration for judicial statutory officers that need to have, and to be seen to have, independence from Government.

The key differences between these two mechanisms is the degree of independence from the executive. This bill transfers the responsibility for determining the remuneration from some of the judicial statutory officers from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority on the basis that they need to have, or be seen to have, greater independence from the Government because of the judicial responsibilities associated with their roles.

Some of the officers that this bill seeks to transfer are officers who are already judicial decision makers but whose remuneration are currently determined under the Cabinet Fees Framework; these include community magistrates of the District Court, and commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court. Secondly, the bill transfers disputes tribunal referees and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority. Disputes tribunal referees hear the majority of the substantive cases fought before the civil jurisdiction of the District Court. Both disputes tribunal referees and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators have had significant increases in their jurisdiction over the past couple of years. As crucial members of our legal system, it is important that the officers presiding over these matters are seen as independent of the Government.

I am of the view that this transfer will enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of these tribunals. This is particularly important as these officers deal with cases that the ordinary New Zealander is greatly affected by, such as: their conditions of living, disputes between individuals, and grievances against a business.

The bill also chairs the deputy chairperson and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the purview of the Remuneration Authority, as these officers hear appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration. It is important that officers who hear appeals from decisions of Government Ministers are seen to be independent of the executive and unable to be influenced through their remuneration to be partial to a Government decision.

The last of the officers to whom this bill relates are the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, who have the authority to declare an Act of Parliament inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Any officers with a significant power, such as this, should be given extra protection to ensure its independence. For this reason, the bill transfers the responsibility for determining the remuneration of the chair and deputy chairs of the tribunal from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority. To implement these transfers, the bill creates permanent legislative authorities under the relevant legislation.

I understand and endorse the principles that underpin the Cabinet Fees Framework, but also acknowledge that some officers need to be and need to be seen to be independent of the Government. For this reason, I consider it necessary that the responsibility for determining the remuneration of these judicial and statutory officers be transferred from the Cabinet Fees Framework administered by the executive to the independent Remuneration Authority in order to enforce the independence of these officers from the Government’s influence.

Finally, I consider the select committee process to be very important. I encourage members of the public to have their say on the bill when the committee calls for submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It has been a long-held, a deeply held, a sincerely held desire of mine over a number of years in this Parliament to speak on a remuneration bill. So tonight is a special night. In that regard, I suppose, I do tick something off my bucket list, and it is really good to do that. I just want to commend the Minister Stuart Nash. I know this is not his bill; it is the Hon Sir Aupito William Sio’s bill. But, clearly, Minister Nash put a lot of time into that speech. He thought a lot about the issues. So I just want to say that we appreciate that on this side of the House, the sort of attention that Ministers like Minister Nash give. I know he has got a lot going on. He is on Hosking tomorrow morning. It is a big time for him. But we appreciate that. I also accept what he says, and I’m sure there will be a lot of submissions on this bill, because there is so much in it.

This is an omnibus bill, and, of course, not all omnibus matters are correct or are appropriate. That is where there are disparate laws that are being changed as a result of one bill. They either are or they aren’t in line with the Standing Orders, in Standing Order 267(1)(a) in particular. But here, of course, for the reasons that Minister Nash has outlined, that is because there is an overarching theme here of transferring responsibility for remuneration determination for these various disparate quasi-judicial roles and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority—well, then, an omnibus bill is appropriate and is within the Standing Orders.

The reason, of course, that we are able to do that and that National will support this bill is that it is right—in light of the judicial roles, the statutory functions that these various officers and quasi-judicial roles have—that they are removed, that they are independent, and that they are paid, bluntly. That is, their remuneration, their conditions that go with the pay are removed from this place, from Parliament, from the executive, and from anything that might be influenced by this place.

In the list of those offices that are affected by this bill and will be one step, or distanced—appropriately—from this place and the executive, are the chair and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal. In inflationary times, I might say—and I’m not seeking to be unduly flippant on this bill—but these various offices, I would have thought, might be somewhat glad to be removed from the hurly-burly of this.

MPs are expected to don sack cloth and walk around the streets, yelling, “Unclean, unclean.”, and begging not to be paid more. Whereas here, actually, we’ve got a bill that makes quite clear they may not be paid less—any Remuneration Authority determination that is to happen every year can only be the same or more. That is appropriate.

I would, though, and I do, again, I suppose, not so subtly, note the quite clear contrast to members of Parliament. I well remember in Cabinet and in Government, the situations where Remuneration Authority chairs would come and would be—I shouldn’t say “come”, but by correspondence—making quite clear that they thought, in terms of the context and what others in similar positions were being paid and so on, we should be getting pay rises. Clearly, in political terms, given the environment we are in, that wasn’t deemed appropriate, and we’d be, in no uncertain terms, going back and saying, “No. Don’t put our terms, our conditions, our salaries, and the various other matters that make remuneration, up.” So that is the difference with this place.

And, I think, again, perhaps not so subtly, what that means is that with our accountability in this place to the people, with election cycles and so on, we have the right to play politics, to do politics, and to speak politically in a way that those who are also, in the broader sense, part of the Government, but in judicial and quasi-judicial positions, don’t. And they get that distanced, independent Remuneration Authority process in terms of the ongoing surety and ratcheting up of their remuneration.

We do support this bill. It is right that these are independent. I’m sure it will be an interesting select committee process that Mr Nash and I can both watch with that great interest.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. When Simon Bridges gets up to start a speech, you think, “Is he actually going to do 10 minutes on this?”, and he nearly made it, I was impressed. I wasn’t quite sure what the position was, but it’s a pleasure to hear that National will be supporting this bill and it will be going through to the Justice Committee. I look forward to hearing those submissions. I can see from the speech before that the other member is also very excited.

