Thursday, 25 November 2021
Volume 756
Sitting date: 25 November 2021
THURSDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2021
THURSDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
karakia/prayers
karakia/prayers
SPEAKER: Members, while we were on different duties, we missed a number of language weeks. It is my intention to do some catch-up of that. One of the language weeks we missed was Korean Language Week, and I therefore ask Melissa Lee to say the prayer today in Korean.
MELISSA LEE (National):
전지전능하신 하나님, 저희들에게 내려주신 축복을 감사드 리옵니다.
저희들의 모든 사적이익을 뒤로하고, 여왕님을 인지하며, 저희 의원들이 국회의 일을 함에 있어
뉴질랜드의 평화와 번영을 위해, 현명하고, 정의롭고, 자비 로우며 겸손하게 행할 수 있도록 인도하여 주시옵소서.
아멘.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 7 December. In that week, the legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill, and the further stages of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. The House will also consider a motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. The first Wednesday back will be a members’ day, and there will be an extending sitting the following Thursday morning.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Graeme Axford requesting that the House consider whether the recommendations from petition 2008/121 and the review of the Chief Executive Advisory Panel have been implemented
petition of Adam Greenbaum requesting that the House inquire into the processes and actions of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Waikato District Health Board in the connection with the death of Carmen Walker
petition of Chained Dog Awareness New Zealand Trust requesting that the House ban the life chaining of dogs.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to a select committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:
Lotto New Zealand integrated report for 2020-21
Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board annual report for the year ended 30 June 2021.
SPEAKER: I present the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Inquiry into management fees paid by South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland in 2018. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Tertiary Education Institutions: 2019 audit results and what we saw in 2020
Reports of the Health Committee on the:
Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into Waikato District Health Board’s procurement of services from Health Tap
Report of the Ombudsman on an unannounced inspection of Te Whare Ahuru Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Hutt Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989, and
Notice of motion (No 2) on the continuation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.
SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, introduction
Security Information and Proceedings Legislation Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The export sector continues to support New Zealand’s recovery. Today, Statistics New Zealand reported the exports of goods in October rose $552 million, or 12 percent, to $5.3 billion compared with the same period a year ago. The main contribution here came from dairy products, which rose 18 percent—
Barbara Kuriger: Of course.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to $1.5 billion in the month—that’s right, Mrs Kuriger—led by higher prices for milk powder. The meat sector also contributed strongly, with sales rising 25 percent in October, while fruit exports increased by 35 percent. On an annual basis, exports were up 3.3 percent from the previous year to $62 billion. Our exporters are contributing strongly to the economy, for which all of us, I’m sure, thank them.
Anna Lorck: What else did the report show on trade and its impact on confidence in the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the overseas merchandise trade figures for October show that firms appear increasingly confident in investing more in the economy and the recovery. Imports of machinery and plant rose 43 percent to $927 million in October compared with the same month a year earlier. For the October quarter, imports of machinery and plant rose 33 percent to $2.8 million, and for the year, the same imports rose 12 percent to $9.4 billion. The economy remains resilient, despite the impact of the current Delta outbreak and uncertainty around the pandemic. We can expect volatility in domestic and international data for some time, but New Zealand is well positioned to manage that.
Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Xero’s Small Business Index has seen a rebound in sales, which rose 6.4 percent in October on a year ago, after two months of decline. Jobs continued to rise, up 4.4 percent, increasing by 3.6 percent in September. There was also an improvement in small businesses being paid on time in the quarter. The survey showed a strong bounce back in sales led by the construction, manufacturing, and retail trade sectors, while hospitality and tourism declined in light of the current restrictions. Xero said that the recovery appeared to reflect the easing of prior alert levels and the ability of small businesses to adapt during uncertain times. It said the survey suggested the economy will rebound when Auckland fully reopens, but, of course, it will still be challenging for some businesses.
SPEAKER: I just want to indicate to members that while we are likely, under the new framework, to allow members to be sort of closer together next time we sit, I do want members to maintain their separations during this period.
Question No. 2—Health
2. Dr SHANE RETI (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to health?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes.
Dr SHANE RETI: Can he confirm that the 27,433 people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment that he reported yesterday is the largest number of people on this waiting list ever?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I can’t confirm that number. However, I am confident that, as we look towards continuing to support our COVID-19 response, as well as business as usual, as we best we can, given we are in a global pandemic, we have a system that will be able to cater for that, and we’ll continue to monitor that as we move forward.
Dr Shane Reti: How many, then, if any, of the 284 ICU beds he has stated are fully resourced do not currently have a dedicated ventilator?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have that detail to hand right now. However, as we have done a survey across our DHBs, and looking towards our capacity to continue to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, I am confident that the health sector and our health infrastructure will stand up, but it will only be able to stand up if we continue to support, as well, our social response to this, which is why the announcement today by the Hon Andrew Little was a very good one.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that Whanganui District Health Board has four resourced ICU beds, but only three ventilators?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I can’t confirm that as I don’t have that detail, but in my recent visit to Whanganui, I am encouraged by the work that they are doing to turn around their vaccine rates, which continue to rise.
SPEAKER: I’m just going to ask the Minister to be clear, when he’s talking about his recent visit, whether he’s talking about his recent visit or the Minister’s recent visit.
Hon PEENI HENARE: My recent visit.
SPEAKER: Right, well, it’s an important differentiation to make.
Dr Shane Reti: What rate of hospitalisations is considered manageable under the new traffic light system, and do the three Auckland DHBs currently meet that definition?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I’ve got full confidence in the Auckland DHBs to continue to respond using the capacity that they have. We know in particular that the Auckland health system has been under stress, but has responded quite well. We’re confident that, as we look towards ICU capability, as well as our ongoing health capability in Tāmaki-makau-rau, we’ll continue to be able to respond and respond well.
Dr Shane Reti: How many DHB proposals for funding to build additional ICU capacity have been rejected over the last 12 months, if any?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have that detail to hand, but if the member would like to put it in writing, I’m sure he’ll get a detailed answer.
Dr Shane Reti: How many hospitals, if any, are still building negative pressure rooms in preparation for coronavirus, and when will all building be completed?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, once again I don’t have that level detail across the hospital network in Aotearoa, but if the member wants to put it in writing, I’m sure he’ll get a detailed answer.
SPEAKER: I didn’t interrupt the member as he was asking his questions, but I will draw his attention to Speakers’ ruling 183/3. The questions—if the member wanted to persist with the questions, I decided that was his call, but they could have been ruled out, and certainly there is not a requirement to answer them.
Question No. 3—Housing
3. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made on rebuilding public housing in Auckland?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is working hard to rebuild public housing across New Zealand, including in Auckland. When we came into Government in 2017, there were 1,500 fewer public houses across New Zealand than there were a decade before. Since then, I’m pleased to report that we’re starting to rectify this situation by rebuilding our public housing stock. Since coming to Government in 2017, we now have more than 8,000 additional warm, dry public housing places to call home. Over 6,500 of these are brand new builds and we’re continuing to deliver more. In Auckland, I’m pleased to report we’ve exceeded our target, delivering 4,805 new public houses against the target set in the Public Housing Plan for 2018-2022 of 3,550 and there’s still nearly a year to go.
Shanan Halbert: What action has the Government taken to build more public houses in Northcote?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In Northcote, more than 280 new houses have been delivered to date. Further infrastructure investment has enabled an additional 1,000 homes, with 575 of these currently under construction. More than $130 million has been invested to develop the land at Northcote with an additional $13 million in shovel-ready investment for stormwater work. Once completed, the Northcote large-scale project will deliver 1,600 new homes, with 480 new public homes. All homes in the Northcote development—public, KiwiBuild, and open market—are built to a six Homestar standard, which exceeds New Zealand’s building code requirements.
Shanan Halbert: What action has the Government taken to build more public houses in Mount Roskill?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In Mount Roskill, we have completed 188 homes, 169 of these are public houses which have been delivered to date, with around 671 further homes under construction. Furthermore, through a mix of Kāinga Ora’s direct investment and additional Crown capital investments through shovel-ready funding and the Housing Acceleration Fund, we’ve invested more than $180 million on infrastructure and earthworks. So far, we’ve completed earthworks to enable another 771 homes, with more than 11,000 high-quality healthy homes to be built across 162 hectares over the next 15 to 20 years. This will include approximately 4,400 State houses, 3,300 affordable homes, and 3,300 homes for the open market.
Question No. 4—Tourism
4. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he agree with the comment made by Eve Lawrence from Haka Tourism New Zealand that “Off-shore travel partners just simply will not sell New Zealand and we’ll be taken off the network”; if not, what advice, if any, has he received that suggests that Eve Lawrence is wrong?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): To the first part of that question, no. To the second part of the question, I have received the following advice, and I quote: “Oh my goodness—I’m so happy I could sing. We finally have a plan. This gives suffering tourism, hospitality, and travel businesses the ability to plan and notify clients that they can travel again in 2002. I’m elated that we now have a plan. We can set our businesses up for operational activities for the 2022-23 season.” That is from Eve Lawrence of Haka Tourism New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might have got a year wrong in the middle of that and he might want to say 2022 rather than 2002. Thank you.
Chris Baillie: Does the Minister have a better understanding of the realities facing the tourism industry than industry leaders such as Eve Lawrence, who said to the Government that New Zealand will be taken off the network and the industry will be decimated if tourists are still not able to enter New Zealand freely?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, Eve Lawrence also wrote that she was very happy that there’s a plan and now they can start planning for operational activities for the 2022 and 2023 season.
Chris Baillie: What would he say to the comments made by the owner of a large tourism provider that “The rest of the world is opening up and they are ready to travel. We need to announce to the rest of the world that we will be open for fully vaccinated people by the end of the year, otherwise we will get left behind.”?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, I think Minister Hipkins actually made an announcement around when we’d be open just this week. The other thing I would say is I don’t want to diminish in any way, shape, or form the fact that the tourism industry, and certainly those that are reliant on international visitors in a pre-COVID environment, have done it really tough. But, again, as the Prime Minister and every Minister has reiterated, we are taking very much a health-based approach to COVID. Our number one priority is the health and wellbeing of Kiwis.
Chris Baillie: What would he say to the thousands of operators in the tourism and hospitality industry who, over the last two years, have been forced to use up all of their savings, have endured countless sleepless nights worried about the future for themselves, their families, and their staff, and believe that this Government has failed them?
Hon STUART NASH: I disagree with the statement this Government has failed them. What I would say is the Government has spent nearly $500 million in this sector, the most of any sector of the economy, and that is outside of the wage subsidy and the COVID resurgence payment scheme. We have invested heavily in the sector. But I would not diminish the fact that for many in this sector, the global pandemic that we find ourselves in has been incredibly tough.
SPEAKER: Sorry, before I call the next question—I have been under quite a lot of pressure, especially from the major parties, to allow more people into the Chamber. Part of the basis of doing that is that people wear their masks, and that includes wearing their masks—no, I’m not talking about the member, because he’s got the next question; that’s fine—over their nose. Thank you, Mr Smith and Dr Woods.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What are the criteria for the new COVID-19 support payments, and how many businesses has he been advised are expected to receive it?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I’ve answered throughout this week, I outlined the broad criteria for consideration of any future support on 22 October. If the member is referring to the passage of the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill last night, the changes outlined there are designed to allow for certainty and flexibility under our future framework. In answer to the second part of the question, that will depend on the nature of any future financial support.
Andrew Bayly: Will a business operating in the orange level be eligible for any form of support payment after 3 December?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As announced on 22 October, it is not our expectation that there will be broad-based economic supports under the orange level because businesses operating with vaccine certificates will be able to operate largely as normal. As I have also said, and said on 22 October, we will continue to look at sector-specific support throughout this period.
Andrew Bayly: On what day will businesses be informed if they are operating at orange or red level next weekend?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister has already signalled this week that the announcements will be made on Monday next week—not the weekend.
Andrew Bayly: On what day will business sectors know whether they will qualify for targeted support under the traffic light system?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The question of targeted support will be an ongoing one, because, obviously, the framework is not yet in place, so we’re unable to assess the exact impact on specific sectors. As the Minister of Tourism said during an answer just a few moments ago, we’ve had close to $500 million of targeted support towards that sector, and we continue to work with that sector and others that are affected on what their needs are.
Andrew Bayly: Will a business that loses 30 percent of its revenue due to being in the red level be eligible for the new COVID-19 support payments?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in the answer to my primary question, there is no COVID-19 support payment. The change made in the legislation was to enable flexibility should there be any future payments.
Andrew Bayly: Will the COVID-19 support payments—and I use the term generically, as per the primary—be at least the same monetary value per business as the combined resurgence payment and the wage subsidy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Government has not made decisions about that. We will look at the impact of the red level on businesses, in particular on different sectors.
Question No. 6—Prime Minister
6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will her Government ensure that rural Māori communities with low vaccination rates are protected over the summer break when she’s intending to allow widespread interregional travel from as early as next month?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, we will be working with those in communities where there are low vaccination rates; in particular, the Prime Minister has mentioned the north and far north of New Zealand where we intend to work with iwi around how we will manage that. Alongside that, there will be the ongoing vaccination programme and the fact that we do have the protection framework, which has different levels which enable greater levels of restriction and therefore protection.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will her Government live up to its duty as Te Tiriti partner and work with rural Māori communities and iwi, as you said, with low vaccination rates, including through the resourcing of police, and/or iwi, hapū checkpoints; if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific actions has her Government taken, if any, alongside Māori health leaders and experts to develop a Māori home isolation strategy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that has been an ongoing piece of work. It’s involved consultation with a number of Māori Ministers working with the iwi leaders group, among others, but then also at a local level as well. The $120 million that the Government committed was half towards the vaccination programme and half towards supporting a Māori community response to COVID-19.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she direct officials to invest funding and resource into hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations for standing up saliva testing operations in the regions, given that early detection and early treatment is the best way of keeping people safe from COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we remain committed to working with Māori health organisations and, indeed, all Māori and iwi organisations, to support and protect their people. Testing is indeed an important part of making sure that happens.
Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment
7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in relation to social development and employment?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes.
Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister comfortable that one in nine working-age adults in New Zealand are on a main benefit, and, if not, what targets will the Government set to reduce benefit dependency?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t have that information in front of me, and if the member wanted to be more specific, then she should have put that into the primary question. But what I can say is that we as a Government are proud that in the last three quarters, we have seen record numbers of people move off benefit and into work.
Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister concerned that 79,200 people have spent more than two consecutive years on the job seeker benefit, and, if so, which initiatives have been the most successful to help people who have been on benefit long term into work?
Hon JAN TINETTI: What this Government has done that the previous Government failed to do is that we have put more front-line staff to help people when they come to the Ministry of Social Development, who give them that support and help in that early intervention, which is very important. We don’t believe in a sanctions-based process, which the previous Government did.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she acknowledge that a disproportionate number of Māori moved on to benefit over the past two years, and, if so, why has it taken more than four years to deliver the Māori employment action plan?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As I said in my primary answer, the member should have put those questions into the primary question, because that information I don’t have. But what I will say is that this Government has done a lot of work to move Māori into full-time employment, including through programmes such as Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi, which are fabulous programmes and very strong in getting Māori into employment.
Hon Louise Upston: Is the Government’s flexi-wage extension on track to support 40,000 people into jobs over two years, and, if not, why not?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I do not have that information in front of me, and if the member would like to have that answer, then if she would put that in writing, the Minister will be happy to put in a full answer.
Hon Louise Upston: What advice has she received about the impact on child poverty of having more children grow up in benefit-dependent homes?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Once again, the member could put that question in writing. But what I could say is some of the actions that we have taken to get people back into work is 263 new front-line staff in Budget 2019, to help people into work; invested $150 million in Budget 2020 to help more people into work; and invested a further $99 million in work-focused case management and services, in Budget 2021.
SPEAKER: I will just remind people of the Speaker’s ruling that I quoted before. I will not insist on Ministers answering questions when there is not a specific link between the primary question and the supplementary.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not just getting up to argue with the ruling that I’ve just given.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I wouldn’t dare, Mr Speaker. What I would point out, though, is that the Speaker’s ruling you referenced doesn’t specifically rule out the questions; it just says that the questioner can’t expect a specific answer. The second thing I would say is that it does make it rather difficult when we prepare on the basis that the Minister is there to answer questions, and an Associate or other Minister is answering on their behalf.
SPEAKER: I think, probably, the member should look at the set of Speakers’ rulings in that area. I quoted 183/3. Maybe 183/1 would be a good one for him to look at, which says that a supplementary question must arise from the primary. Clearly, if there is not a specific link, the member can’t expect an answer and should not whinge through the answer being given if it’s not specific.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: But it doesn’t rule it out.
SPEAKER: Sorry, is the member suggesting that I should rule out the supplementary questions from his team if they don’t flow properly?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, Mr Speaker; I’m suggesting that the question is not out of order, according to the Standing Orders. We accept that we can’t expect a specific reply, and that’s the ruling you’ve made. I’m just pointing out that it is difficult when there’s an Associate answering on behalf of, because we prepare on the basis that the Minister is able to answer the question, and you did quote 183/3.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. There are regularly occasions when Ministers are unable to be in the debating chamber at any given time, and the solution to that, if members who are asking questions wish to ensure that the Minister who is answering, regardless of whether it’s the usual Minister or someone standing in their place, is that if they ask more specific questions, then they can expect Ministers to be prepared in detail to provide detailed answers.
SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House has got it pretty well. As people are aware, I’m a former Minister of Education. We had over 10,000 ministerials a year—10,000 separate things that we dealt with individually in a year, and what that meant was, when there was questioning about things, frankly, there was a big proportion of those that were not front of mind and, therefore, an indication of the specific area of questions meant that the Minister could come prepared. Both members have drawn distinctions where there was a member answering on behalf, but, frankly, even as the primary Minister answering questions as detailed as the two we’ve had from here now, it is, I think, unreasonable without proper notice to expect Ministers to answer those questions in detail. They’re very specific. They’re important questions, and if members actually want answers to them, then an indication of the direction of travel would certainly assist them in getting the answers. If people don’t want real answers, then we’ll have what’s happened here today.
Question No. 8—Economic and Regional Development
8. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: Why did the Government invest in the Ōpuke tourism complex in Methven?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) extended a $7.5 million loan that was structured for the unique nature of this development, which I officially opened yesterday with the member for Rangitata, Jo Luxton. Ōpuke is a project of regional economic significance in the Canterbury High Country. It is a zero emissions operation that uses solar power from a farm of solar panels to heat water straight from the mountains. It will allow Methven to become a year-round destination, building on its existing reputation for skiing and other adventure tourism during the winter months. It will help transform the regional economy away from seasonal peaks and troughs and help transition from short-term jobs to an all-year-round town with more visitors and permanent jobs. While I try to avoid getting into hot water, the Ōpuke Thermal Pools and Spa complex is a compelling case for investment.
Jo Luxton: How did the partnership work between Government, regional businesses, and Canterbury local government to bring this project to fruition?
Hon STUART NASH: Work on this project first began in 2009, when local business Methven Adventures Ltd and its predecessors started the design, feasibility, and resource consent work. They enlisted backing from local government in the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, and took a strategic approach to focus on a wider seasonal spread of visitors across the region and the South Island. These are precisely the sorts of projects that align with the objectives of the Provincial Growth Fund and the Government’s regional economic development strategy, so financing backing from the Government made perfect sense. As Methven tourism and business leader Dave Dynes said yesterday, and I quote, “The Government’s belief in what we were doing, the Government’s reasons for putting their money behind it, was really good, and if we hadn’t got that, the project would have been dead in the water.”
Jo Luxton: How does the investment at Methven align with other regional economic development projects and strategies in Canterbury?
Hon STUART NASH: It is the third-largest PGF project in the Canterbury region, after a $10.5 million racetrack at Riccarton and the $10.8 million Wakatu Quay development in Kaikōura. This sort of investment is transformational and part of a wider Government strategy to strengthen our regional economies, businesses, and jobs. These projects are examples of innovative thinking and partnerships. They offer new economic solutions to challenges facing provincial towns, businesses, and jobs, as well. Last month, we passed an important $2 billion milestone in payments to regional economic development projects. The momentum of regional economic development is now picking up pace. We reached the $2 billion milestone just 10 months after the $1 billion milestone in February this year, which itself took three years to achieve.
Question No. 9—Public Service
9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for the Public Service: Have any pay equity settlements been reached since the new pay equity process came into force over a year ago; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): There are currently 23 claims in train; 13 of which have been raised since the Act came into force last year, and none have yet been settled. Those claims cover 170,000 employees. Five of the claims are in the final phase of bargaining for settlement, having completed the comprehensive assessment and analysis work this year. We hope to see those settled within the next six months, and they’ll reach over 66,000 employees.
Jan Logie: Is he confident the framework for governance and oversight of State sector pay equity claims is working, and, if so, why are the DHB admin workers still waiting for settlement when agreement around undervaluation was reached well over a year ago?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am, overall, satisfied with the way pay equity claims are being governed. I do acknowledge that the DHB claim that the member refers to is probably one of the most complex of all of the pay equity claims that we have seen being lodged. I think I’m not supposed to say it’s in the final stages, but it is getting pretty close, and I’m optimistic.
Jan Logie: Why, after a three-year process, have 10,000 school administrators been told they can’t enter final negotiations before Christmas, because the Government hasn’t given sign-off?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am, again, optimistic around the school administration claim that the member refers to. There is a fairly comprehensive process that we need to go through. It includes making sure that all of the relevant steps have been followed to ensure that the claim has been made out, that we’re ready for bargaining, that the parameters of the bargaining are clear, and so on. The Government is working its way through that. As I’ve indicated, there are a number of claims. There are some overlapping interests between claims that we’re working our way through, ensuring that we’re getting alignment, so that we get consistent outcomes for the claimants. Then, of course, there’s issues around the current bargaining, which some of those who are involved in claims are also involved in at the moment. So it’s not a complete black and white, straightforward set of issues.
Jan Logie: Considering a lack of information about pay rates slows down the claim assessment process, will he advocate for pay transparency legislation this term?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you. I’m not responsible for pay transparency legislation, but I certainly do think that there is merit in the wider issues around pay transparency. Whether legislation is the best way of achieving that is not something that I have ministerial responsibility for.
SPEAKER: Question No. 10. Jamie Strange—oh, sorry.
Jan Logie: Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I thought I got the nod the member was finished.
Jan Logie: I was just too quiet, unusually. Does the Minister acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied, and despite it being almost 50 years now since the Equal Pay Act passed, women, particularly in essential services, are still waiting for a fair deal?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, absolutely, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, do I think that the elapsed time to achieve genuine pay equity is an acceptable one? No, I don’t, at all. One of the things that I have been pushing as Minister for the Public Service is making sure that we are prioritising and properly resourcing pay equity claims so that we can actually get those settled. There is a significant financial cost involved in those, and over the next 18 months or so, I think members will see just the scale of the cost that’s involved in settling those pay equity claims. But we need to think about that not just in terms of the cost but in terms of who is bearing the cost of that at the moment, which is that yes, that will be an increased cost to the taxpayer, but what that actually means is that the women of New Zealand are currently subsidising the operation of Government and public services by not being paid what they should be.
Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made about addressing competition concerns in the building supplies sector?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This Government is laying the foundations for a more competitive building sector. We’re following through on our promise to have the Commerce Commission complete a market study into residential building supplies, and that includes the foundations, the flooring, the walls, the roof, the insulation—
SPEAKER: OK. We’re not going to have building tutorial.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s very clearly specified in the terms of reference, Mr Speaker, so that we know what’s out and what’s in in the study. We know there have been longstanding concerns about the highly concentrated nature of the building supplies sector, and we want to have a study that will determine what change might be needed.
Jamie Strange: What are some of the concerns he’s heard about competition in the sector?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Market concentration has, indeed, been raised as a concern. We know there are two concrete firms that supply about 85 percent of the sector. We know that there are three glass wall insulation firms that control about 85 percent of the sector—one plasterboard manufacturing firm that controls about 94 percent of the market. There are rebates and loyalty schemes operated by some firms, and I believe it’s in the public interest to have a look into these matters.
Jamie Strange: What reaction has he seen to the announcement?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Monopoly Watch NZ welcomed the announcement, saying the study is a chance for a long overdue industry reform, with the possible long-term result of lower housing costs for consumers. John Gray, the president of the Home Owners and Buyers Association, says building materials in Australia can be half the price of what they are here. He’s hopeful the investigation will find solutions. And Property NZ has offered to help with the study in any way it can. I’m proud to be part of a Government that remains firmly focused on the interests of New Zealanders.
Question No. 11—COVID-19 Response
11. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to the COVID-19 response?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s overall response to COVID-19, which has put the safety and interests of all New Zealanders squarely at its centre. Over the course of the week, we’ve outlined the next phase of our response, which includes the road map for operating under the new COVID-19 Protection Framework and the pathway for reconnecting New Zealand with the world. Earlier today, Ministers Sepuloni, Little, and Verrall outlined the Government’s plans for supporting New Zealanders to recover from COVID-19 in the community. I would note that in addition to becoming one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, New Zealand has the lowest rate of cases and deaths in the OECD.
Chris Bishop: When is the earliest foreign travellers and tourists will be allowed to enter New Zealand under the reconnecting New Zealand to the world policy he’s just referenced?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends whether they would qualify under either of the January or February groups that are being allowed in. In terms of the general admission of foreign nationals, we’ve set an April date around that and we’ll continue to work towards that. People wanted a date, so we have given them a date. There is still some uncertainty about that and I acknowledge that, but we’ll continue to work through that.
Chris Bishop: Why can a vaccinated and negative tested Aucklander travel around New Zealand before Christmas but a New Zealander in Queensland with no COVID cannot travel to Auckland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve been through many times already in this House, the Government acknowledges that coming across the border does pose a risk and that the number of people coming across the border will increase exponentially when we allow a greater number of people to travel back into the country. The Australians are making decisions around removing their internal borders and that has had a bearing on our thinking in that particular area.
Chris Bishop: Has New Zealand placed a purchase order for Pfizer vaccines for five- to 11-year-olds, and, if so, when did New Zealand do so?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The advanced purchase agreement that we announced for additional doses includes—it’s already been announced and it’s already been signed—access to paediatric doses.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether or not New Zealand has raised a purchase order for those vaccine doses, not whether or not the advanced purchase agreement allows for that to happen.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to further elaborate. In terms of when purchase orders are raised, that’s part of an ongoing negotiation around delivery schedules. Purchase orders typically get raised once a delivery schedule has been confirmed with Pfizer. A delivery schedule for paediatric doses has not yet been confirmed.
Chris Bishop: Why has the Government not yet agreed a delivery schedule with Pfizer for five- to 11-year-old vaccines given other countries have been able to do so and, in fact, are rolling them out right now?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, very few countries have.
