Wednesday, 2 March 2022

WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH 2022

WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: The prayer is going to be said by the Hon Jenny Salesa, who is coming in remotely. We appear to be having a technical problem and we’ll go traditional.

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

Motions

New Zealand Winter Olympic Team 2022—Congratulations

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the New Zealand Winter Olympic team.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate the New Zealand Winter Olympic team for their outstanding achievements at the Beijing Winter Olympics.

With two golds medals and one silver medal, placing New Zealand 17th on the medal table, the 2022 Winter Olympics were the country’s most successful ever. Throughout the Winter Olympics, our team of 15 athletes, nine men and six women, competing in five sports, kept New Zealand enthralled with their gutsy performances which included, for the first time ever, two Winter Olympic gold medals from Zoi Sadowski-Synnott in the women’s snowboarding Slopestyle and freestyle skier Nico Porteous who claimed victory in the men’s Halfpipe competition.

Zoi Sadowski-Synnott’s additional silver medal in the women’s snowboarding Big Air proved her dominance in her sport. Over the last four years since she won bronze in the women’s Big Air at the 2018 Winter Olympics. This has made her, over the last four years and in this competition, one of the best snowboarders in the world. To win New Zealand’s first Winter Olympic gold medal on Waitangi Day gave Zoi’s achievement a special place in our sporting history. Her courage and determination to win on the final run of the competition was an extraordinary effort and a moment that New Zealanders will never forget.

Not to be outdone by Zoi’s achievements, 20-year-old Nico Porteous’ gold medal saw him become the youngest New Zealander to win a Winter Olympics medal, overcoming some very windy and wild conditions during his competition. It was the culmination of an incredible four years since the 2018 games, where he also won bronze. Since that time, he has consistently been on the podium at international events and, as has Zoi as well, innovated with new tricks that pushed the boundaries of their sports.

I’d also like to acknowledge all the other members of team who gave it everything and delivered fantastic performances, proving that we have raft of young talent making its way through the ranks and inspiring the next generation of Kiwi snow sports stars. We are immensely proud of our athletes who rose above the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the challenge of competing without friends and whānau on the side lines for their events, and we acknowledge those friends and whānau as well.

I also want to acknowledge the support staff on the ground who played a critical role in the success of our team at these games. In particular, I’d like to mention chef de mission Martin Toomey and his team. Marty was formerly the chief executive of Snow Sports New Zealand and was part of the long-term planning and development that lay behind the success at these games. I want to acknowledge the whole snow sports New Zealand team, the New Zealand Olympic Committee, High Performance Sport New Zealand, and Sport New Zealand for their critical role in these stunning achievements.

On behalf of the Government, our congratulations to all the members of the 2022 New Zealand Winter Olympic team. They have made us extremely proud and are an inspiration to all New Zealand. Now we can look forward to the Winter Paralympics starting later this week, where our New Zealand para-athletes will compete in the para - alpine ski events and, no doubt, will continue to make New Zealanders proud.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister stole my speech! But the National Party is delighted to support the motion of congratulations to the New Zealand Winter Olympic team, and agrees with the Minister’s comments in support of them.

I think at a time when there are so many concerning issues and events to consider, our 2022 Winter Olympians have provided us with a tremendous distraction as we stopped and watched their amazing performance. And I think we should all be grateful for that distraction. But what a day Sunday, 6 February was: I think the whole country was holding its breath as Zoi Sadowski-Synnott tore down the slope-style course, knowing that the difference between nailing it and failing it were very, very fine margins. And that final run to win gold will go down, I think, not only as one of New Zealand’s great Olympic moments but as one of our great sporting moments. And to follow that up with a medal in the Big Air to become the first New Zealander to win multiple medals at a Winter Olympic Games, and to now hold medals of all colours, is a wonderful achievement. And then came Nico Porteous, already a world champion, who won Olympic gold in the men’s freeski Halfpipe—a terrific performance under enormous pressure. We acknowledge the other 13 athletes, who, while not medalling, all performed with great distinction under enormous pressure.

I want to acknowledge the huge amount of support provided by the families and friends of our athletes; also my old school mate, chef de mission Marty Toomey, and the rest of the team supporting the athletes; and also Victor Klap and the late Sir Eion Edgar, who were the driving force behind Wānaka’s Winter Games for the last 10 years or so, that I think provided the springboard for the level of performance that our winter athletes are now performing at.

A special mention also, I think, of the Wānaka community, where Zoi, Nico, and many of the other athletes have actually been based. Just about every single person at the Wānaka fan zone knew, or at least claimed to know, one or two of the athletes. I mean, I think that local support is a reflection of the Kiwi spirit, especially in that most beautiful part of our country. One of those Wānaka friends told 1News, on that Sunday that Zoi won her gold, something that I thought summed up the spirit of the team. She simply said, “I’m just happy she had fun.” And for me, I think, that sums up the spirit of this team, at a time when we can only imagine the effort, the sacrifice, and the enormous pressure performing at the highest level creates. But whatever those pressures were, they didn’t show. What showed was joy—joy at soaring above the snow, joy at competing, joy at doing their best, and joy in victory. They also brought great joy to all of us, and for that, we are tremendously grateful and proud of them.

Finally, I join the Minister in sending our three Paralympic team members, Adam Hall, Aaron Ewen, and Corey Peters our very best wishes as they compete in the Paralympic Winter Games, starting this weekend. I know they’ll also do us proud.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): What a tremendous Olympics. I’d like to also late congratulate Alice Robinson and Finn Bilous, who were the country’s flag bearers at the opening ceremony. Yes, Ireland did have a team there, but there were no medals unfortunately. Nic Porteous was the New Zealand flag bearer at the end. It was just an absolute pleasure to see Zoi become New Zealand’s first winter gold Olympic medallist, and how infectious it was to see Zoi’s parents, Robin and Sean, on TV watching on from Wānaka. And the quote that stuck with me was that their daughter had “nerves of steel”. And as every parent would understand, if you have your child flying through the air like that, you never know what’s going to happen. So good luck and a tremendous response from them. And to Nic Porteous, who won gold, his quote was “It was insane, man!”. Congratulations to his mum, Chris, and dad, Andrew. I think for them many sacrifices were made along the way to support their success, and seeing the haka to celebrate at the end was just tremendous as well.

So it has been New Zealand’s most successful winter Olympics and the most successful since we started competing at the winter games in 1952. Well done to the New Zealand Olympic Committee, Snow Sports New Zealand, the chef de mission, and to the House itself for supporting and funding all those activities.

We know that for every young athlete there needs to be an inspiration, and we couldn’t let today go past without recognising Dame Valerie Adams, who, as all young Olympians must have heroes to emulate, surely she is the one. She is the greatest of all time and for 22 years the best shot putter in the world. So we wish her the best and we hope to see her in public life very shortly.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe, just testing the audio, hopefully it’s working. Kia ora and looking to take a call on behalf of the Green Party to congratulate our 50 competitors in the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing and the wraparound team and family they had supporting them. I echo the sentiments by the previous speakers and acknowledge the remarkable efforts all the athletes put into representing their local communities.

Hey, in principle the vision of the Olympics should be a positive one, and we saw that vision and values on display when Zoi won her gold medals and was swamped by hugs and congratulations from her competitors from all over the world. We also pay tribute to the longstanding efforts by athletes and activists who use their platform to highlight human rights injustices across the world, even when it puts them at odds with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). We pay tribute to the fight to create a more just process of decision making by the IOC and a space where athletes of all backgrounds are fairly remunerated.

I also would like to pay tributes to the athletes who will be participating in the Winter Paralympics, and this is also an opportunity to renew those calls that have been going on for quite some time about running the Paralympics and the Olympics at the same time so that they get the same coverage they both rightfully deserve. Kia ora.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Kei te mihi atu rā i ō tātou tini mate, arā i roto i ngā rā kua hipa ake ko, Va‘aiga Tuigamala, arā ko Joeli Vidiri rātou ko Olsen Filipaina. Rātou ko ngā toki o te ao hākinakina kua riro ki te pō. Nō reira koutou e ngā mate, haere, haere, whatungaro atu rā.

[First, I acknowledge the many deaths, specifically in the days just past, Va‘aiga Tuigamala, Joeli Vidiri and Olsen Filipaina. These were all stars in the world of sport and have passed beyond the veil. Therefore, to the dead, go, go, go out of sight.]

Te Paati Māori supports this motion to celebrate the achievements of the Aotearoa team at the Beijing Winter Olympic games. Ka tuku i ngā mihi ki ngā tohunga hākinakina o Aotearoa, ngā kaipīkau i ngā wawata o te motu.

[I acknowledge the top sportspeople of Aotearoa New Zealand, those that carry the aspirations of the nation.]

I want to start by acknowledging all of the sportspeople, all 15 that went along to the Winter Olympics from Aotearoa to compete in it, and particularly I mihi to those who won medals during this campaign: to Zoi Sadowski-Synnott, who became New Zealand’s first Winter Olympics gold medallist when she won the women’s snowboarding slopestyle, and she also won a silver medal in the women’s snowboarding Big Air. I extend those mihi to Nico Porteous, who won our second-ever gold medal, in the men’s freestyle skiing Halfpipe. With two gold medals and one silver medal, the 2022 Winter Olympics were Aotearoa’s most successful since first competing at the Winter Games in 1952, which I’m sure you will remember, Mr Speaker.