So, in a nutshell, what does this do? Well, there’s two ways you can get paid in terms of some of these key roles that have been discussed. The first one is the Cabinet Fees Framework and the second is the Remuneration Authority. Essentially, what this bill does is it makes a swap for a number of key entities. You may well ask, “How did that come about?” Well, there was a review. An independent principles-based review was undertaken by a chap called Martin Jenkins in 2018, and it was established that there were some key roles that—the principal difference between the Remuneration Authority and the Cabinet Fees Framework is the degree of independence from the Government on those remuneration decisions.

So on the basis of that review, there are six entities, there are six areas that will be transferring in order to have greater transparency and for the members of the New Zealand general public to have a greater level of understanding that it’s an arm’s length from Government. So those six entities are: disputes tribunal referees, community magistrates of the District Court, the chairperson and deputy of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the deputy and the members Immigration and Protection Tribunal, the environment commissioners and deputy of the Environment Court, and, finally, Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.

So, in a nutshell, what this does is it transfers over to those entities and it basically enhances public confidence in our judicial system by making those changes. I look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee and hearing the numerous submissions that we’ll receive on this.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill—so for the benefit of members of the public interested in watching, viewing, this evening’s debate, remuneration, of course is—it’s known—money paid for work or service, and this bill is specific to the judicial or quasi-judicial services provided here in Aotearoa New Zealand

The bill is a simple change which will give an added layer of political neutrality to the setting of fees for judicial officers, and that’s been canvassed by previous speakers in the House this evening. The Remuneration Authority is seen as the fair, the independent body who should be tasked with determining remuneration for the judicial officers. So the Remuneration Authority already sets the various rates or remuneration for judges, including justices of the Supreme Court; so the judicial independence from Government is important as it enhances public confidence in the operation of the law and the importance of the separations of the powers of State, which is the executive, the Government; the legislature, we as parliamentary members forming Parliament to make and pass laws; and, of course, the judiciary, the judges, who are affected, and quasi-judicial officers affected in this setting of their remuneration.

This bill is to pass into law with amendments, and it’s referred to and known as an omnibus bill to deal with six other Acts. Now, it may seem that I’m stating the obvious to members of Parliament who are here this evening but I’m always mindful that we are addressing members of the public who are listening in. So this omnibus bill is looking at amending six other pieces of law to transfer the responsibility for determining the remuneration of the following judicial officers—and it’s been addressed in part by members this evening. Those are judicial officers of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, namely the chairperson and deputy chairperson; community magistrates of the District Court, who have already had their remuneration addressed under the District Courts Act; the commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court; members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal; referees of the disputes tribunal; and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

So, as I said, the bill is a simple change but it’s an important one for the very reason of ensuring that separation of the powers which form or are known as the branches of powers of the Crown, of the State. The background to this bill is that an independent principles-based review was undertaken to determine whether the Cabinet Fees Framework or the Remuneration Authority is the more appropriate mechanism. It’s on the recommendation of that review that this bill is now before the House. It’s before the House, as I’ve said, addressing the remuneration, the rates, and the apportionment of that to the appointment of judges and quasi-judicial officers.

As I’ve said in the House before, when I rise to speak on a matter that I am conversant with, I will always attempt to relate or co-relate that back to persons who give service. I wish to acknowledge the recent appointment of now Justice Layne Harvey, who has presided as a Māori Land Court judge for the last 19 years and, of course, knows full well the impact of the Remuneration Authority and the setting of the pay scale and rates. But it’s appropriate that I acknowledge him for his ascension to the High Court to join Justice Christian Whata, and I mention both of them specifically as they were former student peers when we were at Auckland Law School.

I also acknowledge, appropriately, Judge Frances Eivers, who has been appointed as the new Children’s Commissioner, to take office as of 1 November. So Judge Eivers, again like Judge Harvey, is conversant with the powers of the State and the Remuneration Authority, and Judge Eivers brings a depth and breadth of experience to the bench in her service, as Justice Harvey does, with their tenure of service as judges on the bench. I also acknowledge the recent appointment of three Māori Land Court judges who will soon become familiar with the Remuneration Authority, and they are judges Te Kani Williams, again a former Auckland Law School student peer, graduate, and servant of the law; Judge Aidan Warren; and Judge Rachel Mullins. And it’s appropriate that I seize that opportunity, because it does have bearing on the relevance of this bill soon to be passed into law, which is supported as being appropriate from the National Party.

The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill will come before the select committee, which is the Justice Committee, and I don’t have the privilege of presiding there. However, it will be interesting to see the extent of any submissions that are made to this. I’m cognisant of the time when I served as a District Court lawyer, the service that was given by the magistrates in the court. They are known as quasi-judicial officers because they do not have a law degree, but they have a depth and level of experience of service in the law through their respective community engagements. I’ve outlined the other areas in terms of the tribunals and the commissions and the courts which will be affected, appropriately, by the transfer of the decision-making authority from Government, under the Cabinet Fees Framework, to the independent Remuneration Authority.

Also, what I didn’t hear addressed in the House this evening is that this bill will affect the making of five new permanent legislative authorities. They are to be established to authorise the payments made from public money without a specific appropriation from Parliament, and these permanent legislative authorities are required because the remuneration for these officers is to be determined independently of the Government. I stress, importantly, that separation of the branches of power. This bill will ensure that. And, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise with great enthusiasm, possibly even equal to the enthusiasm of my colleague Mr Bridges, to speak on this bill tonight, because this is a really important piece of legislation. There is nothing more important than the separation of powers and the fact that there are people out there in the world holding the people in this room to account and the people in the executive to account. There is nothing more important than the independence of the judiciary in the operation of our democracy, or at least it’s at least as important as the other things that hold our democracy together.