Chris Bishop: Does he believe New Zealanders had adequate opportunity to participate in the legislating of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill, and, if so, how?
Hon Chris Hipkins: No. One of the realities in dealing with a global pandemic is sometimes the usual processes that are the most optimal and the most desirable aren’t as possible as they normally would be.
Question No. 12—Customs
12. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Customs: Is Customs prepared for the arrival of small craft into New Zealand this summer?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): The small craft season has commenced, and Customs is well prepared to manage the expected number of arrivals. Customs continues its role monitoring compliance with the maritime border order, ensuring that breaches are reported and, where necessary, working with health and border partners, police, and port authorities to undertake enforcement action. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, comprehensive processes were put in place to update the arrivals process for travellers arriving by small craft. This entails health checks, isolation of vessels or in managed isolation facilities, COVID-19 testing, and strict movement controls for vessels and crew. These measures successfully prevented COVID19 from entering Aotearoa through our maritime border.
Greg O’Connor: What is the arrivals process for travellers arriving in Ōpua?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Small craft arriving into New Zealand need to comply with standard border entry and quarantine requirements, along with the public health requirements. This includes advanced arrival information and approval processes, and monitoring by Customs and partner agencies. The port of Ōpua is the only designated port of arrival for all small craft into New Zealand. It provides the most direct place of entry for arriving small craft and has highly suitable facilities to support the control of the vessels and crew. The border at Ōpua is safely and effectively managed to prevent COVID-19 from entering New Zealand. On arrival into Ōpua, travellers must meet the 10-day isolation period and are tested and assessed before being cleared by border and health agencies. These staff operate with the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and health protection measures in place. Customs also provide travellers with PPE. Once travellers have met all health and isolations, they can get off their boat or leave managed isolation and quarantine.
Greg O’Connor: How has Customs engaged with the yachting community?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Customs estimate that between 80 to 90 small craft will arrive this yachting season. As of 20 November 2021, 55 of these small craft have already arrived. To safely and effectively manage Ōpua operations, Customs has been proactive in communicating across various channels to inform the yachting community. The purpose is not only to inform them of the entry requirements but also about the health protections in place at the maritime border to protect Aotearoa against COVID-19. This information includes isolation and quarantine requirements for those who are returning home to New Zealand from the Pacific. Customs has updated its website pages on the maritime border order and private craft, and included a new frequently asked questions section. Customs also launched a Facebook advertising campaign aimed at people with yachting interests across the Pacific.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.
Standing Orders
Sessional
SPEAKER: I call on Government—
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Sorry, Mr Speaker—that’s me, Mr Speaker, and I apologise. I’ll just find the appropriate piece of paper. I seek leave to move a motion regarding a change to Parliament’s sessional orders in how it deals with COVID19 orders.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to course of action being followed? There is none.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the House amend the rules relating to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, adopted by the House as a sessional order on 8 December 2020, by replacing the definition of COVID-19 order in rule 1 (Interpretation) with: “COVID-19 order has the meaning given to it by section 5(1) of the Act.”
The purpose of this is very clear. Yesterday, Parliament amended the COVID-19 Response Act. The current sessional orders deal with the COVID-19 response orders made under the Act as it existed prior to yesterday. We need to amend the sessional orders that we have put in place to ensure that the new order-making provisions inserted by the Act yesterday are now covered by those sessional orders. So this will ensure that those orders, particularly related to vaccination requirements, are subject to the same process. Under that process, they’re tabled in the House. They are then referred to the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee scrutinise those. They report them back to the House, and the House then confirms them by way of a motion in the House.
So it’s a minor technical amendment to ensure that the rules of the Parliament keep pace with the changing nature of the legislation, but I think that that scrutiny function has served the Parliament very, very well. I think that the Regulations Review Committee have done a very thorough job of scrutinising the orders that have been made under that Act and have often prompted changes to some of the orders that have been made under that Act for the better, and certainly have prompted changes sometimes in the process of the way some of those orders have been made as well, which, again, I think has been useful. I think the debates that we have had in the House around confirming those orders has also been important for the purposes of transparency and accountability. So making sure that those existing provisions apply to the new order-making powers, I think, is very important, and hence that’s why I’ve moved the motion.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just, in the spirit of coming towards the end of the parliamentary year, a bouquet and a brickbat for the Leader of the House and also the Minister for COVID-19 Response. I suppose the brickbat, to start with the negative first, is that this is an untidy process, with the Leader of the House having to seek leave to amend the sessional order. It really could have been flagged in advance. We’ll support it, of course, but I think the process is an untidy one. This really should have been envisaged as a result of the—
Hon Chris Hipkins: You can’t do it until the bill is passed.
CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I know you can’t do it until the bill is passed, but it could have been flagged up to the Opposition, or, indeed, placed on the Order Paper of the House. I acknowledge it can’t be done until the bill is passed, but I think it reflects the hurry with which the vaccinations legislation was passed yesterday in Parliament. It feels like a long time ago, but it was indeed only yesterday.
Hon Chris Hipkins: A few other things have happened since then.
CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah—well, we’ve had an announcement about managed isolation and quarantine, and if you want me to get into that, I’d be really happy to get into that, but the Speaker will pull me up for going away from the motion. So that’s the brickbat, and I think it is an untidy process.
But I just want to finish by the bouquet, which is that the Minister is right that the Regulations Review Committee works very diligently and conscientiously under the stewardship of Chris Penk, with his inimitable legal mind, and, may I say, also some very good contributions by legally trained people from the Government, including Rachel Brooking and Vanushi Walters. They do an excellent job on the committee, and it’s one of those committees, actually, which genuinely operates in a relatively bipartisan way.
One could argue that it’s a shame there are not more select committees that genuinely put aside the party politics and just get into the nitty-gritty of legislation. Some would argue that the Regulations Review Committee is more appropriate for that, being focused on legality, but it’d be nice if some more committees actually exercised their constitutional job of holding the executive to account. But the committee does a good job, and I think, over time, as the Minister has said, the process of having the orders made and then referred to the committee and then confirmed by the House has proven to be a pretty good one.
I just want to finally finish up by flagging that we in the Opposition will be really diligently going through the orders in relation to vaccination. The Leader of the House made mention of the variety of orders that are going to come down the line as a result of this new legislation we passed yesterday, and one of the consequences of that legislation yesterday is very broad powers for the Government—in fact, some legal scholars would say far too broad—and there are going to be real issues as to whether or not the orders are vires the empowering Act, whether or not the orders are actually allowed to be made pursuant to the Act.
So the orders are going to set up the whole traffic light framework. They’re going to set up the vaccine mandates for the private sector and the use of vaccine certificates across broad swaths of the New Zealand economy, and I’ve got to say that that is going to be a tricky job to do via public health orders. The drafting has to be absolutely pitch perfect. The Minister is right that there’s been a bit of back and forth and some have been changed, and I just want to flag—and I’m sure Chris Penk would agree—that we will be invigilating those orders very closely indeed to make sure they comply with the rule of law. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): I rise briefly, on behalf of the Greens, to support this motion. We’re just really happy that this item just shows that this motion comes to this space because it just needed a little bit more work to make sure it was fit for purpose. We hope that the willingness to address this issue will mean that the Government will reconsider their earlier decision, and they will now be very excited to have a post-enactment review by the Health Committee of the COVID-19 response vaccination legislation that we passed yesterday.
Again, I shout out to the Regulations Review Committee and the hard work that they do, and advocating always for the Health Committee, with the incredible expertise that we have on there, that will help this process and the orders and regulations that will flow from it. Kia ora.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise very briefly on behalf of the ACT Party to support the motion that’s been brought by the Minister for COVID-19 Response today. But I also have to just state the issue that the ACT Party has, which is that we shouldn’t be in this position. The problem that we have is not any fault of any member of staff of the House of Representatives that we have had to move this motion today. They work very hard, they’re very diligent, and they’re very methodical, and I have a lot of respect for the legal drafters and the people who work in this building. The issue that we have is that this problem came about because of a rushed law, and we wouldn’t have problems like this if we had proper scrutiny and proper time so that people who are diligent can have the time to do their jobs to the best possible level.
This is just one of the most recent problems that we’ve faced. I know that under other forms of COVID legislation, there have been, I mean, a few areas that have needed to be tidied up post the fact, and we would just say that New Zealand deserves to have a properly functioning democracy. We’re happy that this has been brought to our attention so that we can rectify the issue quickly, but it also goes to show how scary it could be if people weren’t doing their jobs and checking to make sure that things are in place that do need to be in place, because we do, in the middle of a pandemic, need to have a properly functioning democracy and scrutiny of lawmaking.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Māori Purposes Bill
First Reading
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: I present a legislative statement on the Māori Purposes Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e noho nei ki roto i tō tātou Whare. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātou.
[Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings to everyone in the House. I will leave my greeting there.]
On behalf of the Minister for Māori Development, I present a legislative statement on the Māori Purposes Bill. On behalf of the Minister for Māori Development, I move that the Māori Purposes Bill be read a first time, and I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Māori Purposes Bill.
I’m proud to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister. No doubt, he would present it with a greater flourish, but as it is, it makes changes which are important for whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori communities. This Government is committed to building closer partnerships with Māori and working with them to improve wellbeing outcomes and create more development opportunities. Empowering Māori entities to achieve these goals for whānau Māori and their communities means ensuring they have the autonomy and decision-making rights they need to make good and timely decisions.
The bill proposes minor technical and non-controversial updates and improvements to Māori development legislation. While the changes in this bill are technical and minor, they will have a significant impact because they will remove barriers that have impeded the ability of Māori entities to manage their own affairs. The proposed amendments will give Māori entities greater decision-making capability, address technical issues, and reduce the burdens of unnecessary administrative compliance. The bill proposes amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act of 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act of 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act of 1962.
The bill contains four specific sets of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The first set will ensure that the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries. The other amendments extend the time frame for decision making and allow owners who cannot be physically present to participate in meetings electronically, and it also corrects a te reo Māori mistake.
The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust was established to give effect to the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claim Wai 51. Currently, the Māori Land Court can terminate a trust if it sees fit to do so, in accordance with certain requirements. Termination of this trust would have the potential to compromise the terms of the settlement of the Wai 51 claim. The bill aims to amend the Act so that the power to terminate a trust does not apply to the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. This will protect the entitlements of the Wai 51 intended beneficiaries, and the proposed amendments are supported by the trust.
Changes proposed to sections 147A and 246 of the Act will extend the period for decisions on whether those who are eligible wish to exercise a right of first refusal when land is being sold or transferred, or where other critical decisions are being made by Māori incorporations. Extending the time frames for these decisions from 15 to 20 working days is intended to ensure that those involved have enough time to make well-informed decisions on these important matters.
Being technologically capable and able to function remotely is important for Māori entities. We can enable this by amending section 174 of the Act to provide the option for meetings of owners to be held electronically.
Te reo Māori is important and should be recorded correctly in legislation. There is a mistake in the wording of the preamble of the Act that requires correction. The bill will replace “kia tū tonu he Te Kooti,” with “kia tū tonu Te Kooti”.
The bill proposes a range of amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959. Most are focused on the Lake Rotoaira Trust and its trout fishery. The trust is an ahu whenua trust under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and it administers Lake Rotoaira on behalf of more than 11,000 beneficiaries. The trust manages the trout fishery with functions, powers, and obligations regarding the fishery being prescribed in the Maori Purposes Act 1959. The Maori Purposes Act 1959 restricts the capacity of the trust to manage their business and other affairs on the lake. The amendments will enable the trust to manage their whenua with flexibility and autonomy. The trust supports these changes. The proposed amendments include removing the requirement to hold a trout-fishing licence to fish for species other than trout, and making it clear an entry permit does not authorise fishing on the lake.
In addition, at present, owners of the Motuopuhi Māori Reservation, an island in the middle of the lake, cannot access their own whenua without an entry permit. This bill will amend the Act so trustees and their guests can access their whenua without a permit.
There are also anomalies with the penalties contained in the Act. These are out of date and out of line with similar legislation. The solution is to replace the out-of-date “$100” penalty with “$5,000” in sections 11 and 15(2)(h) of the Act.
The amendments will also make technical changes to help the trust better manage trout spawning areas. Currently, the trust has no authority over some parts of their fishery that are crucial to the management of their business. The proposed amendments address this discrepancy.
As I’ve said, getting te reo Māori right in legislation is vital. We need to replace “Wairehau Canal” with “Wairehu Canal” in the Act.
The remaining technical amendments include updating the definition of a “stipendiary ranger” to include a warranted officer under the Conservation Act of 1987, replacing the term “26R(4)(b)” with the term “26R(4)” in section 14(b) of the Maori Purposes Act 1959, and repealing two inappropriate provisos to section 15(2)(e) of the Maori Purposes Act 1959 which impede on fishery management.
The bill proposes technical and non-controversial amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 to ensure that Māori trust boards can run efficiently. Keeping up with technology is important for Māori entities. The changes proposed will allow electronic ballots for election of board members, which means they can keep functioning remotely. This is even more important during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Māori trust boards are required to pay board member fees and allowances in line with the Cabinet Fees Framework. They are finding this framework restrictive, inflexible, and not appropriate to recognise the depth and breadth of work that board members do. Māori trust boards are a step further away from the Crown compared to the other entities that are subject to the Cabinet Fees Framework. Amending section 41 to remove Māori trust boards from being subject to the Cabinet Fees Framework recognises this and enables them to pay their members appropriately.