At a time of pandemics, war, and ecological crisis, it is important that we acknowledge the people who bring us together, and they are certainly our Olympians and our sportspeople right across the country. Kia ora tātou.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: Two points to make: the first is that I think there might be a mike open somewhere in the technical staff, which some of the people are picking up. If that could be looked at, that would be good. And the other point I’ll make to Mr Waititi is that I can unplug him very easily.

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

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

SPEAKER: No papers or select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Ankit Parikh requesting that the House urge the Government to provide people applying for citizenship with the choice to pledge allegiance to New Zealand or to the reigning Sovereign.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The dairy sector continues to support the economy. Last week, the dairy cooperative Fonterra increased its milk price forecast range for the 2021-22 year from $8.90 to $9.50 per kilo of milk solids to $9.30 to $9.90 per kilo. The midpoint of $9.60 would be the highest milk price ever paid out and see Fonterra contribute over $14 billion to the economy. We thank those who work in the dairy sector for their contribution to the economy despite a volatile and uncertain environment due to the ongoing impact of the pandemic and geopolitical events such as Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

Barbara Edmonds: How is the rest of the primary sector supporting the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ bank’s monthly World Commodity Price Index in January rose by 1 percent to a record high—apart from dairy, which rose 2.5 percent compared with the previous month. Horticulture gained 2.6 percent, with summer fruits selling well, with a much better season for cherries. Meat and fibre declined 2.6 percent through lamb and beef prices, which are still at very high prices. When converted back into local currency, returns to primary producers rose 1.9 percent. The global environment, however, remains volatile with shipping costs on the rise, due to an increase in delays at ports—particularly in China, where some have been affected by the pandemic—and ongoing global supply constraints.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the prospects of the primary sector in 2022 on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Rabobank’s agribusiness outlook 2022 found the country’s farmers are well positioned for another profitable year underpinned by strong prices, limited global production, and a lower New Zealand dollar boosting returns. Rabobank said that this would represent the sixth consecutive year of general profitability for the sector. The report noted that the flow of goods globally has held up well, despite the pandemic disrupting the supply chains, while trade relations with China have remained strong. None the less, we do acknowledge that the sector faces a number of challenges in response to the pandemic and our international commitments around climate change, which we are working together to achieve. We continue to work closely with primary producers to ensure the long-term sustainability of what is an important part of our economy.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to remind members, or tell members, that as we were looking at the virtual or the hybrid system yesterday, we were having some problems with sound balance and people, especially on Zoom, not being able to hear—when an interjection level which might normally have been acceptable wasn’t. So, if people can keep it a bit quieter, that would be good. I will make the point to both Ms Willis and Mr McAnulty that, while I might eat a lot of meat, I’m not responsible for the success of the rural sector, all right? So don’t use the second person when you’re interjecting.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s record of reducing child poverty. According to the data released by Statistics New Zealand last week, child poverty has continued to trend downwards across all nine measures under this Government. Despite the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic, the Government has achieved two out of the three targets it has set itself and has made significant reductions in the third. Our health and economic response, as well as income support initiatives like increasing benefits and Working for Families, has cushioned the impact for families and provided the support they need. It is now estimated that there is 66,500 fewer children in low-income households on the after-housing-costs poverty measure and 21,900 fewer children experiencing material hardship since we came into Government. Now, our job is to keep going.

Christopher Luxon: How many more children are living in benefit-dependent homes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As a percentage of the population on main benefits, my recollection is we’re sitting at about 11 percent, which is a lower percentage than what we were during the global financial crisis (GFC). I’d be happy to provide the member with a specific number, although I don’t have it with me currently. But the point that I would make is that in times of economic crisis, you would expect the call on our Government support to increase. But relative to the GFC, the call on main benefit rates has been lower.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that we have a cost of living crisis, given interest costs on a $700,000 mortgage are up more than $8,000 in the last 12 months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we have seen the Reserve Bank make adjustments to the official cash rate in recent times, but I would point out that it is off the back of historically low rates, including lower rates than obviously when that member’s party was last in Government.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that removing tax deductibility for mortgage interest has contributed to the more than $7,000 increase in annual rent since she came into office?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member seems to ignore the fact that we have been very focused on trying to even up the playing field for first-home buyers in the housing market. And what we have seen is a reported reduction in the percentage of mortgages going to investors, and according to CoreLogic, an increase in the percentage of first-home buyers in the market. We wanted to see first-home buyers accessing the market. At the same time, we have taken steps to try and ease the pressure on renters, ensuring that there is only able to be one rent increase per year, dealing with the fact that there had previously been a situation where they were bidding wars for rents, and introducing requirements to ensure that homes are healthy, warm, and dry. The last Government took none of these steps and left us with a housing crisis.

Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that motorists have paid an extra $515 million in tax at the pump since she introduced the Auckland regional fuel tax; and, with petrol hitting $3 a litre, does she agree motorists need some relief?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the things that I would point out if the member wishes to pursue the idea that we shouldn’t have any kind of excise is the fact that when his party was last in Government, they continued to increase excise because that is, of course, how we pay for our roading projects. And I note that a number of his members had been at the very roading projects that that excise has funded. So if the member wants to no longer fund roads, he will have a significant problem because that was almost entirely the National Party’s infrastructure plan when they were last in Government.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s investment in the Eastern Busway to the Botany electorate that is part funded by the regional fuel tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, yes. But interestingly, the member who services that community does not.

Christopher Luxon: Does she think it’s fair that someone on the average income is paying $1,300 more in tax today compared to a year ago, despite real wages going backwards as a result of record high inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is an interesting conundrum for the member because he now seems to be promoting the idea of tax decreases or tax reductions, which, of course, would have an inflationary impact, which he’s also arguing against.

Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm Kiwi workers will pay over $12 billion more in income tax this year than in 2017, and does she think that’s fair when wages are no longer keeping up with the cost of living?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member contradicts himself. On the one hand, he seems to be arguing for tax cuts, which, of course, would have an impact on inflation. On the other hand, the increase in tax take, of course, is linked to the fact that we do have people on higher wages and we’ve been working very hard to ensure that’s the case: more people in work, more people earning more. And, of course, as a Government, some of those people are people who are teachers, who are nurses, who all deserve those pay increases that they received.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister’s Government control the cost of living and, if it can, why is the price of so much going up so fast for everyday Kiwis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You will see that the Reserve Bank itself has pointed to the fact that many of the causes of the increases in inflation that we’ve seen are caused by the likes of higher prices for imported goods and, in particular, oil. Those are their words themselves. And I would reflect on statements made by members of this House: “There’s not a lot that you can do about fuel prices, because they are dictated globally.” That was the honourable leader of the National Party, Chris Luxon.

Christopher Luxon: Is it her position that a record increase in new spending at a time of record increases to prices is not going to make the cost of living worse?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to criticise the level of spending that this Government has made, then he may wish to question the time that National was in office when, as a percentage of GDP, they were relatively similar. We spent in 2020, as a percentage of GDP, 34.3 percent; National, in 2009, 34.7. You’ll see the same again for 2021. So if the member is now departing from what has been an established principle around the Crown spending relative to GDP, then he may wish to tell voters what services, what investments he will cut. Will it be education? Will it be health? Will it be infrastructure?

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with the cost of living going up at the fastest rate in over 30 years, she actually has plenty of tools available to help struggling Kiwis but she is choosing not to use them so she can increase her Government’s own spending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The tool that the member is talking about is cutting the very services that New Zealanders rely on. It’s cutting healthcare spending, it’s cutting education spending, and if that is not the tool the member is referring to, then he owes it to New Zealanders to explain what tool exactly it is.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps, if any, will he take to support people in Ukraine fleeing due to invasion and war in their homeland?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Our thoughts are obviously with the people in Ukraine impacted by the conflict. As we have said, Immigration New Zealand are able to prioritise urgent visa applications from Ukrainian nationals, and they’re also considering what further mechanisms can be utilised within our existing policy. I understand that as of Monday Immigration New Zealand had 172 applications on hand across all visa categories, where the principal applicant’s nationality is Ukrainian; 106 of those are offshore, 66 of those onshore, and I understand that 30 applications have been approved in the last week and that in the month of February a total of close to 70 applications were approved. New Zealand is also providing $2 million to Ukraine to help deliver essential humanitarian assistance with a focus on supporting health facilities and meeting basic needs such as provision of food and hygiene items. I want to stress in terms of people in New Zealand it is understandable that people will want to stay here longer, and that they can apply for an extension to existing visas. Each application is considered on a case-by-case basis, and I understand that the approval rate for the month of February for those types of applications is close to 99 percent. New Zealand also has a longstanding refugee programme, where this Government recently increased the quota to 1,500. Under this programme we work closely with organisations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on all emergency referrals and we are working closely with international partners on this, and we stand ready to assist with the situation in Ukraine.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he include Ukrainians on the list of visa-waiver countries so Ukrainians can have safe passage and be reunited with their families in Aotearoa; if not, why not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If there are Ukrainian nationals who are either citizens or residents in New Zealand, they are able to use the channels available to them now to bring their family to New Zealand—their dependents and partners. As I say, we stand ready to prioritise applications that come to Immigration New Zealand and we are also ready to deal with any humanitarian crisis, obviously, and we will be able to look at our UNHCR commitment of 1,500 refugees per annum.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. My question was around the visa waivers for Ukraine, and I don’t believe that was addressed whatsoever.