I remember nearly a year ago sitting over there in the very, very backbenches when Black Rod banged on the door. It took me straight back to my years in Tikipunga High School in Whangārei and the teachings of the now Dr Brent Mawson, when he described the beginnings of the code of judicial independence in the years leading up to the English Civil War and the brave, brave work of judges like Sir Edward Coke, who took on King James, a despot and a tyrant if there ever was one, and refused to cede him absolute power. It was in those moments that we began to become a democracy that endures to this day and will be considerably strengthened and protected again by what might seem a small matter, but is never a small matter when it comes to the protection of our democracy. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party, also, surprisingly, in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, controversial as it seems to be. Though, actually I’m going to change tack and actually have my words mean what I say, unlike Simon Bridges’ speech, which mostly seemed to be kind of sliding under the radar.

So this is a pretty simple and technical bill, actually. It’s following through on a review by MartinJenkins from 2018 looking at whether the setting for judicial and statutory officers’ pay should be—was it being appropriately managed through the Cabinet fund process? They concluded that community magistrates, disputes tribunal referees, environment commissioners, deputy environment commissioners are judicial decision makers and their remuneration should be determined independently of Government by the Remuneration Authority, and that there were some grey areas in coverage from the Cabinet processes, which was, effectively, set by the executive that gave, while not super close—but the ability for executive to influence the work of the judiciary by setting pay rates and influencing those pay rates.

So this bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and six other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for the fees following judicial officers: the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

So this is important, and I think the last speech gave us the history of some of the times of where the judicial independence really protected the people from governing arrangements that had gone awry. It is something that is really important for us to protect. It is central to public trust and ensuring that shifting this to the Remuneration Authority, I think, also increases a sense of fairness and transparency when it comes the pay scale of judiciary and judicial officers, and, in particular, for those decision makers whose work impacts on the rights and welfare of the public. The Greens would say it’s also important that pay scales remain reflective of the important and difficult work being done by the group covered by this bill. They, respectively, make decisions affecting people’s liberty in fair processing criminal proceedings, access to our human rights and non-discrimination laws, environment protections, and the rights of renters to secure adequate housing, among other things; so playing a pretty critical role in our society. We want to make sure that that work is not undermined by any potential undercutting of their pay that could unintentionally or intentionally force people out of doing that work.

So I guess the next steps beyond this bill are for there to be fairness and transparency measures right across our public sector and our society, indeed, where all of the really critical roles in our society are fairly paid and relative to each other. So the Greens are happy to support this bill.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Aupito William Sio, for bringing this bill to the House. The purpose of this bill is to transfer the determination of fees from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority, and that was done off the back of a review, which has already been discussed at length by several members. The review has, of course, found that there are sets of judiciary personnel, I guess is what we’ll call them, that are actually currently being paid by the Government’s fee regime. And I think it’s really important that we do ensure that there is independence between the judiciary and the Government, especially when it comes to public trust, because that public trust and confidence has been wavering quite a lot recently, especially when we look at—I don’t know; it’s not judiciary—Government payments to media. And then we have the public thinking, of course, that the media are doing the Government’s work for them and not giving them the full story.

So I think it’s really important that we have that balance where, when we are working within the judiciary, we do have that independence and there cannot be a claim that Government is buying off the justice system. Because, with some of the things that have been happening within our justice system more recently, especially with being soft on crime as an example, you would think that there is some payment possibly going on there, although it’s not. And the review itself found that, in order to make sure that we have a clear line, we should actually remove that framework away from the Government and give it to the Remuneration Authority. And ACT does support that.

Several members here tonight have talked about the members of the judiciary who this will affect, and, while they have named them, I thought I would just go a little bit further and name actually what they do, because that puts a bit of context behind why we need to separate them. So, for example, the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal come under this regime, and it’s important that they do, because each case that they hear, they chair—or the deputy will chair it—and they have two panel members there. And I note also that those panel members don’t come under this review; it’s just the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. And the review actually found that their jurisdiction is comparable to that of a judge. So, with that high importance, you would expect that they should be moved into the new regime.

Community magistrates at the District Court—they’re, effectively, hearing the cases that a District Court judge would be hearing. So, again, it makes sense that they would be moved into the new regime. Environment commissioners—they’re deputies of the Environment Court. Again, it’s another court, and they hear a lot of appeals. They are skilled workers with lots of qualifications that make decisions that affect the environment and also their local councils as well. So it does make sense that they are also moved into the new regime. Members and deputy chairs of Immigration and the Protection Tribunal—now, it’s really important that they, when hearing appeals, hear them as being independent from Government, especially when a lot of those appeals actually involve the Minister of Immigration. So pulling those two apart and having a separate regime will stop any accusations, especially when there are people who have been given residency or access to come into New Zealand and then create terror while they’re here.

Then, of course, there are the tenancy adjudicators and the Tenancy Tribunal. These are already chaired by a District Court judge, but it puts the remuneration determinations for the other tribunal members in the hands of the Remuneration Authority, just as it does for those judges that are chairing over the Tenancy Tribunal. And then there’s the disputes tribunal referees, which, of course, come under a division of the District Court, and referees also need to be qualified. So, again, it makes sense.

So, as we went through this bill and we listed all of those different areas that needed to be moved over to the Remuneration Authority and away from the fees framework, we agreed wholeheartedly that it was really important that they are moved away, because it’s important—they are important roles and we want to make sure that there is no conflict. We want to make sure that these people that are administering the Government’s legislation can do so independently, because this will help ensure that we have trust and confidence between the public and the judiciary. We think this will go a long way towards mending some of that trust and confidence that has already been lost. It just goes to show the Government will not be paying for the outcomes that these courts determine. So the importance of the work that they do, the qualifications of these people that are in these jobs, and the relevance of the work that they do, we wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be some independence in those determinations, for the reasons I outlined just through this speech.