The bill also streamlines processes for resignations of trust board members. Currently, Māori trust board members are required to provide a notice of resignation in writing to the Minister for Māori Development. The changes proposed will enable members of trust boards to resign to the board directly. The board can then notify the Minister.
Section 9(2) of the Act relates to an annuity payment for the Taranaki Māori Trust Board. The trust board and the Crown have agreed to a Crown buy-out of the annuity, and payment has now been made by the Crown. The parties have agreed that this section of the Act should be removed.
The final amendment proposed in this bill is to the Maori Community Development Act 1962. The bill amends section 28(1)(f) of the Act so that district Māori councils are required to submit audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council, rather than to the Te Puni Kōkiri chief executive. The current process is unnecessary and creates administrative burdens.
In summary, this bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962. While the changes proposed in this bill are minor and technical in nature, they will none the less have a significant impact on the ability of Māori entities to manage their business and exercise their rangatiratanga. The entities impacted by these changes support the proposed amendments.
Some of these changes proposed in the bill will address longstanding issues that have been raised over a period of time. It is our responsibility to ensure legislation is up to date and enables Māori entities to move with the times. Minimising barriers to effective operation is crucial to their success.
On behalf of the Minister for Māori Development, I commend this bill to the House. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai anō rā tātou.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand as the National spokesperson for Māori development and as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee—and I glance over to my colleagues in the House. We have a very special culture that’s there in the select committee and we will embrace this Māori Purposes Bill with purpose. I stand here, making this call for the first reading, which is endorsed by the National Party, but it is also timely and appropriate that I have the opportunity to make acknowledgments to significant Māori who have contributed in this space, in areas of law, areas of practice, administration, and service addressed by the Māori Purposes Act, previous Acts.
One of those persons is kaumātua Neville Baker, who died a few weeks ago on 14 November, this year. Neville Baker is a former deputy secretary of the Department of Māori Affairs—Te Puni Kōkiri, as it is known today. A former Māori trustee, in recent years he was adviser to the Chief Ombudsman and the Minister for Children. As I’m acknowledging Neville Baker it’s appropriate that that acknowledgment is with a measure of respect. He gave a lifetime of service, a lifetime of purpose, serving the Māori communities in the New Zealand nation.
Before I also turn to the Māori Purposes Bill, again, it’s appropriate to acknowledge those persons who continue to give service, a lifetime of service. One is a former colleague who is now Justice Layne Harvey, having been appointed to the High Court after 19 years’ service as a District Court judge and many years as a practising lawyer, again with purpose and service under the umbrella and ambit of the Māori Purposes Act and relevant legislation.
Another is a servant of the public who has recently been appointed to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Frances Eivers, who served some 12, 13 years on the Family Court bench, many years as a lawyer. And, significantly, the three persons that I have paid acknowledgment and homage to are people who have given a lifetime of service and with purpose in this space.
I now turn to the Māori Purposes Bill. Without a doubt, the National Party and I, as the spokesperson for Māori development, have pleasure in saying that this bill is necessary. It’s non-controversial, it’s not unusual, and it is endorsed and supported for us to give further scrutiny at the Māori Affairs Committee. I was looking forward to an address from Minister Willie Jackson, and I say that because Minister Jackson, like his mother, Dame June Jackson, whom I used to work with back in the days of Ngā Whare Waatea, in Māngere, in the 1980s, has given a lifetime of service in this space—again, under the umbrella and ambit of what this bill is about.
So, as a National Party spokesperson, as a Māori also, giving service with purpose in this place of Parliament, the bill aligns with National Party values, recognising the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand, also recognising the value and the importance of private property rights. This bill addresses those matters.
The Minister has detailed in the legislative statement what it covers. I’m just going to bring it back to a more simplistic approach. What is a Māori Purposes Bill and what legislation is being amended by this bill? It’s called an omnibus bill because it is a number of bills that are going to be addressed under the umbrella, under the blanket, the kahu of this Māori Purposes Bill. So those pieces of legislation are Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962.
Just in summary, the main provisions of the amendments under the Māori Purposes Bill, looking firstly at Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—the Minister has mentioned the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust; that is a trust that comes from the area of Maniapoto—look at addressing the provisions for that hapū trust to continue to exist and exercise powers, rights, and duties in a manner that was consistent with their 1990 settlement of the Waitangi Tribunal claim No. 51, in relation to Waitomo caves.
Moving on, another Act to be addressed under this is the Maori Purposes Act 1959. The Minister has talked about Lake Rotoaira and the trust again being given the flexibility and the autonomy and the management of their taonga Lake Rotoaira, and the management and exercise of rights associated with the lake and with the fisheries.
The Maori Trust Boards Act is addressing, bringing, and updating administratively the management for trusts in the exercise of voting. So this bill will address the ability for electronic voting, removing the Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework, so streamlining and providing for resignations of members of boards to be made in writing to the board rather than directly to the Minister.
The Maori Community Development Act 1962 is to require the district Māori councils to provide a copy of audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council rather than to the chief executive of the Ministry of Māori Development, also known as Te Puni Kōkiri.
I’m just going to share, in terms of the Māori Community Development Act, as I often tend to do when I stand to speak, and a point of relevance in terms of contributional relationships. As a younger woman, I served as the secretary of the Aotea Māori district council back in the 1980s. As secretary in that role, it was important to ensure that there was accuracy in the recording of minutes and the knowledge and ensuring that that was relayed through to the senior body, the parent body, the New Zealand Māori Council. So I have experience in terms of the level of service and contribution under the blanket of Māori Purposes Act, but specifically to the Maori Community Development Act 1962.
So the key message is, from the National Party and as spokesperson for Māori Development, I referenced that as a member on the Māori Affairs Committee, there is a particular culture where we do arrive there as members from our affiliate political parties, but we serve there as members, having given service, those of us who are Māori, in our communities, and the significance of the purpose and the duty and the obligation that we have and how we conduct ourselves at that meeting place of the Māori Affairs Committee.
This bill has an explanatory note and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, in the scrutiny of this bill, we receive advice, but, actually, we also give advice premised on what experience we bring to that table, that select committee. It’s our duty to scrutinise with responsibility, with care, and to particularise, drawing on our skill sets, because we do bring different lived experiences, different skill sets and tools of our profession, to apply that in the scrutiny.
I’ll curtail my first call speaking to this bill. I look forward to the contributions and to hearing the stories of the contributors, those who submit at the Māori Affairs Committee, because we will hear the relevance of how this Māori Purposes Bill will have impact and bearing on the communities that they come and represent. We will also share and disclose, with a duty of care, the importance of this Māori Purposes Bill coming back to the House, ensuring that it is in the best possible form and service that it may give to the people who will benefit from it. I commend this first reading of this bill to the House.
TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): As both of the previous speakers have talked about, this is a non-controversial bill but it’s a necessary bill. It’s a bill that tidies up a few issues that Māori trusts and entities out there across Aotearoa have been looking for us to tidy up. To the majority of the population, it’s non-consequential, it won’t have any effect on them, but, actually, for the people that are involved it actually means quite a bit. So I’m very pleased that the Minister has brought this to the House, and we on the Māori Affairs Committee will look after this bill with the best of intentions, but we will do what the bill intends, which is to tidy up relevant parts of legislation to make sure that our Māori organisations across Aotearoa are empowered and are encouraged to be able to look after the wellbeing of themselves and the people they are there to represent.
The one that I would like to point out, and both members before me have pointed out all four Acts that that we’re talking about here—Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, the Maori Purposes Act, the Maori Trust Boards Act, the Māori Community Development Act. Of all of those, the one that I want to talk about is the Maori Purposes Act in relation to Lake Rotoaira, which is just south of Taupō and is a very, very beautiful place. If anybody gets to go there over the Christmas and new year break, I encourage you to.
Lake Rotoaira Trust is an ahu whenua trust. There are more than 11,000 beneficiaries to that trust, and they administer Lake Rotoaira on behalf of the beneficiaries. It is a trout fishery with functions, powers, and obligations in regard to the fishery being prescribed in the Act, and this will enable them to be able to have more autonomy and flexibility in being able to manage the trout fishery with some provisions in there as well. So this is a good bill. It is going to get support from around the House, and I look forward, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to ushering it though. I commend it to the House.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great privilege and quite a surprise to be able to speak on this bill this afternoon. Since I’ve been in Parliament, I’ve sat on the Māori Affairs Committee quite a few times, and it’s actually a privilege and a wonderful pleasure to be welcomed on to that select committee as a temporary member and as a non-Māori to embrace and learn more about the culture and the issues facing Māori that come before that committee.
But, actually, I want to talk about Lake Rotoaira as well, because I think the trout fishery and the management of that by iwi is a perfect example of how the coming together of cultures—as everyone will be aware, trout are an introduced species. In fact, I would really support the ability for iwi to be able to farm trout, it would be a wonderful opportunity for economic growth for iwi to be able to farm trout, and it’s really quite a gentrified sport, trout fishing. It’s the people on higher incomes that tend to fish for trout, and yet, they control it and they control the trout farming and, actually, Primary Production Committee—it should have gone to the Māori Affairs Committee, but the Primary Production Committee accepted a petition from one of my constituents that would have allowed the farming of trout in New Zealand. Of course, we do farm trout now, and we farm them to replenish the fisheries, but we’re not allowed to farm them for food. And, of course, all the excuses are really about protecting the gentrified sport of trout fishing, and it’s all spurious as the grounds on which they make the arguments are so shaky, it’s unbelievable. These very same arguments were rolled out to stop salmon farming, and, actually, it hasn’t stopped the salmon fishery. The argument essentially was: “Well, salmon fishing is mostly in the South Island.”, and I sort of drew from that conclusion they kind of thought that South Islanders were more trustworthy than North Islanders.
Hon Member: We are.
Hon Member: Totally.
STUART SMITH: Well, it might be true, but I just think that’s a fairly spurious argument. I think it’s quite outrageous because there’s a beautiful and, in fact, magnificent opportunity for iwi to actually manage their own economic future. They’ve got the resources, particularly in the North Island, to be able to take advantage of that, and so I think that this bill, while it does amend the Māori Purposes Act 1959 to give the autonomy and flexibility to manage Rotoaira, that lake and the fishery within there—and I note that iwi will not need to use fishing licences there too. And that brings up another really important point, I think, that is lost on many people in New Zealand: how when Māori are given the opportunity to manage fisheries, how well they do it. They do it because it’s ingrained in their DNA, effectively, and that’s been from generations of starving, practically, if you got it wrong, whereas today, we have other food sources readily available, but that was often the case, I’m sure, back in their history when they would have got it wrong. So they have learnt how to manage and live effectively in harmony with a particular fishing resource, and fishing in particular, because that would be their main source if they lived around the lakes and the seas.
So I think that’s very appropriate and goes a little deeper, I think, than my colleagues have spoken about. I guess we all bring our perspectives to these debates, and that’s the wonderful thing about Parliament in that we all have our own backgrounds. And being a non-Māori, having that opportunity to be involved in decisions and work alongside Māori for the benefit of Māori is what it’s all about after all. I think that’s actually kind of what the Treaty of Waitangi was supposed to mean. I think sometimes we get all lost and start thinking about land and other things other than actually what the principles within that treaty are really, rather than what the legalistic words are; what they are in emotional terms, because that’s quite a different perspective.
We get too hung up on legal things. There are quite a few lawyers in this House, and I see one across the across the way there, Helen White, who’s sitting there very—we had a good session this morning on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, mind you. So that was quite good. I think that having that legalistic view sometimes leads us down a path where we actually become confrontational, because words really matter when you’re talking about the law but, actually, emotions really matter when you’re talking about something like the Treaty, I think. If you go back, the first principles of the Treaty—what was it there for, what was it set to achieve? Then we will get far better outcomes rather than trying to focus on the law per se.
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which is also being amended by this omnibus bill, is also an Act I think that needs a lot more amendment than is in this bill, but at least it goes part the way there. The issue for te ture whenua, because of the way Māori land ownership has worked down the ages, if you like—it has quite disadvantaged groups with the difficulty of making decisions and ability to borrow money to actually capitalise on what that land is capable of producing—is that it has held iwi back. That has been a real issue. I remember the debates from my time, actually, on the Māori Affairs Committee about Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and I think that is something that we will all have to come to an agreement on to make it better than it is. This is one little amendment. I don’t have the right answer, but I know that the outcome that we have at the moment is not right. It’s not delivering for the people it’s supposed to, and I think that’s a bit of a black mark on this whole Parliament—that we can’t actually figure that out. It actually goes down party lines in the end, not for good reason other than just because we’re different parties. I think there has to be a better way. So I appeal to everyone across the House to get your heads together and sort it out because I think the opportunities for iwi are being lost and we shouldn’t allow that to happen just on party political grounds.
The Māori Trust Boards Act is also being amended and it’s going to allow for electronic voting. It is crazy the way when we write these laws that we have an Act passed in 1955, there’ll be no such thing as electronic voting back in those days, and we have to get to 2021 to allow for electronic voting to make these things run far more efficiently and bring them into the 21st century. It’s great to see that in here. We can understand why it takes so long to do this, because legislation is quite a laborious process, and so we don’t just simply bring a bill to Parliament to change it for electronic voting. But maybe there should have been a bill that went across all of those entities that didn’t allow electronic voting and just did it overnight, but there might be good reasons why that hasn’t been done. There’ll be other Acts that need amending to allow this, I’m sure, for other entities. What they do with their own rules is their business, but it’s good to see it being changed here.