SPEAKER: It mightn’t have been answered but it was addressed. The member can have another supplementary to have a go—an extra supplementary.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. Will he commit to removing barriers such as the living together requirement for partnership visas and to reopen the parent category without the high salary requirements, so Ukrainians can be safely united with their whānau in Aotearoa?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: To the first part of the question, I’ve already spoken about the prioritisation and the pragmatism that Immigration New Zealand take when dealing with applications from the Ukraine. I would also note that I think most New Zealanders would want to make sure that we keep rigour in the system around making sure that people who are in partnerships are actually in genuine partnerships. But, again, Immigration will look at every case that comes through Ukraine, as I’ve mentioned. There are a small number of cases at this stage, and there’s a pragmatic basis to make sure they are making the decisions that suit but also that they have the rigour of a process that we usually have when reassessing temporary visa applications.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has he considered waiving visa fee applications of Ukrainian nationals and people facing war in their homelands?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Not at this stage, but if that is a large barrier to people putting forward applications for their situation, we can certainly look at it. I don’t think that would be too much of an impost given the small number of applications coming in to this day.

Erica Stanford: Will he urgently adopt National’s suggestion to implement a Ukrainian humanitarian visa to allow immediate family members of Ukrainian Kiwis to travel to New Zealand to keep them safe, and if not, why not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I mentioned in an earlier supplementary answer, if Ukrainian nationals are here in New Zealand and they are either residents or citizens, they are able for the partners and dependants to be able to apply through the normal means in order to bring their families here. If there are other humanitarian issues that they find themselves in, there are also other existing policies—they could do that—and we stand ready with our increased refugee quota of 1,500 to deal with any humanitarian crisis that might eventuate.

Golriz Ghahraman (remote): Will the Minister commit to taking 2,000 Ukrainian refugees, who have fled violence who are right now stranded in overcrowded refugee camps at the border, to acknowledge that New Zealand’s refugee quota has not, in fact, been filled for the past two years?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The situation in Ukraine is obviously developing quickly. We are speaking with our international partners on a weekly basis to understand the humanitarian situation there and, as I said, we are ready to respond to it. This Government recently increased our refugee quota from 750 to 1,500, and we stand ready to utilise that to respond to the situation in Ukraine. This Government acted and lifted its weight and took its weight in Afghanistan last year. It will continue to do that with the situation in Ukraine this year with our increased refugee quota.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he confident the current visa settings are sufficient to reunite Ukrainians with their family; and what are the expectations in regards to the visa processing time lines for those people?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I mentioned, Immigration is able to prioritise applications from Ukrainian nationals and they are doing that as we speak. As I said, if we are talking about partners and dependants of Ukrainian nationals who are citizens and residents here at the moment, there is the ability for them to bring their families here. There are also other measures in terms of compassionate grounds that people are able to apply for a visa and, as I want to stress, we also stand ready with our UNHCR commitment to 1,500 refugees per annum to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

Golriz Ghahraman (remote): It’s good to hear the Minister confirm that the refugee quota still stands, but noting that it has, in fact, been on hold for the past two years, will he commit to reopening the refugee quota so Ukrainians fleeing violence and others escaping crises around the world right now can begin to apply for refugee resettlement here again?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: All our refugees come through the UNHCR process so we will work closely to respond to the situation in Ukraine alongside the UNHCR and we will manage that within the 1,500 refugees that we have recently increased, as I have mentioned. The situation in Ukraine is developing quickly and, as we have noted a number of times over the last week, we believe that the preference for a lot of the people who are fleeing their homes at the moment is to return to their homes. That is why we are standing ready to respond to the emerging situation in Ukraine.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on public spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in their context. In particular I stand by the Government’s announcement of the targeted COVID support payment to help businesses who are most directly affected by the Omicron outbreak. The first payments for this scheme went out yesterday, with a total of $166 million paid out to over 33,000 businesses. We’ve seen, in recent times, that demand bounces back strongly once concerns about the spread of COVID-19 have eased. The COVID support payment is a good example of the role of public spending in making sure that the supply side of the economy is supported through the effects of the pandemic, and is better able to meet consumer demand when economic activity does bounce back.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that, according to the OECD, he has spent more public money during the pandemic, as a proportion of GDP, than any other Government in the Western World bar the United States and, with $6 billion of new spending coming in Budget 2022, when is enough?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do accept that New Zealand has responded strongly to a one-in-one-hundred-year global economic shock to support New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods. I also accept that members of the Opposition have often called for us to spend even more in those particular areas. I also accept that the OECD has remarked upon the fact that New Zealand continues to have a very strong fiscal strategy, including one of the lowest levels of debt in the OECD.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept what Adam Creighton wrote in The Australian newspaper last week: “New Zealand, cocooned away from the world for almost two years to keep Covid-19 at bay, increased its public debt between 2019 and this year by the equivalent of 24.5 percent of its annual economic output, more than any other advanced nation”, and, if so, why does he feel the need to double down on this mountain of debt and spending with $6 billion in Budget 2022?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that his forecast $6 billion in operating allowances or new spending in Budget 2022 will be the highest new spend in a Budget ever, in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I accept is that the Government, faced with nine years of neglect by the National Government of the health system, has to invest in a one-off way to create what is a significant operating allowance. That money is required to make sure that New Zealanders get the health services that they deserve. The question the member has to answer is: “What would he cut?” Will it be health, will it be education, will it be housing?

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in light of that about health spending in his statement at another question time that, “a big chunk” of his $6 billion will go on a health restructure, how can this be a good idea—let alone value for money—when one of the biggest DHBs, the Waitematā DHB, has recently stated that there is a major and likely risk of “disruption to the delivery of safe and effective patient care due to the uncertainty and distraction created by those health reforms”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have seen throughout the COVID-19 pandemic is the New Zealand health system step up and make sure that we look after the lives of New Zealanders. Equally, it has also highlighted the enormous inequities in our health system—the fact that Māori have much poorer outcomes than non-Māori; the fact that we have a postcode-style health system that that member’s party entrenched by underfunding health for nine years. On this side of the House, we are extremely proud of the fact that we take health funding seriously.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) (remote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent changes has the Government made in response to the Omicron outbreak in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As of last Friday, with case numbers growing, New Zealand’s moved to phase 3 of our Omicron response plan. These changes are intended to help ease the pressure on our testing and contact tracing systems as case numbers increase over the coming weeks, while also helping to ensure that critical services and supply chains remain operational and our economy can keep moving. There’s no doubt that the next few weeks are going to be quite challenging, but New Zealand is better positioned than most countries to respond to Omicron. What we’re seeing with case numbers is what we’ve expected to see; we just need to stick to the plan as we manage higher case numbers in the coming weeks before we do reach that peak.

Vanushi Walters: How does isolation change for individuals at phase 3?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are number of significant changes that we’ve announced. Close contacts will no longer be required to self-isolate. Only confirmed cases and household contacts of a confirmed case will be required to do so. Confirmed cases and household contacts should isolate for 10 days, but they can now self-release after the 10th day, providing testing requirements are met. If they develop symptoms, they are encouraged to test sooner. We’re continuing to support our critical services to operate and the critical worker exemption scheme announced last month will enable eligible household contacts—

David Seymour: What about teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —to return to work during their isolation period—including teachers, where they have to—by returning a daily negative rapid antigen test.

Vanushi Walters: What does testing look like at phase 3?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: With millions of rapid antigen tests (RATs) now dispatched around the country to testing sites, GPs, pharmacies, and within workplaces, rapid antigen tests have become the primary form of testing. The people who need them can now access a RAT test from hundreds of locations, making it easier to get. Over the coming days, the number of access points will continue to increase significantly. Locations that have rapid antigen tests available can be found on the Healthpoint website. PCR testing will be reserved for people who are clinically indicated, so that it’s targeted to those most in need. A PCR test will no longer be required to verify a positive rapid antigen test result in most cases. In addition, approved rapid antigen tests are now available to be sold to the public through retail outlets. This will provide a choice and access for the general public and for small businesses.

Vanushi Walters: What else can people do to prepare themselves and their households against the spread of Omicron?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Preparation and supporting one another will continue to be a key measure. We’ve been asking people to prepare for the last few weeks, both mentally and by putting their own response plans in place. People should make their own isolation plan and their stay-at-home kits in conjunction with friends and whānau, and be ready to use the tools that are available. That will help us to free up vital resources. Our vaccination rate should make the next period less of a worry for the vast majority of people, but we are still strongly encouraging people to get vaccinated and to get boosters. You’re 10 times less likely to need hospital care and it helps to lower the rate of transmission.

Question No. 6—Health

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement on 25 January 2022 that the Government has “Increased our PCR testing capacity from a maximum of 39,000 tests a day to a baseline of 58,000 tests. Surge capacity is now 77,600 tests, which can be sustained for 7 days”, and is she satisfied with the performance of COVID-19 testing during the current outbreak?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): That statement was based on the advice and information provided at the time. As the Director-General of Health said yesterday, the Ministry of Health overestimated PCR capacity and provided an explanation for the circumstances that led to this. However, regardless of the baseline capacity, it was always clear that PCR testing would need to be switched to rapid antigen testing as Omicron cases increases.