So we’re quite happy to support this bill. We think that it’s a good job well done, and we look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee, where we can hear some of the other ideas from submitters and look to put this bill forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the call on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. A year into this role—this vocation, is it?—as a member of Parliament for New Plymouth, an honour is also a word that comes to mind, there’s many, many things you learn and many things you have to learn quickly. Understanding remuneration, understanding the courts, understanding things that I never knew or even cared a lot about, to be honest, because I knew it just worked and operated. But this piece of legislation is around ensuring integrity in our democracy—that it gives the public confidence in our system. There’s often words we hear thrown around around transparency, impartiality, integrity, and this piece of legislation is around that.

This bill was initiated after an independent, principles-based review concluded that the Remuneration Authority, rather than the Cabinet Fees Framework, is the most appropriate mechanism for setting the remuneration of statutory and judicial officers administered by the Minister of Justice. Some pretty big words that I’m learning a year in! Let’s be honest, the Plain Language Bill last week was significant for me, as we go on, and I want lots of plain language and lots of—I was going to say four letter words, but that’s probably unhelpful—shorter words around this. Anyway, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill is around the remuneration for some roles that can be defined as judicial in nature and are under the authority of the Cabinet Fees Framework, which is led and determined by the executive.

Now, this bill requires more than two minutes of conversation. It’s important stuff. As I said, it’s around transparency; it’s around digging deep into what is important. In 1977, actually, I was two years old, and I do vaguely remember when this was actually brought into this House and passed—I don’t, actually, but I was two years old. I know you think I probably wasn’t born for another 10 or 20 years but I had been. And, of course, someone talked around the omnibus. This is around six other Acts in terms of legislation, and it’s around the Cabinet Fees Framework and the authority. I know a Green MP and colleague mentioned it earlier, but it’s around the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, it’s around the community magistrates of the District Court, it’s around environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, it’s also around members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, it’s also around referees of the disputes tribunals, tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal, so it covers a lot. And like I said before, the fact that it’s bringing it into the Remuneration Authority—I’ve almost got that word right—rather than the Cabinet Fees Framework.

Now, the remuneration of these officers that I just mentioned earlier will remain the same until the Remuneration Authority makes its first determination. Now, Madam Speaker, I would like you to know that I don’t drink when I’m on precinct, so just in case you’re wondering—I shouldn’t even say that. But I come back to the Plain Language Bill from last week. Thank you very much, Rachel Boyack, who is actually in the Chamber at the moment. That was a mighty piece of legislation that I support, as you can tell, wholeheartedly right now.

So I am grateful to stand here for something that, again, as I said, I’ve often dealt with and worked in spaces where I’m negotiating and working when it comes to—whether it be lawyers, whether it be judges, whether it be in other parts of the judicial system. So for me it is really around that transparency, that impartiality that is important. So as I said—as I began my speech—and I think it sort of feels appropriate to end it that way—

Hon Member: More!

GLEN BENNETT: If I can get my tongue around the words correctly. This piece of legislation is ensuring integrity in our democracy, which gives the public confidence in our system, and for that reason, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill is something I support and I commend to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to hear, as I’m sure other members in the House were, from the previous speaker, Glen Bennett, that he doesn’t imbibe when he’s on the parliamentary precinct, but I couldn’t help but wonder whether he maybe consumed some of the more famous herbal products from the beautiful Coromandel electorate, maybe. To give a speech of that sort is truly remarkable.

I want to give a chocolate fish—a virtual chocolate fish award—to my ACT Party colleague Nicole McKee, who gave, probably by a hair’s breadth, the longest contribution to this debate tonight. That’s actually saying something, because this is a bill that, whilst short in nature, actually doesn’t have an awful lot of detail to go around it in terms of filling out a debate slot. So Nicole McKee gets the virtual chocolate fish award for her contribution tonight.

But other members have spoken widely and extensively about the judicial officers who will be covered by this piece of legislation and the changes that it makes. But many of them have not spoken about the fact that this is actually an omnibus bill, and not only does it seek to provide a formalisation of a very important concept within our constitutional framework in New Zealand—that is the separation of powers and the absolute independence of our judiciary—but what this bill also does is it amends several other statutes, including amongst them the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. The amendments are also made to the District Courts Act 2016, to the Human Rights Act 1993, to the Immigration Act 2009, to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and to the much maligned and already many times amended Resource Management Act 1991.

So not only are these judicial officers now going to have their remuneration and pay rates established with a degree of separation from the Cabinet process—and I think that’s right and proper. In some ways, I’m relatively surprised that maybe this action hasn’t been taken some time before, but now that it’s here, I guess that better late than never is probably a good thing.

One of the judicial officers that is to have their remuneration established under the new regime will be the community magistrates of the District Court. I want to—in the time that’s available to me tonight—put on record my grateful thanks for a group of New Zealanders who perform judicial duties and hold judicial office but receive no remuneration. That’s, of course, our hard-working volunteer justices of the peace, of whom there are about 10,000, I think, around the countryside. I have the privilege of being one of them. But I also had the privilege, recently, of attending the annual general meeting of the Hauraki Justices of the Peace Association. They were in good heart doing good work, but for no remuneration at all—entirely voluntary, unlike the judicial officers in this piece of legislation.