The Māori Community Development Act 1962 is also being amended, and that requires the District Māori Councils to provide a copy of their audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council, rather than the chief executive of the Ministry of Māori Development, and that’s a real efficiency thing. Why the heck has it taken this long to do that? Again, I don’t know. But you know, as I said at the beginning, I think that every parliamentarian should take the opportunity to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee—if you get the opportunity, please take it, because you will come away with a different perspective on things from that experience. Actually, I think I can say without fear of anyone challenging me that the Māori Affairs Committee has the best kai, and that reason alone is a good one for taking the time to get involved. And so with that, I commend the bill to the House.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Look, it’s always an honour to talk on things Māori in the House. Can I just reflect on the last comment by the previous speaker, Stuart Smith. We had to, unfortunately, ensure that Rino Tirikatene wasn’t the chair, because there was too much food being offered at the Māori Affairs Committee! So we brought in some slim-line rules and other plant-based, protein-type kai, and, as a result, under the new leadership of Tāmati Coffey, we’ll be much slimmer, thinner, and a lot more efficient than the 150 years of all of those other fellas that went through that committee. But I digress!
This is a really good bill. It says here it’s minor, technical, and non-controversial but, as has been traversed by others, they are really, really important, some of those things that are being covered. And it’s funny because these are often seen as minor but, actually, they’re quite major for those who sit on some of these trusts, those komiti that are impacted by some of these changes: simple things like being able to hold meetings electronically, and also the correction of te reo. Look, if you spell something wrong and it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and this is going to correct that.
Look, I want to finish by saying that the infamous Māori Community Development Act—I know that that has things like the Māori wardens in there, and I’ll digress if I talk about that too, but, look, all of these, in conclusion, will do great things for those Māori organisations that operate under these pieces of legislation. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. It is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Greens in support of this omnibus Māori Purposes Bill. We support it in the hope that the changes in this bill will indeed contribute to Māori wellbeing and development by providing Māori entities with greater autonomy and decision making, addressing previous technical issues within legislation, and reducing administrative compliance. What a nuisance it must have been for them to have to change law to achieve some of that.
The laws we seek to amend are good examples of the paternalistic way in which successive New Zealand Governments have continued to colonise Māori by setting up legal entities for them to do what they’re best qualified to do anyway. The Greens support bills which allow iwi, whānau, and hapū to have a say in the issues that affect them—to get on with their responsibilities to each other but also to their whenua, their awa, and their moana. We uphold the mana of Māori leadership. We explicitly support Matike Mai and He Puapua, which allows for the rangatiratanga and mana motuhake of our iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations—the recognition of their authority in their own sphere.
Amending Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 will ensure the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust will continue to exercise its kaitiakitanga of the Waitomo caves, a truly, truly magical place. It will also help ensure its succession orders uphold the mana of the Wai 51 claim.
Amending the Maori Purposes Act 1959 will give the Lake Rotoaira Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Rotoaira and its trout fishery, which it does on behalf of its tūpuna for their mokopuna. Rotoaira, as others have said, is a very beautiful and restful place, and it was one that was very special to my grandmother. It is the area where mountain Taranaki was—was said to have been losing a battle with Tongariro over the heart of Pihanga, so it caused Taranaki to move to its current destination, its current location.
Among other things, amending the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 will provide for electronic voting. Electronic instead of postal—finally. Their voting numbers are about to go through the roof. We wish them well with their ease of future processes.
Amending the Maori Community Development Act 1962 will mean that district Māori councils need only provide their audited accounts to the New Zealand Māori Council and not to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, who could probably do without that micromanagement after all of these years.
Appropriate decision-making is one of the cornerstones of the Greens’ charter, so the views of the organisations that are affected by these bills matter to us. We note that Te Puni Kōkiri has gained support from the Lake Rotoaira Trust, Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust but also the Aorangi, Hauraki, Tūwharetoa, Whakatōhea, Tauranga Moana, Waikaremoana Māori Trust Boards, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. At the time of writing, a reply from the Tai Tokerau Māori Trust Board was still coming, but I’m sure that’s been received by now.
We look forward to a time when all such organisations are left to get on with their own work without Government oversight—when this Government is able to put in place what the partnership principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi means. But all in all this is a sensible omnibus bill that we commend to the House. Kia ora.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party today in support of the first reading of the Māori Purposes Bill. As other speakers have made clear, this is a bill that is an omnibus bill. It amends many different Acts that have relation to Māori affairs or Māori development, and those are the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962. In changing these Acts, the bill only does so in minor and technical aspects, which means that it’s very hard to find a lot to talk on for a long time, so I will make my speech quite short.
The ACT Party believes that public policy matters. There are many things that we can’t change in life, living in New Zealand. We can’t change the size of our country, or the fact that we do live in the Pacific, and we are very lucky to live in the country that we do. But what we can change are our public policy settings, and making life better for people, and making sure that we’re constantly striving to make New Zealand a better place for everybody who lives here. In doing that, a lot of what happens in Parliament is that we need to change our laws to update them with the times, and with different changes that might happen through other regulations, and making sure that people are able to manage their affairs in the best way that they can see fit.
The Government’s purpose is to make sure that every individual New Zealander and every business entity or community organisation is able to help support other New Zealanders in the best way possible. That’s why we support the first reading of this bill, because it makes management of organisations easier. So if you think of who is involved in various aspects of this legislation, it makes many aspects of running Māori trust boards, Māori trusts, and Māori councils easier to run and manage. That can only be a good thing.
I just want to point quickly to a couple of aspects, and that is the Lake Rotoaira Trust. There is a beautiful lake in New Zealand, right around the corner from Lake Taupō, and they have fishery requirements. This change will remove the requirement that to hold a trout licence to fish, you have to then not be able to fish for things other than trout. So it’s making a very small technical change, to make fishery management easier for the Lake Rotoaira Trust. It also revokes the provisions that tie the daily bag and size limits for Lake Rotoaira to those set for the Lake Taupō fishery, and I note that just this year, some of the fishery standards for Lake Taupō and Lake Rotoaira have been separated. So these are good changes to make with that in regard.
The second part that I think is really important here is that we’re allowing for Māori trust boards to use electronic voting, and that’s because the Maori Trust Boards Act was set up in 1955, and we’re now allowing modern ways of voting, and I think that can only really be a good thing, if that helps for the management of the trust boards.
So, in conclusion, the ACT Party is in support of the first reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, and we commend it to the House.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a quick call on this excellent bill. My colleagues in the House have already traversed the many and complicated ways in which this bill is going to make it easier for Māori to run their whenua and their organisations as they should be able to do. I want to highlight just two aspects of this leap into modernisation.
As we stand here in Wellington where you can walk anywhere because, as The Mutton Birds put it, “Nowhere’s very far,” it might be hard to remember that in other parts of New Zealand we have long and winding roads, and they are dirt roads, our settlements are small and diverse and we have, in my beloved Te Tai Tokerau, marae spread out across the motu. And we have had an issue with digital connectivity. But this bill amends both the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 to allow electronic ballots for board elections and it also amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 to give provision for meetings of owners of land to be held electronically. And this is really important because this Government in 2019 made a $21 million investment into digital connectivity for those far-flung marae. And that is going to mean that the people of those marae are able to participate, to make decisions about their whenua, electronically as they should be able to do without traversing those long and winding roads. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Joseph Mooney.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Māori Purposes Bill. This bill is one which will further enhance the ability for Māori trusts to operate an autonomous way free of some of the constraints that they currently have. As it says in the bill’s explanatory note, the bill will contribute to Māori wellbeing and development by providing Māori entities with greater autonomy and decision making, addressing previous technical issues within legislation, and reducing administrative compliance.
So the primary purpose of the bill is to (a), provide Māori entities with greater autonomy and greater decision making, (b), address previous technical issues within the legislation related to Māori affairs, and (c), reduce administrative compliance. It’s called an omnibus bill, which means it enables minor, technical, or non-controversial amendments to be made to various pieces of legislation which affect Māori development. One of those is amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, to ensure that the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust can continue to exercise existing powers, rights, and duties in a manner that is consistent with the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 claim in relation to the Waitomo caves.
I’ll just digress briefly to say that the Waitomo caves is somewhere that I remember visiting as a child and going with my brother. I think he was eight and I was 10, and we went into those caves for a little exploration in that vicinity ourselves and had an explore with a candle. I’ve got very fond memories of that area, and I know it’s a place that’s very special to local iwi. And that was the recognition in the 1990 settlement, the Wai 51 claim, which probably is roughly around the era—probably slightly before that—when I was there as a child.
But the second thing that it does, it proposes amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 to give the Lake Rotoaira Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. I think Mr McKelvie mentioned that he used to do some water skiing on that lake, so there are many connections that we have in this country. I’m sure Mr McKelvie would have been a fantastic water skier. I’m not sure if he’s still doing it—Mr McKelvie? No. But it’s another special place to many people, and it’s good to see some amendments being made in terms of managing the flexibility and the autonomy for local iwi in managing Lake Rotoaira under the Māori Purposes Act 1959 and its trout fishery.
It also proposes some technical and non-contentious amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and it proposes an amendment to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 to require District Māori Councils to provide a copy of the audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council, rather than to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri.
There are some amendments being made to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and, as my colleague Stuart Smith mentioned, it would be great if the House could come to a consensus on how to really do some deep thinking on how to reform that Act. There are some good, small revisions being made in this omnibus bill, but there needs to be a bigger piece of work done on Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to unlock billions of dollars of potential for iwi Māori. It’s an opportunity that is currently not being realised and it could be realised with the right legislative framework. I am currently the custodian of a bill which started back with the Hon Christopher Finlayson on that, and I would love to see some engagement from the other side of the House in that bill if that is possible—I know politically it is challenging, but if it is possible—so we can actually come to a cross-party consensus to unlock the potential for Māori so they can exercise true autonomy and unlock the potential of their whenua.
So overall, in conclusion, I would say National is supporting the Māori Purposes Bill, and I look forward to seeing its progression through the House.
BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take the Māori Party call on behalf of the Labour Party team, and it’s slightly disappointing that the Māori Party haven’t taken their call, given it’s quite unusual to have an omnibus Māori bill that covers four different Acts, and an ability to support such amendments during their reading.
So, having a look at the bill, because I’m not part of the Māori Affairs Committee, there is a particular amendment around removing Māori Trust Boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework to simplify the process of resignations. So, if you look at section 16 of the Māori Trust Boards Act 1955, currently if a Māori Trust Board member has either been removed from the office by the Governor-General, or for inefficiency, or if they can’t perform their functions or they resign, currently they have to apply to Cabinet for that resignation or to the Minister, which then goes through Cabinet. Obviously, that’s cumbersome, particularly because the member has left for whatever particular reason, but the word “inefficiency” in that particular section points to why they may have left. So the changes within the bill which removes the word “Minister” and replaces it with the “Board” is much more streamlined. It means that if the trust board member decides to resign, all they need to do is write to the Minister and say that they’re going to resign from their post.
One thing that I should probably pick up for the Māori Affairs Committee to probably have a look at as part of the section is that it says in the disclosure statement that seven of the eight continuing Māori Trust Boards have supported it; one had not come back in time for this bill to be tabled in the House. So my suggestion to the Māori Affairs Committee is to ensure that that last remaining Māori Trust Board does have their say as part of the select committee process. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s an absolute privilege to speak on this bill, which has been recognised across this House as being technical yet important. Comments have been made from the other side around Māori development, and I’d like to tautoko those and refer to an excellent function I went to last night, hosted by the Minister for Māori Development, my friend and colleague the Hon Willie Jackson, with the kiwifruit sector and the work that is happening there.
Minister Jackson mentioned how Māori economic development is one of the untold stories in New Zealand’s economy. In fact, there are other untold stories too. I know we’re talking about process, but if we look at policy, the policies are going in the right direction and one policy around Māori history in our schools, which we’ll see unfold next year, is the brilliant film that I was privileged to see at the weekend in my electorate of Taieri, which was Whetū Mārama made by Toby Mills and Aileen O’Sullivan, telling the story of Sir Hek Busby. It’s an untold story, an incredibly important story.
These are the policy changes that have led us to travelling the waka in the right direction, but it’s also about process, which brings me back to the bill, around these technical types of things. The policies can’t happen without the enablers, and, of course, this omnibus bill enables electronic voting. It takes away processes that, quite frankly, were paternalistic and don’t allow Māori their tino rangatiratanga, their own self-determination; so things like spelling mistakes in legislation, things like having to have Cabinet Fees Framework when other entities that are at arm’s length from the Crown don’t need those. So it’s fantastic to see that the process is catching up with the policy, and I commend the bill to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me a bit of pleasure to speak on this bill too. I was really interested in the comments of Paul Eagle about the way the Māori Affairs Committee used to be fed in Rino Tirikatene’s day. I did have the privilege of turning up there a couple of times; it was worthwhile. I don’t know whether we passed any good legislation, but we certainly did well, and I thought it was quite interesting that Paul should raise that in the course of this discussion. So it gives me pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill at its first reading.
As one of my colleagues has already said, I suppose in my younger days I had a close association with a lake that is mentioned in this bill a number of times, in the Rotoaira trust at Waitahanui, or not very far from the Waitahanui River or stream which comes out into Lake Taupō. I’ll always remember that part of the lake in its early days, because it was always a hugely popular fishing part of Lake Taupō and had many little fishing lodges and things like that in that area. But I also remember water skiing on that lake, or trying to water ski on that lake, and it’s a very pretty part of New Zealand. I think that this bill’s designed to give Māori entities a greater autonomy and greater decision-making powers over their own affairs. I think it’s most appropriate that this bill goes through the House and be passed.