Chris Bishop: Why didn’t you do anything?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s why they were a core part of the three-phase plan I announced on 26 January. Phase 2 provided for a transition from PCR to the increasing use of rapid antigen tests (RATs) to accommodate the growth in cases. That transition proved challenging, but in the last week, 7 million RATs have been sent out from the Ministry of Health to be distributed in testing centres, general practices, pharmacies, and other pick-up points. I am satisfied that our testing system is delivering free testing to people who need it.

Chris Bishop: When, if ever, was she advised by the Ministry of Health that the baseline figure of 58,000 tests and surge capacity of 77,600 tests would not be reached, and why did the Government not correct those figures earlier than yesterday when Dr Bloomfield apologised?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There was a variety of different figures raised by officials as the baseline figure, but I would remind that member of my primary answer, which is that the issue here about people who have had a delay in obtaining their PCR result is not caused by the baseline capacity but by the need to transition to rapid antigen tests. The director-general has initiated an investigation into the difficulties with that transition that led to the backlog in PCR tests.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that was a very specific question about when she was advised by the ministry that the baseline figure was incorrect, and that was not addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the Minister started off by saying there was a range of dates. Was that the expression?

Chris Bishop: On what date was she advised by her advisers at the Ministry of Health that the 58,000 figure was wrong?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That 58,000 figure—sometimes referred to as the baseline or business as usual, figure—was agreed with laboratories and that figure does not relate to the problem of pooling; which includes our pooled capacity. It includes pooled capacity and is higher than the current number without pooling, which is approximately 30,000 tests.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Ministry of Health advise media just nine days ago that it stood by its estimate of 58,000 tests per day, and did she know that that figure was wrong earlier than nine days ago?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The difference between the 58,000 figure and the figure which is 30,000 is the difference between a capacity with pooling, which is the higher number, and a capacity without pooling, which is the lower number.

Chris Bishop: Why did the ministry release figures nine days ago to media saying that 58,000 tests could be conducted per day, and is this not misleading the public as to the actual availability of PCR testing in New Zealand?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Director-General of Health has set out yesterday the reasons for the underestimate of the capacity, which in particular—the discussion yesterday was about the unpooled capacity. The director-general has apologised for that, and taken responsibility for fixing the backlog of PCR tests.

Chris Bishop: Have any PCR samples aged past the point at which they lose accuracy, and if so, how many have been processed anyway, and how many, if any, have been discarded?

SPEAKER: Any one of the three questions.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The plan for addressing of the backlog is done in conjunction with the laboratory network, where pathologists who are experts in these matters participate in the decision making.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That doesn’t address the question at all.

SPEAKER: It didn’t actually address any one of the three questions that was asked.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Pathologists who are experts in when the samples are at their period where they can be analysed will be making the decisions on whether or not these samples are analysed.

Chris Bishop: So has she been advised as to whether any PCR samples have aged past the point at which they lose accuracy and have therefore been discarded?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, I have not. But the most important thing is that for the people concerned, they have been advised by text message that their samples have been delayed and that they are encouraged to seek a rapid antigen test in order to get an answer for the reason that they sought a test in the first place. In addition, we know that many of them have sought that option out.

Question No. 7—Economic and Regional Development

7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made recently about the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Recently, I announced that the Government has invested in world-leading lithium recovery technology, helping Geo40 Ltd to scale up its proprietary technology in the central North Island. The investment of $2 million through Kānoa will see the Government take a further equity stake in Geo40 Ltd. It will allow the company to progress its lithium recovery process, which it does through processing the by-product of geothermal energy production, before moving to commercial-scale development. This is a game-changing programme of work that aligns exactly with New Zealand’s global brand in that it has potential to strengthen our geothermal energy in advanced manufacturing sectors, contribute to a lower-carbon future, extract a premium due to New Zealand ingenuity, and diversify our regional economies.

Tāmati Coffey: What has been the response to the Government’s investment in lithium recovery technology?

Hon STUART NASH: The response to the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund investment into Geo40 has been positive. I’m incredibly excited about the investment into this game-changing technology, and this aspiration is catching on. Research scientist Isabela Alves de Castro said the local workforce, which includes world-leading experts in engineering and renewable energy, is—and I quote—“Just very excited to be working on extracting lithium. That is something really big.” Geo40 chief executive John Worth said, “We’re in the lithium tech race. It’s a pretty exciting race because the demand for lithium has never been stronger.” And other media have noted that “Taupō is a region heavily dependent upon tourism. This technology will juice up a different sector.”, and “It’s hoped when it’s produced on a large scale it will bring long-lasting benefits for our economy and a cleaner future on the road.”

Tāmati Coffey: Why is the Government investing in regional economies through the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m incredibly proud of our Government’s track record on delivering for regional New Zealand. We have delivered on our manifesto commitment to continue supporting regional economic development. Through our Regional Strategic Partnership Fund, local leaders help set the strategic priorities for investment in which seed funding is provided and is used as a catalyst for other investment. Unlike the Northland ghost bridges announced by those on the other side of the House—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The tail end of the answer is clearly out of order, and I suggest that the first part of it didn’t actually address the question, but that’s probably poor drafting of patsies.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes. In particular, I stand by the 2021 Resident Visa. Yesterday marked the successful launch of phase 2, with applications opening for another 85,000 migrants here in New Zealand. As of midday, 18,500 applications were successfully submitted in the first 24 hours of phase 2. This is a significant achievement because, previously, the highest number of visa applications received by Immigration New Zealand was around 3,500 in a 24-hour period. Under phase 1, which began in early December, nearly 10,000 applications have already been approved, which equates to more than 20,000 people becoming New Zealand residents. The Government has created this new, one-off residence pathway, recognising the immense contribution migrants have made to New Zealand during the COVID-19 crisis, and appreciating the uncertainty they have faced with border restrictions. We’ve been working hard to make sure that the new 2021 Resident Visa application process is simple and that it is streamlined and easy for individuals. This has also meant Immigration New Zealand are able to process these applications on a highly effective basis, which is borne out in these numbers.

Dr James McDowall: Why, after three months of preparations since the opening of phase 1 of the 2021 Resident Visa, was Immigration New Zealand not able to prevent its website crashing upon the opening of phase 2, and does he acknowledge that the demand for this visa is the result of an immigration system that takes far too long to process visa applications and constantly shifts the goalposts?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I note that the member continues to focus on the negative. There was a 10-minute outage of a system that has been in operation, as of 2 o’clock today, for 1,680 minutes. As I say, there have been 18,500 applications so far. I think it goes to show that there is demand for it and that the system is working, and I’m very proud of the people who have put in an effort to make sure that that system is up and running to ensure those 85,000 applicants can become New Zealand residents.

Dr James McDowall: Does the Minister think it is fair to give the lowest processing priority to families who did the right thing at great cost in renewing their work visas in the past few months, while prioritising those whose visas are expiring soon but can be granted a one-year 2021 interim visa to tide them over anyway?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I thank those families who made sure that they stayed legal in terms of their visas. The processes around the triaging of the applications were worked through by Immigration New Zealand with a focus group which included Business New Zealand, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Federated Farmers, and the Council of Trade Unions. They all agreed—and also licensed immigration advisers, of which sector the member has come from. I would note that they were very happy with that approach in order to make sure that the processing of those applications is done in an expeditious and efficient way.

Dr James McDowall: Why is the Minister, as part of the Government’s immigration reset, considering sidelining hospitality workers in its forthcoming residency changes and hiking up the investor 1 category to as high as $25 million when he should instead be focused on fixing a broken immigration system that has destroyed families and made it near impossible for businesses to fill workforce shortages?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government agrees that the immigration system needs reworking, which is why we are rebalancing the immigration system to a high-wage and high-skill model. We will continue to work with sectors that have continued to work with the likes of working holiday visas or short-term temporary visas to make sure that they can transition to the new model. But, as the Productivity Commission is highlighting in some of its interim findings in looking at our immigration settings, there are some long-term settings that New Zealand has to look at in terms of its immigration system to benefit the economy and our country as a whole.

Question No. 9—Education

9. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) (remote) to the Associate Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to support new entrants’ literacy and oral language success?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education): Through our Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA), all new-entrant and year 1 teachers have access to training in an integrated approach to developing vocabulary, oral language, spelling, writing, and reading skills in the first year of learning. This approach is steeped in the best of international and domestic research and evidence developed by the University of Canterbury over the last 10 years. BSLA focuses on the link between spoken and written language, systematically supporting children’s phonological and phonemic awareness, letter sound knowledge, and oral language, and is delivering results. The programme is part of the Government’s wider strategy to shift the dial on teaching and learning of literacy across the country.

Angela Roberts: What results has the Better Start Literacy Approach shown so far?

Hon JAN TINETTI: While we’re still in the early days of this programme, early data is showing that the majority of five-year-old learners are able to transfer their emerging phoneme awareness and phonic knowledge to the reading and spelling of words that they haven’t seen before. We are also seeing strong evidence that the delivery model is supporting positive changes to teaching practices. Feedback from teachers to date has been very positive about BSLA and the difference it is making to their teaching practice and learning outcomes for their students. This shows that the Government’s approach to working alongside the teaching profession, students, experts, and community is lifting literacy achievement in New Zealand.