So I want to give them a shout-out, because I think that justices of the peace actually provide a remarkable foundation stone—the framework upon which our entire judicial and legal system is actually formed, because if it was not for the work that they do, our judicial and legal system would come to a grinding halt. Much of the work that they used to do, sitting in District Courts, is now being done in a paid and remunerated way by these community magistrates who sit in the District Courts. I’m not 100 percent convinced that the old system of having volunteer justices of the peace who did not want to be remunerated at all—maybe they were given a small allowance for lunch and sometimes reimbursed for their parking expenses, but that was about the only cost. They did it voluntarily and they did it with keenness and vigour and huge attention to detail.

I think our judicial system has lost something from having so few volunteer justices of the peace actually filling roles that are now being filled by people who are commanding pretty good levels of remuneration in this legislation. So look, maybe we’ll get a chance to tease that out at select committee. National will support this to first reading. We do want to hear what people have to say. On balance, we think it’s probably a good piece of legislation.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I encourage that previous member to actually dip into his pocket and pull out money for an actual chocolate fish for the ACT member of Parliament Nicole McKee. Virtual chocolate fishes—people that give those are called cheapskates where we come from. However, this is about the bill, and I’m very excited to be speaking about this bill tonight. Let’s get the name of it right, because my colleague over here to my left was a little bit [Hums] about it, but it is the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, and it is going to the Justice Committee. I wish them all the best as they traverse through this one.

We’ve heard, debate after debate, people talk about the checks and the balances, the belts and the braces, the trust and the confidence that we need to uphold at every level in this Parliament to ensure that the public of New Zealand have complete faith and confidence in what’s going on here. It’s pretty technical, though, and for those people that are sitting at home, all they really need to know and understand is that what we’re putting in here is an ability to create some independence from the way that remuneration is currently set. So that is an important measure.

Currently, the Cabinet Fees Framework sets a lot of that. A lot of that is going to be transferred over, as you’ve heard in previous speeches, to the Remuneration Authority. Namely, I just wanted to talk out just this little bit in the detail of this bill here, which talks about the different Acts that are going to be affected as that responsibility is transferred from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the authority. So we’re talking about the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. You’re talking about the community magistrates of the District Courts. We’re talking about environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court—also, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

Again, the bureaucracy here is what you’d expect from a bill that sets pay rates for some of our senior officials and those members that have statutory and judicial obligations to our country. The people at home should know that this is a good piece of legislation. It’s getting support from around the House. It is one way that we can ensure that we have trust and faith, belts and braces, checks and balances—however you want to put it—that arm’s length of responsibility from the work that Government does as the executive, the work that they do, compared to outside of that. Creating that independence is incredibly important for ensuring that we have independence in our system.

So for that reason, this is a good piece of legislation. It is going to make sure that we’ve got trust and confidence in our system. It is one of the core pillars of any democracy, that whole idea of the independent judiciary protecting citizens from the arbitrary use of unbridled power that the executive have—

Hon Member: Tell us more!

TĀMATI COFFEY: I will—I will! I’ll give you about a minute 37 more. We’ve got to make sure that that is protected, so making sure that we’ve got security of remuneration as one of the measures that enable officers to be able to discharge their duties without fear or favour or even undue influence as well.

This is a very good piece of legislation. It is going to no doubt get submissions from people that are heavily involved in this, which I’d guess aren’t the majority of New Zealanders out there. But there will be people that do have a point of view on this, and I think that they should feel free to make sure that their submission is heard, which will be open very shortly. They can be heard on any part of the bill that they like. They can go to the Parliament website. They can download it. They can have a look at the different pieces of submissions and advice that have come in around this. But this is a good piece of legislation.

I want to tell you a story, actually. This is a story that has everything to do with remuneration—my first job, actually. I was packing bags at The Warehouse. My first job was actually around making sure that there were people at the checkouts packing stuff into bags at The Warehouse in Lower Hutt at the grand age of 15. I got paid $5.25 for the pleasure of packing other people’s bags. But, actually, it just goes to show that remuneration is incredibly important, and, for that reason, I commend this to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. How good is it to be in the House, yet again, where the House comes together on a piece of legislation like this, and it’s nights like this, as we debate the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, that I refer to. Whenever I go around the Wairarapa electorate, be it in the Wairarapa or the Tararua district or Central Hawke’s Bay, and speak to groups like Probus or Grey Power, where they don’t want a political statement, and, frankly, I don’t really want to give one, either, they just want to hear about the job—the job of being an MP and the job of representing their region—and I talk about moments like this. It might seem at the time to be a bit dreary and all of that sort of stuff, and we hear jokes about offering other members virtual chocolate fishes because they spoke the longest. But, actually, I think these moments are quite important, because what they demonstrate is that more often than people realise, the House can come together and put politics to the side and say to something, as is proposed by this bill, “This makes sense—this makes sense.”

I thought we were going to be there on the previous bill, where I thought it made sense and the vast majority of the members of the House thought it made sense, but this one—the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill—does. It’s a very straightforward and simple bill, but it makes sense. You may have noticed, Madam Speaker and colleagues in the House here, that just like my good friend and colleague Glen Bennett, I struggle to say “remuneration”. It’s just one of those words, but I always say “renumeration”, and Dr Deborah Russell always points out, much to my embarrassment, that I have said it wrong. But this bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, introduced earlier this month, does a pretty simple thing: it transfers responsibility for determining the remuneration of certain judicial and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority to recognise the judicial nature of those positions, and that makes sense to me.

I was a little bit worried. I did ponder as to what we were discussing earlier. Glen Bennett—again, I’ll mention him. He was accused by the Hon Scott Simpson of using the purple products from the Coromandel.

Hon Member: Disgusting—awful.