I just wanted to mention another issue which is very common in that area. And, of course, the Rangitīkei electorate almost touches on the side of—well, it gets very close to the side of Lake Taupō. There’s been quite a discussion over a large number of years, including, significantly, led by the local iwi, around the ability to farm trout in that area. I know it’s extremely unpopular with some, that suggestion, but, actually, I think it’s got great potential for New Zealand, and it’s a shame we can’t find a way of encouraging that, because I know that in the Tūrangi area there are people who would be very keen to promote trout farming, not in the lake in any form, but I think it would be a useful local industry. I’ve never forgotten going to Scandinavia, where the salmon farms are very, very common, but they also farm sea trout there and it’s the most beautiful thing to eat, better than the native—not a native one, of course, but better than the trout that comes out of the lake.
So I think that this bill, for me, has got good value for New Zealand. I’ll be interested to see how it comes back out of the select committee. I’m sure there’ll be very few changes, because it’s a pretty simple bill, and I welcome its introduction to the House and hope it goes well.
IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a short and last call on the Māori Purposes Bill first reading. My colleagues from across the House, in fact, have spoken in depth on this bill, so I would like to just spend the last call summarising some of the key points. This bill is an omnibus bill that enables minor technical and non-controversial amendments to be made to Māori development legislation. The bill supports the Government’s priority to build a closer partnership with Māori and improve the response to Māori issues as well. So the amendments within this bill will contribute to Māori wellbeing and development by providing Māori entities with greater autonomy and greater decision-making. It will also address some technical issues and reduce some of the administrative compliance. All the appropriate agencies have been consulted on this proposed legislation.
This is yet another testimony that this Government is committed and willing to listen and establish a meaningful relationship with iwi. It’s nice, actually, to see everyone from across the parties coming together in support of this important piece of legislation. This also shows how much, as a nation, as a country, we have matured, and how far we have come in doing the right things. This is going to be a good bill because it’s going to change the game for a lot of Māori organisations. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
Bills
Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I present a legislative statement on the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I want to thank all members across the House who have contributed to the debate on this important bill. This bill amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991. That is the principal piece of legislation that governs Crown-owned resources, including petroleum. The bill lays the foundation for a stronger, more proactive regulation of petroleum-decommissioning activities. It is designed to mitigate the risk to the Crown and taxpayer of having to fund decommissioning in the event that a permit or licence holder is unable to do so.
Decommissioning can include removing infrastructure, plugging and abandoning wells, and undertaking site restoration. Significant risk to health and safety and the environment could arise if petroleum fields are not cleaned up and made safe at the appropriate time. The bill clarifies expectations of permit and licence holders by introducing an explicit statutory obligation to carry out and meet the costs of decommissioning.
There are penalties for the failure to comply with the obligation. It also introduces perpetual liability. This means that if someone transfers their interest in a permit or licence, they will continue to be held liable for the costs of decommissioning in the event that the current permit or licence holder fails to fulfil their obligations.
An important aspect of the new regime will be improved monitoring and oversight. The bill provides the regulator with new powers to monitor a permit or licence holder’s financial position and to carry out assessments of their financial capability. Permit and licence holders will also be required to provide information related to decommissioning, including cost estimates and plans.
The bill requires permit and licence holders to establish a financial security which can be used to fund decommissioning in the event that something goes wrong. The amount and kind will be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account factors such as the estimated costs of decommissioning, when decommissioning will occur, and any emerging risks. The bill also requires permit and licence holders to make a payment or provide a financial security that could be put towards the cost of any post-decommissioning work required. This includes the monitoring, maintenance, and remediation of wells and infrastructure after decommissioning has been completed.
Moving away from decommissioning-specific provisions, the bill introduces new enforcement tools such as compliance notices and infringement offences. These changes will allow the regulator to take a proportionate and effective approach to compliance across the Crown Minerals Act.
The bill also makes changes to the tests used when someone acquires a permit. The decision maker will have to be satisfied the proposed permit holder will be highly likely to comply with certain conditions. It also makes various technical amendments to the Crown Minerals Act to improve administration and efficiency.
The bill covers a range of areas. As well as debate in the House, there was feedback from a wide range of parties during the select committee submissions process. I’d like to acknowledge and thank each and every person who took the time to engage in the submissions process. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee made valuable recommendations during their examination of the bill, and I too want to acknowledge the members of that committee for their time and their consideration in deliberations of the matters before them.
While numerous changes were made by the select committee in response to the submissions, the key provisions I have outlined were retained in order to mitigate the risk to the Crown and to the taxpayer. The situation with the Tūī permit, where the Crown stepped in to fund decommissioning at considerable cost to the taxpayer, highlighted the need for the greater protections this bill provides. However, I want this House to be assured that this bill is not a knee-jerk reaction to the Tūī situation, but it addresses a fundamental gap in the Crown Minerals Act and takes a longer-term view of what we need to do to improve our regulation of a changing sector.
The aim is to provide for a flexible approach to regulation which will allow requirements to be tailored over time. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that it’s a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill. In fact, if it didn’t get finished this afternoon it would be no great blow to the National Party, because the decommissioning bill is another blow to energy affordability and security and it’s a complete overreach. I listened to what the Minister said in her speech in and around the legislative statement, and none of us would’ve ever wanted to have happen what happened at the Tūī field, with Tamarind, because that’s one of those environmental things that shouldn’t happen, but, unfortunately, it did. It was a one-off, and this industry is actually very good at doing its decommissioning and putting steps in place to make sure that the decommissioning happens.
The saddest thing about sitting on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and I’m not part of the select committee that looked at this bill, but I did sit in, and a lot of this happened on Zoom during the most recent lockdown when we were in level 4. I was sitting at my kitchen table back in Taranaki, listening to the submissions, and I found that while the Minister who just spoke said that there have been quite a lot of changes to this bill, actually, the amount of changes that were made to this bill was quite disappointing. I have worked with some bills where Ministers were quite free and open to making changes, and I didn’t find that same sort of flexibility when it came to working with the committee on this particular bill. I found that, particularly, the Government members of the committee were very quiet during the submission process, and that gave us a great opportunity to ask a lot of questions, which is good in itself, but I would’ve liked those members to have taken a bit more interest in advancing this to get a bill that was much better than what it is.
We don’t think this bill is necessary. We believe that the industry is taking care of it. When we were in the committee stage I just wanted to make note the other day that the Minister of Energy and Resources, Minister Woods—despite us going through the facts—was talking about how much the Tamarind Tūī issue cost this Government, and there’s no denying that it was a cost to the Government. But we’re also putting it to the Government that every year, this industry contributes around $2.5 billion to the economy, it brings in around $750 million worth of export receipts, and it generates approximately $500 million in royalties income for the Crown.
Now, the Minister made a comment that with the money that Government had to pay out for the decommissioning, imagine how many hospitals and schools and things we could have built, and I don’t dispute that. But I also, at the same time when we spoke about the bill, made the point that coming from Taranaki, I have seen many, many buildings, functions, and activities in the community—assets of the community—that have been funded by this industry. I made particular note of the swimming pool in New Plymouth, the New Plymouth aquatic centre, and I was really disappointed that the Minister chose to scoff about a swimming pool, when, actually, that missed the whole point of this. I did explain to the Minister that you have two sides on every ledger. There are benefits and there are costs, and, unfortunately, with this bill the Minister has focused on the costs and completely forgets about the other side.
Mr Grant Robertson might be more interested in the other side of the equation, given that he tends to be the one that measures where the money comes from. I also would acknowledge that Minister Robertson is always acknowledging where the agriculture money comes from, and it’s not something that we hear a lot of from Ministers on the other side of the House, either.
So when this bill started, we supported the intent of the bill because we do support decommissioning—but, as I said, so does the industry—and we acknowledge the responsibility of the petroleum sector to decommission gasfields in a safe and lasting way. But this bill, like a number of bills, is a huge overreach, and it’s just an example of another bad bill that we have standing here this week, which is going to, probably during the course of this day, get passed through Parliament if the length of the Government speeches this week is anything to go by.
The bill is applied retrospectively. It will impact on existing permit and licence holders. It alters their rights and duties, and some of these have been in place for decades. Where else do you make a contract and a deal and then the Government comes along and retrospectively replaces the contract or the expectations that a company has with something else? It’s not normally—although once you’ve got a precursor who knows what’s likely to happen.
It will reduce New Zealand’s appeal as a location for petroleum investment, and at the moment, we’ve already seen in 2021 a shortage of gas, we have seen low lake levels, and we don’t have enough renewable energy to get us through the next few years. So what I suggest is that if this bill is going to take us down a track where it’s going to discourage further international investment, it’s just going to take us further and further away from the goals that we have to get to our renewable energy targets.
The BusinessNZ Energy Council says that the proposed rule would create a perpetual liability on energy businesses and it should be strongly opposed: “We can think no other situation in New Zealand where a business is legitimately sold, and the seller is responsible for any liabilities that might be accrued by the new owner.” It’s a fundamental change to how we do business in this country.
The Government talks about this being one of the strongest regulatory legislative components that there is in this industry in the world, and I notice that when this Government talks about things—particularly the Prime Minister—everything’s about being the best in the world or on the top of the world and everything is so important. It is always wanting to be the first or the best in the world, and I notice that the Prime Minister hasn’t yet, that I’ve seen, picked up the KPMG report from about three weeks ago, which graded 32 countries in the world on their zero-carbon readiness. They graded 32 countries and New Zealand rated ninth—so we’ve got a bit of work to do—and agriculture rated first. Now, we do have work to do in agriculture as well, but penalising those who are at the top of the game doesn’t exactly help the others at the bottom of game produce zero-carbon ready food.
The cost of this bill greatly outweighs the benefits. The proposal is estimated to cost a net $1 billion, and for every $1 spent, we will see 11c worth of benefits.
Hon Member: 11c?
BARBARA KURIGER: I’ll just repeat that because I can hear some shock coming from some of the National members behind me: for every $1 spent, we will see 11c worth of benefits. Now, not much has been making sense in some of the other legislation we’ve been doing this week—you know, all the stuff around traffic lights, businesses, and uncertainty, and there’s huge uncertainty in the energy industry. There’s huge uncertainty in the electorates of some members who are sitting behind me from Auckland, who every day have to be out there talking to their businesses and trying to console people who are trying to go to sleep at night and are waking up in the morning and finding that their business has just lost a whole lot more money, without any understanding from the Government.
So for every $1 spent, there’s 11c worth of benefits. That might be a good enough calculation for the Minister of Energy and Resources. It might be a good enough piece of numerical data for the people on the other side of the House today, but it’s certainly not a good enough return for this side of the House—the National Party. We value this energy industry, which has not only contributed to the energy security of New Zealand; it has contributed a whole lot of other things. I’m really disappointed that this bill is going through the House, and we in the National Party oppose it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill at the third reading: the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—our committee had the pleasure of shepherding this bill through—I’d like to thank all of the members of the committee. I’d like to thank the members in this House who spoke either in favour or against this bill. I’d particularly like to thank all the officials, who have worked really hard in terms of bringing the bill to this point, and also the number of submitters who made their submissions.
Barbara Kuriger, the previous member who just resumed her seat, talked about how this Government wants to be the best in the world. But look, it’s not about being the best in the world; it’s about doing the right thing. That’s simply what this bill is about—it’s about doing the right thing for the environment—and the aspect around clean-up is absolutely the right thing to do. Now, some members may argue where’s the point of reaching too far, or where’s the point of not doing enough, and there may be some philosophical differences there. But in terms of this side of the House, we think this bill is about right in terms of ensuring that the New Zealand taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for the decommissioning of petroleum activities.
So the bill, basically, ensures that those who undertook and profited from petroleum activities will pay their fair share in the clean-up. Now, I don’t really need to go into the details because we heard from the Minister’s speech quite clearly what the bill does. But this side of the House commends this bill at the third reading. Thank you.
Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): When our spokesperson Barbara Kuriger spoke in the debate a moment ago, she said that for every $1 spent, there was an 11c benefit for New Zealand. The problem we have is that if businesses in New Zealand ran their accounts in the way the Government does when it comes to investment, there would be even more businesses closing than the 28,000 that closed over the last few months because of the Government’s extremely restrictive COVID policies.
I feel for our officials. I thank them for their work, but I could tell when they were listening to submitters that they actually thought there was probably a better way to do this, but were not able to bring that advice frankly to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee because of the position the Government had had. I also feel for our chair. He’s actually one of the best chairs of committees I’ve served on. He’s very fair, everyone gets a fair hearing, and we often work to find solutions to challenges or problems that submitters have raised to make legislation better. But the reason I feel for him in this instance is I think it feels like he and the other members of the committee were whipped into supporting this and weren’t allowed to make the changes necessary to make it a good piece of legislation.
You see, we do support decommissioning. The industry supports decommissioning. It’s actually lazy for the Government to say National doesn’t care about these things. We do, but you need good rules and good regulations that people understand and that make sense, because when you don’t, there is confusion when it comes to things like this.
It means less investment in New Zealand from overseas. The Government has borrowed and spent $97.5 billion under the name of COVID but most of it not on COVID. We need investment from overseas to grow the economy to be able to start paying that back, or else the poor old Kiwi workers’ taxes are going to have to go up under a Labour Government. They’ll take more from them to pay back the reckless spending we’ve seen over the last year and a half. The problem with legislation like this is when you don’t get it right, it sends a signal to the rest of the world that New Zealand is not open for business. When the Government says they want to be world best, well, they’re not world best when it comes to having good investors in New Zealand and the benefits that flow through to Kiwis.