Angela Roberts: What other work is under way to assist young Kiwis in the early years of their literacy journey?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Ensuring that all Kiwis are developing the tools they need to lead fully functioning lives is a priority for this Government. In addition to BSLA, we have funded the Oral Language and Literacy initiative in early learning education services across eight regions to support oral language and literacy skills in low socioeconomic communities. We’ve updated the Ready to Read junior readers to include phonemic awareness to support our children when they first enrol at school. We’ve invested in Reading Together to teach parents and whānau how to read and talk with their child and build strong foundations for language and literacy. We’ve also focused heavily on the refresh of the literacy curriculum, the NCEA co-requisites, and learning and assessment tools.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular our recent announcement to provide $140 million of extra support to Māori and Pacific communities to help them respond to the Omicron outbreak. This funding will focus on supporting 160 Māori and Pacific health providers to support their communities to respond to Omicron. We know Omicron is likely to have a disproportionate effect on Māori and Pasifika, and we know our targeted funding today has made a huge difference in lifting vaccination rates and reducing the vulnerability of whānau, which is why we’re continuing to build on this approach and continue to directly support our Māori health providers.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has the Director-General of Health decided to use rapid antigen testing as a diagnostic rather than just a screening tool, despite earlier criticising the reliability of rapid antigen tests?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, as the member has pointed out in the question, one of the reasons it’s been used as a diagnostic tool is simply to ensure that we can get the scale, reach, and immediacy for this period of the outbreak. In the beginning, of course, we were continuing to run an elimination strategy, which meant precision was key. We’re now at a point where we’re continuing to manage down as much as possible, to reduce the impact on the health workforce, so it means you have a greater tolerance for the fact that rapid antigen testing has an error rate of between 80 percent and above. For surveillance, it’s because of that error rate that you do rely on using them for those that you’ve identified as household contacts or for those who are symptomatic.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Isn’t this U-turn on rapid antigen testing and failure to order tests early enough the direct reason why so many of our people, such as kura kaupapa and iwi, are struggling to access tests as we speak?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would actually refute the premise of that question. We have, in our Omicron response plan, embedded rapid antigen testing from phase 2. At the time that we did that, we had millions available. The access or the number of rapid antigen tests has not been an issue, unlike in the likes of Australia, where, at a critical point, they did run out. We’ve had 10 million arrive recently, another four—there is wide availability. But the question we’ve asked—

Hon Member: No shortage?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I may, I know that audio is difficult, when there is interjection, for a member.

SPEAKER: I did make that point earlier to members, and that is that for people who are participating remotely, the level of interjection interferes more than it does otherwise, and if some of the dials are at 12, it then means we get other interference. The Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To respond to the member’s specific question on accessing kōhanga reo or in kura, this is an issue that’s been raised with us. I understand that Minister Davis has asked Ministry of Health officials to engage directly with leaders in the field. There was a hui, I believe, yesterday. We are really wanting to support and encourage greater availability of rapid antigen in those areas, so we hope that will ensure that that is happening as soon as we can.

Hon Peeni Henare (remote): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. What reports has she seen about the recent Government announcement supporting the Māori response to the Omicron outbreak from Māori and/or Pacific health providers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve seen a range of reports, but if I perhaps reflect on one from at least one of our Māori providers, who has said, “I just want to start by saying no other Government leadership would provide the type of targeted funding to Māori and Pacific organisations as this Government has.”, and that was a statement made by John Tamihere; or the South Seas chief executive, who said, “We can pay for more staff. We can pay the coordinators at churches who organise.” We want to make sure that we have a step change in the way that people access their healthcare, and particularly our Māori and Pacific communities, and we are doing that through this COVID response.

SPEAKER: Further supplementary, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and I’ll just indicate to members participating remotely that we tend to do these in twos. So you automatically get two, and then anyone else will have a go.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you; very keen to hold on to all of mine—thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister support an independent inquiry into the Ministry of Health’s handling of rapid antigen tests’ roll-out; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As you will have heard the Associate Minister already reference in her response, we had rapid antigen tests available within phase 2. That was the point at which the expectation was, as the positivity rate increased, that you’d see that flip from PCR into rapid antigen. Unfortunately, there are some individuals who, during that transition, were waiting just too long for their results, and that’s been acknowledged, and as you would have heard the director-general say, he is looking back at what happened during that transition. But, now, the rapid antigen tests we have—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have plentiful stock available. It is now about making sure that we have access at those collection sites that are most convenient, particularly for our rural and isolated communities. We have hundreds of collection sites now; those will continue to increase next week, but I would, of course, say, as the Associate Minister of Education has already encouraged, we do want a specific solution for the likes of kōhanga reo.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister accept that thousands of whānau across the country are struggling financially and mentally in isolation, due to her Government’s failure to implement a Māori home isolation strategy, with targeted support.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I am going to push back on that. Over $250 million has gone into funding a response that supports our Māori communities through COVID-19, because we recognised from the beginning the disproportionate impact this pandemic would have on Māori communities and Pacific communities. And we’ve worked very closely on our care in the community model, and what demonstrates the impact that that model is having most is the fact that overall, relative to other countries, we have not seen the scale of loss of life, through that care in community model, that we have elsewhere. Are there things that we could improve on? Almost always and certainly, and we’ll continue to work alongside our providers to make sure we’re reaching whānau who need support as we navigate this pandemic.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent reports has he seen about WorkSafe’s enforcement of COVID-19 rules for workplaces?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Since August 2021, WorkSafe has received approximately 9,000 COVID-related notifications and carried out over 7,000 COVID-related assessments taking 114 enforcement actions against businesses for deliberate and ongoing non-compliance under the COVID protection framework. WorkSafe plays a critical role in the Government’s response to COVID-19 ensuring that businesses and organisations are meeting their obligations under the COVID protection framework. I know how deeply COVID-19 has impacted many businesses and workers over the past two years. WorkSafe’s enforcement activities through the pandemic show that most businesses are overwhelmingly committed to following the rules and that the Government is firmly committed to ensuring that organisations are playing their part in keeping Kiwis safe from COVID-19.

Camilla Belich: What other tools besides enforcement does WorkSafe use to ensure compliance?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: WorkSafe takes an “educate first” approach when engaging with businesses to help them understand their responsibilities under the COVID protection framework and the potential consequences if they continue to fail to meet their obligations. A graduated approach to enforcement is taken, moving from education and warnings through to written directions and infringement notices. Non-compliance is often due to misunderstanding, lack of awareness of requirements, or insufficient training—all of which can be corrected through timely intervention by WorkSafe’s team. And the relatively small number of serious enforcement actions taken by WorkSafe show that this positive engagement is working. It shows that WorkSafe’s strategy is effective and it shows that the overwhelming majority of Kiwi businesses want to do the right thing on behalf of the workers, their customers, and their communities.

Camilla Belich: How has the Government funded and supported this work?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government approved $4.373 million of funding for WorkSafe’s COVID compliance and enforcement role in late 2021-2022. This funding is supporting WorkSafe to build a COVID-19 - focused workforce and to deliver a range of education and enforcement interventions without having to trade off against other important priorities. It’s also helping WorkSafe to report iwi Māori community advisers to support engagement with Māori kaimahi and community on COVID-19 responsibilities. Additionally, over $2.1 million in funding was provided in 2020-2021 to industry leadership bodies who are experiencing financial difficulty in maintaining their core capacity—and that’s been important in making sure that we’ve had leadership on the ground.

Camilla Belich: What sort of enforcement action has WorkSafe taken against businesses who have deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with their obligations under the COVID protection framework?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve said before, the overwhelming number of businesses are doing the right thing and, particularly when WorkSafe provides support and guidance, they generally respond very well. But it is important that a clear message is sent to the very small number who consistently and deliberately flout the rules. Some of these cases include businesses not having systems in place to check other people’s vaccine passes, to scan QR codes; allowing unvaccinated staff to continue working in spite of vaccine mandates; or failing to keep accurate contact-tracing records. Where these cases are persistent and deliberate and there is no response to reasonable engagement from WorkSafe they have taken a strong approach, including the imposition of infringement notices and fines of between $4,000 and $12,000 per offence, and that should send a strong message and give confidence to good Kiwi businesses that the other businesses who are not doing as they should do face consequences.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, “we have subsequently sought advice on a specific Russian sanctions bill”; if so, when will the Government introduce a specific Russian sanctions bill?

SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s David Parker online.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to answer on behalf of the Government if that’s going to be of any help.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! We have obviously had a communication error. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to answer on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Indeed, I am now aware of that! On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we are continuing to take advice on that matter and we will introduce such a bill as soon as we are able to.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the Minister, what is your response to reports by The Wall Street Journal on the Government’s response to Russia? That “Foreign-policy experts and some lawmakers consider that response to be inadequate and risks creating a perception that New Zealand could become a backdoor for Russian money unable to find a home elsewhere.”; and is she embarrassed by how out of step New Zealand is with our traditional security partners?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, no. The Minister has herself been in Europe recently discussing New Zealand’s response and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, has in fact received a very positive view about the fact that New Zealand has been in line with the international community and indeed was one of the first countries to step up in the humanitarian aid space.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon David Parker, participating remotely.