KIERAN McANULTY: Well, I didn’t know—was it awful, or was it disgusting? I didn’t know. What on earth is a purple product? I don’t know. I thought perhaps he was talking about cannabis, but perhaps it was one of those old man’s sayings. It was like when you’re talking to your grandfather and he tells you about the time you could get a gallon of gas for a threepence. You know, I just thought it was one of these old-fashioned sayings.

So I googled it. I googled “purple products”, and I couldn’t find anything except the Green Elephant lavender shop in Coromandel. So perhaps that’s what Scott Simpson was referring to. I imagine—just referring to the comments of previous speakers—and I would like to say that he is a well-kempt man, is our Glen Bennett, and it would not surprise me if he went to the Green Elephant lavender shop in the Coromandel.

This bill will enhance public confidence, because, ultimately, we are in a unique position in that New Zealand stands at the top of the world, ranked at No. 1, in the corruption index. That is because we have structures in place to avoid situations where there might be some form of gerrymandering of such public and judicial systems, and, ultimately, it shouldn’t be up to those that set the law to set the pay for those that administer it. That is a very simple principle, and it’s actually quite surprising—and that’s not a dig. It’s not a political statement, but it’s quite surprising that it’s not until now that we’re considering this, and I imagine that it’s probably just one of those things that hasn’t really been brought up. It’s worked OK because of the nature of New Zealanders and the way that we operate. We are, on the whole, a trustworthy bunch.

But it’s been picked up, it’s been identified, and, as a result of a review, it was recommended by the reviewer MartinJenkins back in 2018 that an independent, principles-based review should take place. The question was pretty simple: should it be determined by the Cabinet Fees Framework or by the Remuneration Authority? Ultimately, it was deemed that the mechanisms for setting the Remuneration Authority for these positions should be set by the Remuneration Authority. That makes sense. They’re the organisation that sets the pay of members of Parliament and Ministers, and that’s as it should be.

We’ve all heard the stories, haven’t we—particularly overseas—of members of Parliament voting for a salary increase for themselves whilst also doing things like voting down the minimum wage and feathering their own nest, if you like. As a result of those sorts of things, we’ve seen a lack of trust develop amongst elected officials in countries, including New Zealand.

We’ve all heard it, I’m sure—that old myth that if you serve three terms of Parliament, you get a pension for life. I hear it all the time. I hear it all the time, and that may have been the case—I don’t know for sure, actually. That may have been the case back in 1977, when my good friend Glen Bennett was two, apparently. That may have been the case then—I don’t know—but it 100 percent certainly is not the case now, and nor should it be.

Why should serving nine years in a job get you a pension for life? My old man has served 44 years in his job. He’s not going to get a pension for life—well, actually, he is, because he was on the old Government superannuation scheme. But, yeah, that’s good, and it should never have been scrapped, actually—while I’m on the subject. He’s only been able to use that because he’s stayed in the same job that he had all those years ago for all this time. He’s approaching his retirement, and I wish him well in that–and they’ve bought a caravan, God help the South Island!

So the review noted that “Community Magistrates, Disputes Tribunal Referees, Environment Commissioners, and Deputy Environment Commissioners are judicial decision makers”—now, I just wanted to read that one little bit because there are quite big words in there—“and their remuneration should be determined independently of Government by the Remuneration Authority.” The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill “amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and 6 other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for the following judicial officers”, and there’s three in particular—because they’ve all been named already tonight, but there are three I want to point out. They are the disputes tribunal referees and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.

It’s unglamorous work, but it is such vital work for our justice system, and the fact that those two in particular have no lawyers. No lawyers are involved, no fancy words; just people that have a dispute over a particular topic coming together, and they hear the case of the both of them and they make a decision. It’s not something I’ve thought about much at all, but I was once involved in a Tenancy Tribunal process, and I didn’t realise that the person that was the adjudicator there was actually doing so in a way that relieved the justice system of the strain of these relatively smaller—not insignificant, but smaller—cases. Of course, I wouldn’t have thought that at the time. I was only a young man, only a student—unfairly charged. I got away with it because I had a strong case. But I thank those that do these sorts of jobs, because they are so important. The other one too is the community magistrates of the District Court—those members of the public that are performing such a crucial public role.

Much like the previous National speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, I too would like to acknowledge the role that justices of the peace play in our electorates. Of course, as members of Parliament, it is on us to put forward recommendations for new justices of the peace in our areas, and I would put a call out there to people that are interested in doing this. It is a crucial role, and I’m sure that all of us at various points in time have needed a justice of the peace at some point. But in some areas in the country, their numbers are considerably lower than is desired and, unfortunately, many of them are towards the autumn years of their career, and it would be good to have people of strong standing in diverse communities across our districts and regions in this country to put themselves forward.

So, on behalf of everyone here, I think it’s fair to say that if you’re listening and you’re interested, contact your local MP, have a yarn about it, and then we can go through that process of putting your name forward, because those that I have spoken to get a lot out of it. They aren’t included in this bill. They do it voluntarily, and I think we all come from regions and communities that are reliant on the generosity of others. I think it’s only appropriate to acknowledge them tonight, given that I think they fall into this category.

Ultimately, this bill is based on a very simple principle, and I think that whilst it might seem insignificant, it will only increase New Zealand’s standing when compared to overseas countries and other countries that we compare ourselves to, particularly in the OECD. But, ultimately, we are bringing in a very simple provision that will maintain the integrity of the system. I’d like to just finish by reiterating the point that I started on, which is that I think tonight will be something that, when I go and visit these groups in my electorate, I will refer to, because, yet again, it’s actually all 120 members of this House coming together to support something. It could have come from any previous Government of any previous colour. It was identified, it was fixed, and good on everybody for getting behind it.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill on behalf of the National Party. Fundamentally, this bill is a simple change which will give an added layer of political neutrality to the setting of fees for judicial officers. The Remuneration Authority is seen as the fair and independent body who should be tasked with determining remuneration for these judicial officers. Judicial independence from the Government is important as it enhances public confidence in the operation of the law. If a Government could negatively influence the salaries of judges, it could potentially use this to influence the decisions of judges in its own favour, so this bill is a good one.