The new member of Parliament for New Plymouth, Glen Bennett—I’m sure he wanted to improve the legislation, because his electorate is in the heart of the oil and gas area of New Zealand. Before he was the MP, when Jonathan Young was the hard-working, successful MP for New Plymouth, do you know that the average income in New Plymouth was one of the highest in the country of any region, and the unemployment rate was one of the lowest of any region in New Zealand, even during the global financial crisis, when the rest of the country’s economy was challenged because businesses were losing markets overseas and they were losing jobs? Do you know why that is? Because of investment in oil and gas, and particularly gasfields.
When the Prime Minister made that announcement on the steps of Parliament after meeting protesters in Greenpeace in the first term, instead of meeting the President of Indonesia and talking about maybe a trade deal with Indonesia, she stood him up and made him wait. He was a President from a country that actually can do a huge amount for New Zealand, but she stood him up to go and make an announcement of a ban on oil and gas exploration.
Do you know what happened the very next day? People that had large incomes and that were working in New Plymouth went to their bank to say, “We want to buy a house. We need a mortgage.”, and the bank said no because they had no certainty for employment for the future. The engineering workshop started not taking on young people and laying off workers. Now New Plymouth has a higher unemployment rate than it should and its average income has shrunk quite, quite significantly because of bad decision-making.
That’s why I think Glen Bennett, the MP for New Plymouth, wanted to see changes here to make sure that the industry had to be responsible, that the legislation was fair, and that it was well understood so we could still have investment from overseas in New Zealand, particularly in his electorate. That hasn’t happened, and I feel for him because he will have to account for that at the next election, and the platitudes that come from the Government around things like this won’t actually work then because the very people that deserve support and need those jobs have missed out because of that previous decision of Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister, and now this legislation.
This bill is retrospective. What that means is decisions that were made years ago are now impacted. It also means that for people that were directors of companies many, many years ago, who are no longer directors, the rights have been sold, the companies have been sold, but they still have liability—retrospective liability. That is not reasonable, it is not fair, and it just does not make sense. It is the case that there was one problem that the Government had to fix, but there was one problem. Every other time, this works well, and the Government’s reaction to that one problem they had to work out was to blame the industry and overburden them with unreasonable legislation that is not going to work as well as they say.
There are 11,000 highly skilled New Zealanders and others employed in this sector. Well, because of legislation like this, that number is going down at a time when we need higher-paying jobs, jobs built on good technology.
We need to partner with countries overseas. We should be making it easier for people to come and invest actively in New Zealand, and to create jobs and to create partnerships, so more of those young people in New Plymouth and other parts of the country get those apprenticeships and get the skills to actually earn more and contribute more to society. That’s the way the Government gets to have the tax it needs to pay back the huge debt that they’ve run up: through increasing productivity and through greater investment from better jobs; not putting the tax rate up, as we will see in this term and many terms to come.
For every $1 spent, only an 11c return—my gosh! No wonder so many Labour MPs have given up their businesses and come to this House, or so few of them had businesses before they came here, because that is not a good return at all. [Labour members interject] All of a sudden they’ve woken up—look at that. So they didn’t wake up because of the jobs that have been ruined and because the investment has disappeared or because they’ve ruined Glen Bennett’s electorate seat for him; they woke up because they’ve been accused of not knowing how to run a business. That proves my point, because they were asleep at the wheel then, they woke up, and now they’ve gone back to sleep again. So I’ll speak more quietly; I wouldn’t like to rark them up. Poor Glen is sitting there thinking he wants to get back to his electorate to start explaining how he wanted changes to this legislation but that the changes couldn’t come through.
Business New Zealand said that creating perpetual liability on industry business should be strongly opposed. They don’t do these things lightly. Actually, they are a measured organisation that looks after the interests of New Zealand, not just businesses, and they said, “We can think of no other situation in New Zealand where a business is legitimately sold, and the seller is responsible for any liabilities which might be accrued by the new owner.” That’s fundamental.
I tell you what, if a New Zealand company was to invest overseas and there was legislation like this, they would come running to the Government saying, “That’s unfair. Can you go and sort it?” If this was a rule in Indonesia, they would come to the Prime Minister and say, “Prime Minister, could you arrange a meeting with the President of Indonesia to say this is unreasonable? We want to invest in that country. There’ll be a return for New Zealand. It will be good for their economy. We’ll create jobs for the people of Indonesia. Can we get this sorted out so we have greater certainty because there is uncertainty here? It is not worth the risk to invest in that country.”, and the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, would say, “Actually, I can’t do that, because he’s waiting upstairs in the Beehive and I’m down there banning oil and gas exploration.”
Turn that around; it’s exactly the same thing. We do need investment in New Zealand. We are not a wealthy country. In fact, now, after COVID, because of the Government’s reckless borrowing and spending, we are an even poorer country than we were. We have people in New Zealand that have to choose between paying their rent or feeding their kids. They work hard, they are the working poor.
I cannot see why the changes were needed to make this legislation actually achieve what it needs to, which is to hold those to account when they give up rights or they have to decommission, but not retrospectively, not unreasonably, not punitively. We could have got it right so the investment may have been a 40 or 50 percent return on every dollar spent. That would have been a great start. That’s something that members of the Government should be screaming and yelling about, not proving they know nothing about running businesses.
NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I found that quite hard listening to the previous contribution, just because, first of all, I think my colleague—especially Glen Bennett—doesn’t wish to be spoken on behalf of. I’m perfectly sure that he would support this bill and he has in the past, and he has done great work on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee liaising, and questioning not only the submitters but also the officials.
Can I start by thanking all the officials who have worked on the bill with us. It’s actually one of the biggest groups of officials I’ve ever seen on any of the bills I’ve been working on in the last year, and those officials are really top of the industry. They know every detail about this bill. They answered every question we posed to them with great detail and great knowledge, and so I thank everyone who worked on this bill.
Can I make it really clear that what the National Party today have been saying is, basically, they want to create a back door for the industry. Look, the equation is simple: if you actually decommission the field that you made money out of, this bill will have nothing to do with you. If you just do the right thing, you don’t actually have to fear this bill, so why are we even arguing about this when you can just do the right thing.
So if they’re saying that the industry will do the right thing, then the industry should have no problem with this bill, because it will have nothing to do with them if they do the right thing and they pay for their decommissioning, unlike what we had to do, which was put up $155 million to decommission the previous oilfield. So that is what we have to be cognisant of when we know that we have to manage the economy very, very carefully. We have to know that we need to look after what the taxpayers give us. Not only is it the responsibility of looking after the coffers but also to look after the environment, so every decommissioning needs to be done right. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party with great pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
This has been a while coming, really. I think, as a country, we’ve recognised that there’s been a problem for quite a few years, and I’d start by going back to my previous colleague Gareth Hughes’ work in 2017, where he exposed the fact that the Crown was exposed to potential costs of $800 million over the next 20 years relating to decommissioning of oil rigs because of the way decommissioning costs could then be written off against tax liabilities. Between that time and this bill coming to the House in the first place, the Government had been forced to spend an additional $374 million on one single decommissioning project after Tamarind Resources structured its permit ownership to avoid having to pay for its own decommissioning. It’s the privatising of profit and the socialising of costs, and that has been our reality in this country in relation to this infrastructure.
I do want to point as well to the fact that we are in a climate crisis. It’s pretty important that we face up to that fact. We’ve just had an international meeting where the collective commitments across the world were not enough to be able to meet the climate crisis. We have to be, collectively around the world, stepping up our efforts.
That is going to require a just transition, and part of the process of a just transition, as well as getting people out of extractive industries and into really productive and sustaining work, is also looking after the environment after those industries have gone and about fixing up the damage that has been done and putting the cost of that where it belongs, with the people who have been making the profits all the way along. This is a pretty important principle for us in the Greens, and it is clear to us that we need a regulatory regime in Aotearoa New Zealand that is based on “polluter pays” so that those who have the benefit from environmentally harmful activities also carry the costs of the associated remediation and clean-up activities. It doesn’t feel like a strange idea to me; it just seems pretty basic common sense. It was how I was brought up: if you do the damage, you pay for the damage.
This bill fixes up a lot of these regulatory gaps that we’ve had to ensure that there is a responsibility into the future, and I do want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. That was quite extensive. I was involved in some of the early stages of this, which shows how extensive it was, because I haven’t been on that committee this term. There is now in this bill that we are passing today a clear obligation to decommission, much greater monitoring powers, and a requirement to obtain and maintain a financial security to carry out decommissioning work.
So this is a really important step forward for us as a country right now, but we still, obviously, have more work to do in the mining space to protect all of our environment and all of our communities. But the Greens are very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party opposes this bill not only because it’s a flawed and bad piece of legislation; we also have the unfortunate job of explaining to New Zealanders—because we always follow the Green Party in speeches in the House—why the Green Party’s environmental solutions to environmental problems simply won’t work and that more taxes, more bans, more regulations heaped on some of New Zealand’s most cutting-edge, high-performing businesses actually won’t help improve the environment. The problem this legislation is intended to solve is that some oil and gas exploration structures may at the end of their lives be left without being remediated, and there are some simple solutions—some simple regulatory solutions—proposed by the industry that they would accept in order to protect the Crown and to protect New Zealand’s environment from the risk that petrochemical structures may be left behind and not cleaned up.
Some of the things that the industry has said they would be happy to accept and that the ACT Party supports are that operators should take responsibility for decommissioning and avoid what happened at the Tūī field, that decommissioning is a core element of good industry practice, and that this obligation should be clarified for all industry operators. The industry and the ACT Party also agree that the Crown should be able to regularly assess the financial capability of organisations carrying out activities that have significant impacts on the environment, like the petroleum and gas exploration and production industry, but that the regulations that allow Government to look deep into their business and to fish around and request information and go on trawling expeditions must be limited to only the information that’s necessary for determining whether these businesses can meet their financial obligations.
The industry is an industry that actually supports thousands of jobs in Taranaki, and, through those jobs, supports communities in a place where not everybody finishes high school. Not everybody in Taranaki goes off to university and gets an arts degree, or becomes a lawyer and ends up on the backbench of the Labour Party. That’s a privilege only accorded to a few people from Taranaki. What most people in Taranaki do is they leave school. If they get qualified, they go to polytech, they go to a local college, they learn how to weld, and they learn how to operate in the oil and gas industry. They learn how to participate in the manufacturing industries that support the oil and gas and energy industry that underpins New Zealand’s energy security, New Zealand’s energy affordability.
Actually, these people in Taranaki, whether they went to university or got a qualification in specialist welding from their local technical college, are the ones who actually implement the best-practice environmental technology in the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. These are the people who put the scrubbers together. These are the people who install the waste-water systems and the oil-water separation systems, because New Zealand’s energy industry meets the highest environmental performance standards of any energy industry in the world. That’s something that the ACT Party celebrates and that we think New Zealanders should be proud of, and that’s why we don’t understand why the Government, in seeking to solve a problem of one operator who had failed to fulfil their responsibilities to clean up the environment, has, essentially, taken what appears to be a pick and mix, “why not pick them all” solution. So when trying to understand the solutions the Government came up with to hold petrochemical companies to account for their operations at the end of their lifetime, they came up with a trailing or perpetual liability on directors so that anybody who’s been a director of these businesses ever—even if they sold them; even if it was a decade ago—would be held liable.
They came up with a post-decommissioning fund. Now, in my experience as an environmental engineer carrying out actual environmental remediations on some of New Zealand’s most hazardous sites, sites where pesticides were manufactured, where timber treatment chemicals were used, and, during their use at a time even before I was born, when safety conditions and environmental best practice wasn’t what it is now, there was soil contamination and water contamination. But when you go and you clean up a site and you meet the resource consent conditions or the consent conditions for the clean-up, then you get it signed off by the engineers and the scientists and local Government—and, in this case, of course, energy is regulated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—and you get signed off. At that point, they say, “Thank you for decommissioning and decontaminating your site. Here is the certificate to say you’ve met your obligations. Here’s your bond back. Here’s a letter to say that we’re satisfied with your environmental performance.”
Well, what this bill proposes to do and what the Government came up with is a post-decommissioning fund, which, essentially, makes the operators pay into a fund in case one of their competitors or another business down the track fails to meet their obligations. Even though the company itself has met its obligations and been signed off by the regulator, they were going to be asked to pay for other people’s failures. Now, that makes absolutely no sense to anyone in business and I bet it makes no sense to anyone sitting at home that having cleaned up your own site, the Government’s going to say, “But we want you to pay into a fund to clean up other people’s sites who’ve failed to clean up.”
Then they also introduced a mandatory financial security. Well, most of these businesses already have insurances, they have international shareholders, and they have obligations and responsibilities that extend outside of New Zealand, because there’s very few New Zealand - only energy companies. That’s because over the years, it’s become harder and harder to do business in this sector, even without the kind of pick and mix, lolly scramble approach to making legislation that this bill indicates is the Government’s way of making laws.
The other thing that the industry pointed out was the bill would require as a default total removal of all the infrastructure. Now, a lot of this infrastructure is below ground level, or where it does appear at ground level, you actually want to leave something in place so that you can monitor it and be able to come back and check it later. Total removal of all infrastructure makes no technical sense, even though it might make sense to people who’ve never actually operated in the environmental engineering, environmental rehabilitation space.