Hon David Parker (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been here throughout question time and as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs was ready to answer that question, so I think there might have been a mistake in the Speaker’s office.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister is absolutely correct that there has been a mistake. As Speaker, I am normally informed of who is answering the question. I was not in this case. I sought advice as to who was answering the question and I used that when I called the Deputy Prime Minister—

Hon David Parker (remote): In the circumstances—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! We can, actually, when a Minister enters the Chamber partway through the question, that Minister is able to continue answering the supplementaries as if he is the Minister, and what will happen from this point on is the Hon David Parker will answer further supplementaries. And to assist Mr Brownlee, I will grant him an extra supplementary.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, as long as it is a point of order and it’s not disorderly, because the member’s got that look on his face.

Chris Bishop: I haven’t even said anything yet!

SPEAKER: No, well look, the member doesn’t need to.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

Hon Member: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, Chris Bishop has the call.

Chris Bishop: I was trying to assist the House in the spirit of bipartisanship. We’re in a slightly unusual situation here where we have the actual Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Chamber, albeit virtually. I put it to the House, and put it to you, sir, that the simplest thing to do would be to actually just start again, because it’s clear the Deputy Prime Minister—with the greatest respect to him—did not anticipate that he would have to answer those questions. He did a manful job in the circumstances, but we actually do have the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Chamber. So why don’t we just put all that behind us, wipe it from the record and start again.

SPEAKER: OK. I’m going to seek the leave for us to start this question again. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none. We’ll start the question again, but of course, Mr Brownlee, you won’t get that extra supp.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member might lose—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, no, I’m not going to try and antagonise you.

SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee, a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m simply making the point that the extra supp was granted because of the inconvenience around this whole question. It is a serious issue, and when I was asking questions—I asked two questions to the Minister who was standing in—they were tailored largely understanding that that Minister wouldn’t have some of the understanding the other one does.

SPEAKER: And I just work back: the member’s got all the supps he started with. All right? I’m not taking any off the member; I’m just not granting him any extras. And if it is such an important matter, then the Opposition might have saved more than two supps.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’ve got three.

SPEAKER: No—two. The Hon Gerry Brownlee, ask the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, “we have subsequently sought advice on a specific Russian sanctions bill”; if so, when will the Government introduce a specific Russian sanctions bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Deputy Prime Minister has already said, of course we stand by the Prime Minister’s statements and the actions that New Zealand immediately took to both condemn the Russian invasion and introduce the sanctions that have previously been listed on a number of occasions in the House. The member will be aware from the email that was sent to his office earlier today that the Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to take a proposed bill to Cabinet on Monday to enable further sanctions on Russia, and I’m pleased that the member has accepted the invitation for a briefing on that legislation, that briefing being scheduled for the day after tomorrow.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If as the Prime Minister has said, the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and the Minister himself has said, New Zealand has responded very, very positively and been well regarded for our response, why, then, is there a need for this bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the breadth of sanctions that are enabled currently under New Zealand law are not as broad as those which we want to impose against Russia. The legislation will include a number of categories of further sanctions, the detail of which will be discussed with the member in the briefing but they will include the possible freezing of assets from named Russian individuals or others supporting the Ukrainian invasion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How will any of those provisions just mentioned by the Minister differ from the provisions that would have been available had the House chosen to pass the Autonomous Sanctions Bill late last year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that’s not the problem with the Autonomous Sanctions Bill. The problem with the Autonomous Sanctions Bill is that it has wider ramifications than Russia, as we discussed yesterday. So if there is to be a wider autonomous sanctions bill, we as a Government would want to consider whether it should be broader than the member’s bill, because his bill currently excludes foreign interference, cyber-security issues, and human rights concerns such as Magnitsky sanctions, none of which are in the ambit of his bill but would need to be considered in wider legislation.

Urgent Debates Declined

COVID-19 Response—Testing, Processing Delays

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Bishop seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the delay in processing COVID-19 tests, which was reported yesterday. This is a matter of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. In considering an application for an urgent debate, it is relevant whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. In this instance, the member has lodged an oral question about it and could take an opportunity in the general debate to raise it. For those reasons, the application is declined.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It’s really important today, and now at this time, perhaps more than recent times, where the Greens want to ensure a vision and a narrative for peaceful, collective action that explicitly rejects violence and aggression is put up above all of the noise that we have been hearing, as one of the most important parts of our kaupapa and the heart of Aotearoa that it can offer to all of us and around the world. The Green Party has always had a long history of actively supporting non-violence and working for collective action and totally rejecting aggression, working towards justice. We can see today why it is so important that disagreement is resolved peacefully, democratically, and in good faith. It is so important that we see conflict resolved in a way that restores our collective confidence in each other and in our systems, and especially in a way that restores everyone’s support to prioritise public health and collective wellbeing.

Standing against violence requires actively working for peace and justice, and we have seen that across Aotearoa from people of all experiences and background, whether it is people cooking for each other and caring for each other and gardening for each other and connecting with each other, putting masks on for each other, staying at home for each other, and being vaccinated for each other. Actively working for justice means purposefully naming the injustice and creating better systems to achieve what we all want to see. When there is unilateral violence and aggression, whether by State actors, like the Russian Government invading Ukraine right now, or by some of the individuals who are protesting right outside Parliament, who have assaulted and harassed and put up hateful, hateful vibes towards members of the public and our staff here—when that violence pervades, people get hurt.

Whether it is the violent premise of opposing public health mandates that have been put in place to protect children who are too young to be vaccinated, to protect our elderly kaumātua, or to protect immunocompromised and disabled people, that premise that opposes those safety protections is, at its heart, violent. And in war and violent conflict, it is the people on all sides with the least power and resource who are killed and hurt and traumatised, and we actively have to reject that violent conflict.

The protest outside has a violent premise and that harms the very people it pretends to support. So we see today both the fundamental importance of peaceful resolution and the challenges of building that world without violence. When people are threatened, the path to peaceful de-escalation becomes less clear. We’ve seen this, but we believe that when it is most important to speak up for the alternatives is exactly when, and long before we see violent conflict, and to speak up for collective action that says that together we will help those who need support the most, those who have been pushed to the sidelines and the margins the most.

We call on and support the community leadership, the grassroots leadership, the Tiriti justice - led positions that have provided an important framework for us all to achieve those goals. And the politicians and Government right here in this House and on Zoom have an integral role to play, whether that justice is increasing incomes for those on the absolute lowest and those receiving benefits, whether it is ensuring a living wage for all people, whether it is making sure we are treating housing as a human right and not just a way to build wealth for people who are already wealthy, whether it’s making sure that our health systems are properly resourced and authorised, whether it is making sure our schools and teachers and nurses and health workforce are properly supported and paid, whether it is strong climate action for generations to come or protecting our environment, that is our role. That is what we must pursue. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In my maiden speech in Parliament 13 years ago, I said that in coming to this place, I was first and foremost the MP for Wellington Central, and it is in that capacity today that I want to speak in this general debate. Over the course of the last three weeks, the lives of many Wellington Central residents have been severely disrupted by the activities of those who have occupied Parliament and the surrounding streets.

When I say disrupted, I actually mean a great deal more than that. It is well beyond the inability to access their homes, the forced closure of businesses, schools, and public transport routes—which is bad enough in itself. Dozens of people have reported to me being abused, threatened, and intimidated—and even, in some cases, assaulted—by those who claim that they came here to peacefully protest. Among those who are treated that way are school pupils, often young women—abused because they are taking the important and sensible precaution of wearing a mask. One of the most heartbreaking sights for me has been witnessing school pupils needing to be protected by security guards as they have walked from the railway station to their respective schools. No young person should have to go through that, and the impact on some students has been significant to the point that they now will not go to school.

Among those who’ve been targeted by these so-called protesters have been our essential workers—the likes of those who work at our local supermarkets. The partner of one of those workers wrote to me, “Every day, going to work, she is abused by the protesters just for wearing a mask. She has to get a bus around the protesters to get to work, and walk twice the distance—at night—after her hard shift to get the bus home, again due to the protesters. Her wages have even been cut because the store now closes early due to the protesters.” I want to say to that worker, and to all of our essential workers, how grateful we are for the work that they do, and I want to add to that our managed isolation and quarantine staff and our health workers, who are under particular pressure at this moment in the pandemic.

Over the course of the last few weeks, as the local MP, my office and I have worked with local residents to try to help keep them safe. Working with the Wellington City Council, we have been able to relocate a number of residents who needed to be somewhere safer because they were pregnant, anxious, unable to get to the essential services that they need. I want to acknowledge all those agencies who have stepped up to help us.

I also want to acknowledge the women and men of the New Zealand Police, who have protected this building and the surrounding community, and who, as we speak, are engaged in a difficult and somewhat dangerous operation outside. As I’ve stated on a number of occasions over the last few weeks, the operational independence of the New Zealand Police is a vital part of our democratic society. Politicians cannot and should not be able to direct the police—it is vital that we uphold this. There are countries around the world where that happens, and we do not want to be one of those. That, of course, does not mean that as a local MP I agree or understand every decision that the police have made. I’ve raised concerns every time I have spoken to the police about the impact on Wellingtonians, but I want to acknowledge that the police’s job here is a tough one, and there is no easy decision in situations like this. No one likes to see the scenes that are taking place outside today, but the police have taken those actions after weeks of illegal and hurtful behaviour.