It is also an omnibus bill, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier. That means that it amends more than one Act, and in this case it amends those Acts so that the Remuneration Authority can recognise the judicial nature of a number of positions and set their fees. Previously, those fees were set by the Cabinet Fees Framework, and they will now, under this bill, be set by the Remuneration Authority. Those positions which will now come under this Act will be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

“The Remuneration Authority is an independent statutory body that determines the remuneration for judicial and statutory officers who need to have, and be seen to have, independence from the Government. For example, the Remuneration Authority determines the remuneration for Judges because Judges need to be, and to be seen to be, impartial, independent from Government, and free from political influence or interference in their decision making.” This is crucial for our structure of governance and contributes to public trust and confidence in the judicial system. “The Remuneration Authority Act … prescribes the criteria the Remuneration Authority must consider in determining officers’ remuneration. The criteria include the requirements of the position, relativity to the market, and fairness to those whose remuneration is being set and to the taxpayer. Determinations are made and reviewed on an annual basis. The Government has to implement the Remuneration Authority’s determinations.”

By way of context, “The Cabinet Fees Framework classifies judicial statutory officers into 4 broad categories for fee-setting purposes and prescribes a range of fees for each category that reflects the nature of [the] work, including the expertise required, the extent of their decision-making powers, and the impact of their decisions. The Minister or the fee sitting authority responsible for the officers makes the final decision on the fee to be paid to each type of officer within that fee range.”

To speak to one of these authorities which I am quite familiar with, the community magistrates—

Kieran McAnulty: What’d you do?

JOSEPH MOONEY: —community magistrates sit in the District Court—and the member opposite asked what did I do? Well, let me tell you what I did! Ha, ha! “Community Magistrates sit in the District Court and hear matters that would otherwise come before a District Court Judge. Community Magistrates are required to have the personal qualities, experience, and skills needed to deal with lower-level criminal matters.” Now, I cut my teeth as a lawyer in the Manukau District Court, spending about two years there—the busiest court in the country—and a lot of that I cut my teeth on, so to speak, was as a duty lawyer. When you have a huge volume of work coming through the court, a lot of it needs to go in front of the community magistrate because, frankly, the judges just don’t have the capacity to deal with it. So you’d actually have one lawyer who was on duty; they’d have to sit in the court, and all the other duty lawyers would take instructions from the defendants, get the information from the police, information from the court, get instructions on what the defendant was going to do, and then give it to the person sitting in court. The job of the duty lawyer giving the information to the duty lawyer sitting in court was to make sure they had clear instructions and to write them out. Having said that, I spent many a long day in the Manukau District Court sitting in the chair and being given instructions, and sometimes instructions were better than others.

But, look, the crucial work that the community magistrates did was seen on a daily basis. They would have to sentence people. They could sentence people to anything up to community detention; they could not sentence them to prison. However, they could and they did have to decide regularly on bail applications. It is and was a key part of the operation of the court. I also did a similar thing in the Auckland District Court, spending quite some time there as well, and the community magistrate also performed a key function in the operation of that court. I also saw and appeared in front of community magistrates representing defendants in the Tauranga District Court and, more recently, in the Invercargill and Queenstown District Courts. They perform an absolutely crucial function, and they cover work that the District Courts could not otherwise do because they just don’t have the capacity in the number of judges available to do that work. I’m very pleased to see them recognised in this bill before the House tonight.

The other bodies that we see recognised here—also the disputes tribunal, which is a division of the District Court. “It considers disputes based on contract, quasi-contract, or tort involving destruction or loss of, or damage or injury to, property, and the recovery of property of up to $30,000. Referees are required to have appropriate qualifications, such as legal, mediation, or arbitration qualifications or training, as well as the personal attributes, knowledge, and experience needed for the role. Referees are required to try to mediate a settlement first. Where [that’s] not possible, the Referee makes an order that is binding on the parties.”

The Environment Court is also included in this bill and “largely deals with appeals about the contents of regional and district plans and appeals arising out of applications for resource consents. Commissioners are appointed for their knowledge and experience in matters coming before the court, such as planning, resource management, and heritage protection. Environment Commissioners and Deputy Environment Commissioners sit in the Environment Court, hearing matters and making decisions either as a panel (with an Environment Court judge) or alone.”

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which also comes under this bill, “hears appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration or Immigration New Zealand on residence class visas; deportation (including appeals on humanitarian grounds), and claims to be recognised as a refugee or protected person. The Minister of Immigration or Immigration New Zealand is a party to these appeals. The tribunal [must] be chaired by a District Court judge and the members are required to be legally qualified. As the tribunal chair is a District Court Judge, their remuneration is already set by the Remuneration Authority. [This] Bill transfers responsibility for determining the remuneration of the other tribunal members to the Remuneration Authority.” I feel like I’m saying “remuneration” a lot tonight, testing one’s ability to keep saying that word. It’s a bit of a tongue twister.

Hon Member: Say it again.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Remuneration—there you go.