So ACT believes that polluters must pay. This legislation doesn’t simply create a regulatory setting so that the obligation is on energy companies to clean up at the end of their operation and hand over a clean site to those who come after. It’s actually the kind of regulation that will cause business owners, directors, and investors to say, “I’m not sure whether we should be in New Zealand. We don’t think it’s a good place to invest and do business.”
What this puts at risk are jobs, not just in Taranaki, but in all the supporting industries, the manufacturing, and all of those suppliers who supply those oil rigs and who supply all of the onshore production. All of those jobs are at risk. The Gas Industry Co. has said that at some point, if the Government is successful in its crusade against the gas industry and that part of the energy sector, there may not be enough players to pay to maintain the network transmission infrastructure. So even though the Climate Change Commission has said, “We’re going to need gas up to 2050 to bridge where we are now in terms of renewable energy. To where we want to get to in real energy, we’re going to need gas.”, actually, who’s going to pay to maintain the pipe if the Government has, essentially, sterilised the industry and turned away people who would be prepared to invest in our energy security, affordability, and reliability, and continue investing for decades to come?
So what the ACT Party says is that we oppose this bill because it’s not just one piece of bad regulation; they’ve got four elements in here which are all bad for business. They set a terrible precedent with trailing and perpetual liability, piling on costs on to businesses that actually do the right thing. That’s why the ACT Party cannot support this bill.
HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this bill, particularly having heard the speeches from the Opposition today and in other readings. I’m really concerned that the New Zealand public see what’s happened today, because what we’ve actually seen is what people who say that they believe in self-responsibility do when it’s about small people, but when it’s about big multinationals, it goes out the window.
What we have here is we have an industry that is made up of big, big multinationals and the rich list, and they actually went out and they built an infrastructure which has hazards associated with it. Many, many of those businesses are so big that they lose their humanity—let’s face it—and what they do is they forget and they calculate in that they will be able to actually sell these companies off to another company, and because they’re shielded by limited liability, they won’t end up paying for the mess they made.
Not only that; the environment will suffer—they are out of there—and that is what happened in the case of Tamarind. What happened with Tamarind was that someone else took on the endgame and those people did not have the cash at hand and maybe they didn’t even have the will to actually clean up, and guess who ended up paying for that? Actually, it’s not the Government, as is suggested when we want to sanitise these things; it’s the taxpayer. It’s the very people that Simon Court has described. Those are the people who actually go to the polytech and work in small industries and work in industry. Those are the people who end up paying their hard-earned dollars to clean up after a multinational who has made a massive amount of money and skipped, and that is totally unacceptable.
That is where our system breaks down and, actually, the National Party and ACT look like what they are: the supporters of big business and big multinationals and not the supporters of the taxpayers. I too believe in self-responsibility, and so I am proud to support this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Oh, Mr Speaker, goodness gracious me! We’re near the end of the day and we hear from Helen White, the member from Auckland Central about how bad these big multinationals are, these big, bad businesses that pay all this tax to this country, that employ how many people in Auckland Central, I wonder—but we’re all focused on those big, bad businesses. Well, on this side of the House, we are absolutely not. Do you know what? We actually talk to those businesses. We actually understand those businesses—something that that member on that side would not have a clue where to start.
I stand here in the third reading of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. National oppose this bill. I tell you what, over the last 48 hours, I have been up here in the House a number of times on unnecessary regulations and laws and legislation. Every single thing that we’ve seen from that side of the House in the last 48 hours has been absolutely unnecessary—a burden on our businesses, bureaucracy, complication, and overreach by this Government. It continues. It’s like a machine—it just keeps pumping it out like fodder—and I’ll tell you what, Kiwis are sick of it.
Have we heard anything about the Aucklanders that are in lockdown for nearly a hundred days? Did I hear anything from that side of the House? The answer is no. They would not have a clue in terms of the pain and agony that the people of Auckland and the people of this country are falling to because of unnecessary legislation like this bill that I’m talking to right now.
I want to get into some of the detail around some of the costs and benefits, or, should I say, the lack of, because this is an example of a Government that has a complete inability in terms of targeting investment to get a payback. I’ll tell you what, there are a lot of Kiwis in this country right now who are not throwing out all their money all willy-nilly—quite the opposite. Hairdressers, salons, hospitality have had zero income for the last hundred days, but the cost-benefit of this bill is that for every $1 of spend from taxpayer money, paid out of the pockets of hard-working Kiwis, there is 11c. Well, I don’t know about the economics and understanding in terms of payback on investment, but I can tell you what, my eight-year-old son at home—he’s pretty reasonable at maths, so he would be able to work it out. He could say, “Dad, I don’t think that sounds very good.”, and you know what? He’d be absolutely right.
The problem is that that side of the House can’t seem to get it. They do not understand that that level of investment in terms of the money that is paid for out of our pockets—out of all those Kiwis—in terms of this bill is not effective spend, and we have got a heck of a number of areas within this country that need investment right now. I’m looking at the member from down in the Queenstown area, in terms of our tourism sector and the pain and agony that they’ve felt, and this bill is using that investment in a way which is wasted.
We talked a little bit about the select committee process, and I want to acknowledge the chair, Jamie Strange, across there—a good man. I always have a lot of time for him and he’s a pretty good, sensible chap. But I must say that that committee was whipped in terms of pretty much being muzzled around being able to provide any level of feedback around improving that bill.
What is the purpose of select committees? Well, I tell you what: it is to improve legislation. It is to make it better, but over the last 48 hours, like with this bill, we have not been given the opportunity to get in front and go through and do due process on legislation. That side of the House thinks it’s completely acceptable to rush through this type of legislation without due consultation, and that is an absolute disgrace.
I want to finish off this contribution in terms of what was referred to on that side as those big, bad multinationals. Well, we simply do not buy that. These entities contribute a significant amount of money in terms of our economy, and in this area alone, $2.5 billion—yeah, that is a heck of a lot of money. These guys are good at spending, but in terms of making money, I can tell you what, it’s a lot harder. Also, $750 million in terms of some of the contribution—that is a significant impact from that industry.
National supports business. National supports the people of this country. National supports sensible regulation where it’s required. We do not support this bill. National oppose this bill.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): One thing I’ve learnt in life is that just because you say it louder doesn’t make it right. There’s a couple of members on that side of the House that could probably take that lesson, I think, over the last couple of days, and this particular bill is a prime example of that.
There is a particularly difficult question here around the legacy of decommissioning oil and gasfields, and I think this is pretty straightforward. If there is the possibility in the current regulations that the taxpayer and the Crown could be left with the liability and the cost of dealing with this, then that should be sorted, and this bill is doing just that.
I’m not going to pretend that I’m an expert in oil and gas—it’s not something that we deal with very often in Wairarapa. But I would think that most New Zealanders watching this, when they were made aware that there is the possibility that a company could leave what would reasonably be expected to be their responsibility on the Crown and on taxpayers, then I think that they would want that to be sorted. I think that they would expect that this Parliament, actually, when faced with this pretty straightforward proposition, would agree to close those loopholes that would allow that to happen. Even if it is a possibility that hasn’t occurred often in the past, why should we leave a loophole open for that to, potentially, be exploited in the future?
So I look at this very simply. If I was leasing a farm and I left that farm in a state at the end of that lease, it shouldn’t be on the farmer to sort it out. It should be on the person who was leasing that, and I see this as exactly the same. In normal, everyday life people would expect those that perform a particular function to deal with their responsibilities and not impose it on others. This bill is going to sort that out.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Richard Stark says, “the legacy left by industrial development can be riddled with uncertainty and be enduring in nature.”, and I find it alarming that the Opposition is so horrified by the idea of enduring obligations. The idea of enduring obligations isn’t a new concept. It’s fundamental to a sustainable world of tomorrow.
Historically, across the world, this seeming urgency to realise the productivity of oilfields and gasfields has meant that due weight wasn’t always given to the legacy of those works, nor the thought to who would be responsible and how, and that’s what this bill addresses. It ensures that those who undertook and profited from petroleum activities will pay a fair share for the cleaning up, the decommissioning, or any remedial work, and that it doesn’t fall fully to the Crown, to landowners, nor to taxpayers.
The changes in the bill, in terms of implementing a regulatory regime, echo the principles that we’ve seen internationally in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS—which requires the removal of abandoned installations from a State’s territorial waters. We’ve also seen it in the UK law, where decommissioning of offshore oil and gas is included in the Petroleum Act.
Here in New Zealand, the changes proposed will benefit landowners on whose land petroleum mining has taken place. It will benefit the agricultural community, who are vulnerable to hydrocarbon leakage onshore. It will benefit commercial marine users such as the commercial shipping and fisheries communities, who are vulnerable to things like snagging and fishing nets on decommissioned offshore installations left in situ. It will also, of course, benefit the public at large, including, of course, our future generations.
I thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their work on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I begin my contribution today opposing this bill by first of all thanking the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which I am a part of, for the work that they’ve actually done and, I have to say, particularly for the contribution of our spokesperson on this bill, Barbara Kuriger, who actually did the heavy lifting, because, as its often is with select committees, spokespeople actually sub permanent members out when they’re having to deal with it. I was often subbed out so Barbara could hear the submissions process. I appreciate all the work that she has done, and I’d like to thank her and everyone, including the committee clerks, who have actually put in a lot of hard work. Even though the committee actually disagreed, I think the process of that select committee was a good one.
I’d like to start off by commiserating with the Labour member for New Plymouth, Glen Bennett, because the contributions that I’ve heard from the Labour Government have probably nailed his chances of being re-elected in New Plymouth to zero. In terms of the way that the members have actually spoken, it is very clear that members on that side of the House do not understand how business works.
Just because they claim that National supports big business and whatever, it just goes to show that they understand nothing about business. It’s not just big business; it’s every business that we care about, including those which have actually suffered tremendously in Auckland through lockdown for more than a hundred days. When that member talks about enduring liability and responsibility, I just would like to say that the legacy that this Labour Government has left New Zealand is thousands of businesses that have had to close and the migrant population who are separated because of Government policy. So do we actually now send the Government the bill for the cost and the heartache and everything else that has actually gone wrong as a result of this Government’s policy? Maybe perhaps that’s what we should do.
But if we could talk about the details, I was actually shocked when I first heard that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits, as this proposal is estimated to cost $1 billion—$1 billion—and for every $1 spent, we will see only 11c—11c—worth of benefit. I know maths may not be the stronghold of some members, and I just want to say if Opposition members have invested in a house that is worth $1 million, if you put this mathematics—and this is cost-benefit analysis. If you spend $1 and you’ll only get 11c worth left—if they bought a house for $1 million and they decide to sell it, with this 11c worth of benefit, the house will only be worth $110,000. What kind of an idiot would make that kind of an investment—that only 11c is gained as a result of spending $1. A billion dollars is the cost to the taxpayer.
Yes, I know, there was an incident with the Tūī field and the Tamarind company that is costing the taxpayer, and that is an unfortunate incident. I know for a fact that the industry, when they submitted to the select committee, were not actually trying to obfuscate from their responsibilities; what they were actually wanting was regulation that is reasonable and is actually putting up those people who pollute to be responsible.
I think everyone can agree to that. If one pollutes, they have to pay some kind of reparation to right the wrong that the company has done. I think most people would accept that kind of responsibility if that is put in regulations for the businesses to be responsible for at the end of their term.
But what this bill does is put retrospective responsibility on the company. It’s like when someone goes into a contract, saying, “I’ve sold my house. I’ve signed a contract.”, and I’ve actually sold it, but 10 years down the track, I’m responsible for what goes wrong with that house. Does that actually happen? No, it’s been sold.
Hon Members: It does.
MELISSA LEE: Gosh—for something that the new owner does? This is what I’m talking about—for something that the new owner does to the house is what I’m responsible for—and that is not right. That does not happen. As I said in a previous reading of this bill, it’s like moving the goalposts after the—what do you call the person who kicks the ball? The kicker kicks the ball in a rugby game, for example, and the goalposts actually move. How do you score a try in a game of rugby if the goalposts actually move after the ball has been kicked? This is ridiculous.
The Government spends money, wastes money, on ridiculous things that are not necessary, particularly during COVID—just like the walkable Harbour Bridge, where the cycleway and the walkway along the Harbour Bridge was going to cost mega amounts of millions of dollars. They wasted so many million dollars of taxpayer money—
Hon Member: $51 million.
MELISSA LEE: —$51 million, that’s right—that has actually been spent. Who is going to be responsible for that? Should we be sending the Government the bill for that, because the taxpayer is paying for their mistake, just like the supposed slow tram down Dominion Road to the airport? That is never going to happen. “How much is the taxpayer going to pay for the legacy of this Labour Government?” is what I’d like to ask those members.
One of the things that I have read previously is that even the people who have submitted are, as I’ve said, supportive of responsibility being put on those people who pollute. I think the regulations need to be reasonable, and, as I said, nobody wants to be making New Zealand a dirty country. We all want to be responsible, but this particular legislation does not provide that. It actually puts a burden on people who may want to actually invest in New Zealand.
The Taranaki decision by the Prime Minister meant that thousands of jobs actually went in Taranaki, but this is like scaring future investors away for a decision that the Government is making. It also means that we, as consumers of electricity, will probably have to pay more for our power than ever before, and considering the fact that all of us who were in Auckland were spending more on power. We were using more power because we were locked up at home. We were cooking. We were turning all the lights on in the house. I mean, normally, we’re not home that often or that long during the day, but we had our computers going, so we used more electricity, and that cost is on the consumers because of this Government’s bad decision. I, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, oppose this bill.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 December 2021. Pō mārie.
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.