We have a rich history of peaceful protest in New Zealand, and particularly here at Parliament—I should know, I’ve led protests on to the grounds of Parliament. Upholding the right to peaceful protests is essential, but this protest has gone far beyond that. It is unlawful; it has urged violent and hateful acts on politicians and journalists. It is based on irrationality, conspiracy theories, and exploitation of the misguided by those with malignant intent. Others have spent time in this House talking about the motivations of those who are out there, and I will not go further into that today. What I do know, however, is that whatever points the protesters wanted to make, they have been made. And on behalf of Wellingtonians, we want you to go home. Please take your children home, so that we can all get on with our lives in peace.

I have another message for those who have occupied the streets and Parliament, but I don’t think it’s one that they want to hear. That is, that we are now two years on from the first case of COVID-19 in New Zealand this week. And for New Zealand, we have faced this one-in-100-year health and economic crisis together. We have relied on the values and principles that New Zealanders uphold to put people’s health and wellbeing first. We have saved lives and livelihoods. Nothing that the Government has done has been possible without New Zealanders choosing to look after each other by doing the right thing—be that locking down, keeping businesses going, shopping local, getting vaccinated, getting boosted, and more.

Two years of New Zealanders caring for one another, giving a damn about how we got through this together—that will be New Zealanders’ legacy from COVID-19, and I want to thank each and every New Zealander for what they have done to keep one another safe.

SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Simon Bridges, I want to remind people who are participating remotely that the rules are the same for you as they are in the Chamber. It is not that appealing for me to watch people eating their lunch.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to empathise with the local member of Parliament for Wellington Central about the disruption that he spoke of in a heartfelt way there. But I do want to switch tack on what I think are a bunch of issues that are actually more important for New Zealanders overall—and certainly more important for young New Zealanders and our tomorrow—because today I asked the Minister of Finance, in this House, about public spending in this country. What we established was, I think, an incredibly avaricious Government; a Government that wants to spend and spend and spend. We established quite clearly, on the first supplementary question that I asked him—that is the first question after the primary one—that this Government is the second-highest spending Government in the Western World after the United States; second-biggest during the pandemic. It has spent and spent and spent. It is an outlier in that regard, far and away, as a proportion of GDP, spending higher than most other Western countries.

Now, the Minister didn’t agree with a quote I put to him, even though it was from an Australian paper of repute, The Australian, about the debt, and the biggest increase proportionately of debt in the Western World. But what is true, what he can’t deny, because it comes from his own documents, is that net core Crown debt is going from 36 percent, 37 percent right now—which, at least in New Zealand terms, in modern terms, is higher than it’s been—to over 40 percent next year. He—his Government—is spending over $20 billion more. By the way, if they cancelled the light rail, they wouldn’t have to do that. Then, what we also saw, what he would not deny, and I’ve asked him now a number of times in select committees and other places, is that, in this coming Budget—the biggest spend to date in the Western World after the United States—he will be spending $6 billion in operating allowances, as the boffins call it, or in new spending; more new money than we have ever seen at a Budget in New Zealand’s history. That, piled on top of what’s been, is excessive and is irresponsible, in the National Party’s view.

I’ll tell you why it matters—I’ll tell New Zealanders why it matters—because we are in a cost of living crisis at the moment. We have inflation at 5.9 percent. I intervened when the first speaker, Marama Davidson, was speaking; she mentioned gardening—well, cauliflower are $15 at the moment in New Zealand; I don’t think they have ever been that expensive. But everything is more expensive. Many New Zealanders have never seen this before in their adult lifetimes—I haven’t as a 45-year-old; I know I look much younger!—but that’s the reality of what we are in right now. Yes, let’s not be childish about this: a good chunk of it—oil prices; although there’s a lot of tax on that—is international. But what is also true is there’s a significant domestic aspect to it. The bank economists say so, and what they also say—most of them—is that big Government spending pushes it up. So we are in a situation, with that big Government spending, of inflation being higher than it needs to be. With inflation being higher than it needs to be, the Reserve Bank must push interest rates up higher than they need to be. And that hurts New Zealanders big time. Some are talking about recession; we’re seeing that in the paper today. I’m not necessarily predicting that, but it’s a real double whammy.

So the vicious cycle that New Zealanders are in right now, partly because of Grant Robertson and his avaricious Government, is the highest inflation in over 30 years is pushing interest rates up, more Government spending leading to higher inflation, leading to interest rates going up. It is not pretty. And all that National is saying—all we are saying—is, “Look, you know what? How about, from here on in, we rein it in a bit, we show some discipline, and we focus on quality?”

Hon Member: What are you going to cut?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: But the Government is avaricious and irresponsible, and they say, “Well, what are you going to cut?” Well, actually, a big chunk—that’s Grant Robertson’s words—is in health restructure. In a pandemic? In a situation, actually, where it doesn’t deliver a single new hip operation? That’s hip operation, not hip-hop, Chris Hipkins! It doesn’t deliver a new ICU bed. Actually, all it delivers is for Wellington consultants, who’re already doing well enough. The Waitematā District Health Board says it leads to real risks. So we say, look, rein it in, actually, in the interests of New Zealanders, so that we can get on top of this cost of living crisis that is hurting so many in this country.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well, there you have it. Finally, the National Party have indicated what they’re going to cut: health spending. That is the one example that Simon Bridges could come up with of wasteful spending: in health. During a global pandemic, health is the one area they could come out with to indicate they’re going to cut. And, of course, they don’t want to acknowledge the big drivers of growth in Government spending over the last two years: the wage subsidy—

Hon Simon Bridges: Bureaucrats.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —that’s kept people in work. “The bureaucrats.”, Simon Bridges says. Let’s talk about who he’s actually talking about when he talks about bureaucrats. Actually, the wage subsidy accounts for a significant number of those—the people who were actually keeping businesses afloat by making sure they could access the wage subsidy. He could also be talking about the contact tracing teams who have made sure that we have kept COVID-19 out of the community, employed by the Public Service. He could be talking about the extra staff working on the front lines at the Ministry of Social Development to make sure that we’ve actually got people getting the financial support that they need. Or the extra people at the IRD, who have been doing a similar job. He could be talking about the extra social workers at Oranga Tamariki, making sure that we’re protecting and caring for our most vulnerable children. He could be talking about the extra staff employed by the Ministry of Education to work, again, with our most vulnerable children. They’re not bureaucrats sitting in an office in Wellington; they are people who are in classrooms. They go into classrooms to help and to provide extra support for the most vulnerable kids. These are the people who the National Party thinks we should cut the jobs of. So I think that New Zealanders will utterly reject that.

I want to acknowledge that it is an uncertain time for New Zealanders and that there are Kiwis out there who are nervous about where we’re at with our COVID-19 response. Things have changed pretty dramatically in the last few weeks and I know that that has led to some New Zealanders feeling nervous, and we see that in some of the consumer spending patterns that we’re seeing at the moment. People are staying home voluntarily. They are isolating themselves. They are concerned about what they are seeing. They’re concerned about the increase in case numbers, and I want to speak directly to that.

We are now entering and we are now well into a new phase in our response to COVID-19. It is a very different phase to the one that we were in two years ago, when we were introducing restrictions, when we were stamping out the virus. There are now tools available to us that there weren’t two years ago. In New Zealand, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. I want to acknowledge that: 97 percent of eligible adult New Zealanders have received at least one dose of vaccination; 95 percent have received their second; 70 percent of eligible New Zealanders, as of today, have received a booster dose; 51 percent of children who are eligible have received at least one dose of vaccination. The result is that that’s changing the dynamic. We’re now dealing with Omicron, a variant that whilst it spreads faster, it is more transmissible. It is resulting in fewer people in hospital and fewer people having those severe responses to it.

So for many people who get Omicron in the next few weeks, it will be a relatively mild illness. They will be able to stay home and they will be able to get better. As a result, we have made other changes. The isolation rules have changed. It is now only those who have someone in their household who has COVID-19, who need to be isolating for that period. The rest of people who were otherwise previously called close contacts, they are able to go to work, but, of course, like all New Zealanders, they should be taking the preventative public health measures that we want everyone to take: wearing a mask, making sure that they’re monitoring for symptoms, washing their hands, maintaining distance where they can. Those things will help to slow and, potentially, stop the spread of the virus.

We do have a different way of testing now, which is faster. It’s giving us a faster turn-around in results. And while it wasn’t a method of testing that we wanted to see in our elimination phase, where we wanted the highest degree of accuracy possible, it is now something that we can use at this phase of our response.

There will be changes at the border. There are already changes at the border and we welcome back New Zealanders coming from Australia this week and, from the end of the week, Kiwis coming home from the rest of the world. In doing so, we acknowledge that it has been a tough two years for those who have been separated by border restrictions. It’s been a tough two years for those who have worked at the border, and it is to them that I want to address my final comments.

To Kiwis coming home: haere mai, welcome. We know that it’s been tough and we know that you’re keen to get here, and we welcome you home. To those who have worked at our borders, we simply say thank you. You are national heroes. We acknowledge that you have paid a significant personal price for the job that you have done, and we will make sure in this next phase, as things change, that you are treated fairly.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I want to start by acknowledging the comments made by the Hon Grant Robertson, the member of Parliament for Wellington Central. There’s no doubt that the protest out the front has been a disruption to people in this part of the city, and many across the country have looked at it with some wonderment as to how long it’s been able to go on for. I want to, in the same breath, though, acknowledge that the police have done a very good job in trying to ensure that there was the right to protest upheld; at the same time, not wanting to see it turn into an absolute debacle, as it so easily could have.