“The Tenancy Tribunal hears disputes between landlords (including Kāinga Ora) and tenants of residential properties, and disputes relating to unit title developments such as apartment buildings. Tenancy Tribunal Adjudicators are required to either be legally qualified or [to] have the knowledge or experience needed for the role. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 have significantly expanded the tribunal’s role and responsibilities. For example, the monetary threshold of the Tenancy Tribunal for residential tenancy disputes has been doubled from $50,000 to $100,000. The tribunal can now impose pecuniary penalties of up to $50,000 on non-compliant landlords and can issue works orders to compel landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can initiate proceedings against non-compliant landlords.”

“The Human Rights Review Tribunal hears claims relating to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1993, the Privacy Act 2020 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. Each case is heard by the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson and 2 panel members. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson [is] required to be legally qualified. Panel members are expected to have [the] knowledge or experience of matters likely to come before the tribunal, including economic, employment, cultural, or social issues. The Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson chairs the panel that considers each case and also writes the tribunal decision.”

This is a good bill, and I am pleased to speak in support of it tonight.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you. I rise to take what I understand is the final call on this particular reading. You know, we’ve heard a lot about remuneration over the course of the evening and so I’ll add to that chorus by indicating that I am delighted to support the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.

Can I acknowledge the member who’s just resumed his seat, Joseph Mooney. He has shared with us his experience in a judicial sense, and I always think that when the House is considering legislation, it’s important to reflect on one’s own interactions and experience over time. So it was a very thoughtful and welcome contribution from the member who has just resumed his seat.

This bill, as I understand it, is an omnibus bill. That’s another word that we seem to hear a lot of around the House, particularly in the last couple of weeks where there are pieces of legislation where we’re trying to pick up a whole range of little bits and put them together. For those perhaps listening at home who don’t know what an omnibus bill is, that’s essentially what that is.

The interesting thing to me is that when we look at the three branches of government, which are fundamental to our constitutional arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand, this bill actually targets a really important one, and that’s the judicial branch of government. Because we have the other two, the legislative and the executive, and the importance is trying to ensure that there are checks and balances on each. This particular bill goes to the heart of that in assisting that there is that check and balance moving forward, because this bill does seek to recognise the judicial nature of the positions that many members in the House tonight have effectively touched on.

When I look at this bill, what’s really important is the sense of independence but also fundamentally the significance of integrity, because when we look at other judicial systems around the world, a lynch pin largely is around the integrity of the judicial system.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is right, Mr McAnulty. And that’s why it’s really important that while we have independence in terms of the individuals who are appointed to these roles, there is also integrity within the system that they are operating within.

It’s really important that not only independence but integrity assist in ensuring that the decisions that these individuals make certainly do have an impact on the ordinary lives of everyone in our community. And it’s important that the way in which they are remunerated is independently assessed and that they are effectively remunerated for the services that they render largely on behalf of the community and the state in many particular circumstances as well.

When we look at the background to this bill, we know that this fell out of a review that was undertaken by MartinJenkins back in 2018. I have to say that I have actually read the MartinJenkins review report from 2017. I did it two years ago when I was a visiting Justice, and the fees that were set for visiting Justices in New Zealand was part of the MartinJenkins review. So I have some confidence in that review process, because it wasn’t just a review that was undertaken and that’s it; there was an opportunity for all of those statutory roles and office holders to feed into that process. So knowing that this was certainly a piece of work that was undertaken by MartinJenkins—you know, it was 2018, but it has laid the foundation for this piece of legislation before the House this evening.

What I would say is that the report itself was fairly lengthy, because it didn’t just look at the positions that we are looking at tonight, but it had actually quite a broad range of statutory roles that the report looked into. And what we see in this bill are some of those where the report actually identified that there was justification for the shift away from the Cabinet Fees Framework to, effectively, placing those decisions around remuneration with the Remuneration Authority.

The review itself was one that was conducted on a principles basis, I guess, and that, I think, fundamentally is a good starting point—that when you’re looking at something that’s meant to be independent, that has a sense of integrity, that it’s aligned to one of the three branches of Government, and that at the same time the way in which that is approached is from a principled level. And so it’s important that that not only lends itself to starting out in the right place, but actually the perception and appearance of things that would follow also drive home the importance and significance of that as well.

I want to turn now to the various positions that are captured or covered by this bill. Colleagues have referred to community magistrates, and I want to also support the fantastic job community magistrates do in districts and communities all around the country. In my own community of Palmerston North, we don’t have any community magistrates.

Hon Member: Don’t you?

TANGI UTIKERE: No we don’t, and I’ll tell you why we do not have those particular individuals. That is because we have hard-working judicial justices of the peace. Mr Simpson previously talked about 10,000 or so justices of the peace, there are about 320 of them who are judicial justices of the peace who are authorised by the Chief District Court Judge on an annual basis. They go through a process of appraisal and ensure that they, effectively, are tickety-boo and that’s the basis on which they are able to discharge their duties.

The difference between a judicial justice of the peace and a community magistrate is, essentially, as Mr Mooney has said, the level of cases that community magistrates can deal with. They can sit on their own, whereas judicial justices of the peace, they can sit on their own when considering bail applications, but they can only sit in pairs when considering most category 1 level of offences. So it’s important that we do acknowledge the good work of community magistrates all around the country.

There is one point that I also think is worth acknowledging in the bill tonight and that is that even though there would be an assessment of the level of remuneration undertaken by the Remuneration Authority, if that independent assessment turned out to indicate that, actually, the level was lower than the level that those individuals would attract at the moment, then there is provision for the level of remuneration to remain at the same level. So even though we have these hard-working judicial members, statutory officers, in these roles up and down the country, by virtue of the fact that their pay or remuneration is assessed in a different way by a different entity and they would get less than that, by no means should that mean they should receive the pay cut. So that’s an important part of the legislation to see.

I think this is a wonderful piece of legislation. I reflect on the contribution from all members of the House and I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.