While, today, there will be some skirmishes as they undertake the clearance of the protests, I think it would be unreasonable for anyone to say that protesters haven’t had a fair opportunity. And if there is one thing I’d regret in all of this, it’s that the underlying issues that were raised by that protest have not seen the sort of debate level that might have been expected. There’s been a lot of talk about the removal of mandates. I’m encouraged by the Hon Chris Hipkins indicating that, post a peak in Omicron, they would be reconsidered, because we cannot go forward with two classes of citizenship, as we see at the moment.

We are also, at the moment, in a very interesting position where the country is facing, as the Hon Simon Bridges said, some extraordinary prices in supermarkets and service stations and in almost every other service that is provided within the economy. It is too easy and far too glib for the Government to simply say, “Well, it’s international conditions and there’s not much we can do about it.” The price of beef, for example, at a retail level, has gone up by over $7 since the start of this year—$7 a kilogram, I should say. If you exacerbate that across all of the staple items, it is becoming increasingly difficult for families in this country to live well.

So it is something that we can’t ignore, and for the Government to sort of say today, there’s going to be an additional $6 billion worth of expenditure by the Government in the coming Budget and then turn around to the Opposition and say, “What would the Opposition cut?”, that is a stupid question, in my opinion, because, firstly, if money hasn’t been spent yet, it can’t be cut. And that’s an argument, interestingly, I heard many politicians on the other side of the House make when they were in Opposition. And I can tell you that it is a fact that when a Government spends heavily—and sometimes that’s necessary; sometimes, yes, go to the balance sheet, and that’s what the Government has done, and we don’t disagree with that—and at times when inflation starts to run away, it simply exacerbates that because of the demands that that extra expenditure places on the economy. So an interesting time ahead.

Then, of course, we also face the prospect that one or two items that we use in our daily activities could be affected in price by the circumstances in the Ukraine. But what’s most at stake there is the change to the order of the world that we’ve understood post the Second World War. The aggression by Mr Putin and his regime against the Ukraine is unprecedented, it’s unnecessary, and, most of all, it’s unprovoked. It is a vanity project on his part and his part alone. So there needs to be extremely strong sanctions levelled against him. No matter what the Government says, our response so far has been light and it has been somewhat weak. To suggest that we’ve got a travel ban on people associated with the Putin regime is ridiculous when the whole country’s been under a travel ban for the last two years.

Then, of course, the idea that we will no longer have diplomatic discussions. Well, I’m sure that when the piece of paper indicating that to Mr Putin was pushed down the long table so that he could reach out and get it without coming into contact with anybody personally, he would have shaken in his boots at the prospect that New Zealand was no longer talking to Russia! We should be part of the international sanctions that are putting a real squeeze on the Russian economy. It’s sad to say that everyday Russians need to wake up and realise who’s sitting in the Kremlin and who’s doing things on their part. They are losing so many of their young people without even recognising—for their families—that they were being sent off into a war zone. We will support the sanctions bill. I look forward to the briefing next week.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence) (remote): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. My first offering in this general debate is to endorse the words of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Wellington Central MP, the Hon Grant Robertson. The way he described what Wellingtonians have endured over the past weeks is, I think, testament to the challenges that our people have faced in Wellington and in other parts of our country. What we want, though, is for our country to go back to normal as quick as possible, and this Government’s focus is to make sure that where we can, we will secure our future off the great health decisions and the great health leadership that we have done to make sure our country comes through this particular pandemic.

The Hon Chris Hipkins talked about the change of isolation rules. I want to, as defence Minister, thank all of our defence force personnel for their contribution to Operation Protect, which has seen hundreds of our defence force personnel represent us all in this country. As they continue to carry out their duties at managed isolation and quarantine, they have done it with aplomb, they have done it with extreme professionalism, and I want to acknowledge them. I want to acknowledge them because, as well as that, they have continued to be ready to respond when Aotearoa New Zealand needs them the most.

It is that reason that as we look towards our priorities for the defence force, I want to, once again, reiterate the priorities that this Government has agreed to, and two of those particular priorities are people and infrastructure in the defence force. Investing in our infrastructure ensures that our defence force personnel live and work in buildings that are not only healthy but they are safe and fit for purpose. It also provides much-needed economic stimulus for the regions where our people are based.

A good example of this is the Manawatū-Whanganui region. The new $250 million facility to support the new P-8A Poseidon aircraft being built at the base in Ōhākea currently provides work for 250 people and it is expected to grow to 400 at its peak. The workforce consists of 25 main subcontractors, of which, a third of them, approximately, are from that particular region. These are good examples of strong investment that will continue to secure our resilience and our future.

Also for the defence force, the Linton maintenance support facility replaces the aged and obsolete army workshop used to repair military equipment. Construction for this commenced in July 2021, using a local Manawatū contractor, and it is progressing to schedule and budget and is due for completion in May 2023. The project employs up to 180 people in the region directly, and 360 indirectly through local subcontractors and suppliers. Approved funding for the build is about $53.5 million.

These are the examples of securing our future as we come towards this stage of the pandemic. I’m proud of the work that we’ve done, and I’m proud of the decisions that we’ve made to continue to support our recovery and our resilience. But let’s be quite clear: we are in the grip of Omicron.

Last week, Māori Ministers made the announcement of a further $140 million to continue to support Māori Omicron and Pacific Omicron response in our community. I’m proud of the work we’ve done. The Prime Minister has already shouted that praise in answer to oral questions today, and I want to commend her support and the support of this Government for our Māori health providers and our Pacific health providers. I’ve spoken to a number of them, and they’re absolutely thrilled that there is more money there to continue to help them to secure their workforce into the future to continue to add to the capacity to allow them to respond to Omicron.

In my final seconds: 12 months ago, I started out on one of three tours around the country to push the vaccine amongst Māori communities. We still have a challenge up in front of us, whānau, and this is my plea to all Māori health providers and our communities: while tamariki vaccine rates continue to fall behind and Māori rates lag behind that of non-Māori, my plea is to every member of this House and to our community to bring our tamariki forward to make the right decision and to vaccinate. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Kia ora.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Reflecting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I can do no better than echo the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which the Prime Minister, too, referenced in the House yesterday. President Putin’s invasion is a clear act of aggression, a blatant breach of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a violation of international law and the UN Charter by a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It’s the act of a bully brutally using its power in breach of international law. We’re seeing a devastating human cost as a result of Russia’s disregard for its obligations under the UN Charter and disregard for humanity, and I know that this House stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

In recent days, Russia has put its nuclear forces on high alert; a decision that increases the risk of miscalculation and with it, potentially catastrophic consequences for humanity. We’ve also seen neighbouring Belarus rightfully condemned for moves to allow Russia’s nuclear weapons to be stationed within its borders. In Kyiv and other major cities, civilians and civilian infrastructure are being targeted and hit by explosive weapons, bringing war directly into the backyards of innocent non-combatants and in violation of international humanitarian law. Credible reports of the use of cluster munitions have begun to come through; an indiscriminate weapon, which many countries, New Zealand included, recognise as being illegal under international law.

As disarmament and arms control Minister, times like these bring into sharp focus the need for a renewed focus internationally on disarmament and particularly the threat of nuclear weapons. This means not only limiting destruction when conflict occurs but reducing the tensions that lead to war breaking out in the first place. It’s a tough climate right now for nuclear disarmament. The nuclear-weapon States who also happen to be the permanent members of the Security Council, of which Russia is one, argue that the international security climate is too uncertain and too unstable to be ambitious about following through on their commitments to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. But President Putin, in threatening the use of nuclear weapons, in the course of an unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country, has surely demonstrated that the opposite is true.

In times of crisis, the need for strong international law and multilateral institutions is most urgent. This is the very time we turn to the rules, norms, and safeguards to prevent conflict and reduce the suffering of civilians in war. While it’s hard right now to imagine Russia sitting down with the other nuclear-weapon States to agree new commitments to reduce and eliminate their nuclear weapons, that is precisely what is needed. As the world now works together to impose sanctions on Russia and to support Ukraine, we must be equally muscular and equally united in building out some multilateral institutions and strengthening international law. If we don’t, how will we avoid a renewed arms race, more breaches of the UN Charter, more conflict, and a much more dangerous world?

That is why New Zealand continues to advocate for States to uphold their existing obligations under international law, to hold accountable those who violate these obligations, and push for additional controls as new threats to peace and security emerge. A strong response by the international community to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows that the world is capable of coming together and taking action on issues that matter. Our job now is to harness that unity and sense of purpose as we address the big disarmament issues of our time; issues that relate both to the prevention of conflict and to the protection of civilians when those efforts fail.

In New Zealand, you know, we may feel a long way from the war in Ukraine. History has shown again that conflict reverberates far beyond where the bombs are going off. And that’s true for a conventional conflict and, even more, where the use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, cross-border and intergenerational effects has been put on the table.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to take note in the House today that no New Zealander likes to see the scenes currently out the front of Parliament right now. It is sad and distressing to see. However, the actions of the so-called protestors, which we have seen over the weeks, have been illegal in the sense that they have intimidated and, at times, assaulted members of the public. Constituents of mine have regularly contacted me out of sheer frustration that those New Zealanders that have been part of a team, those New Zealanders that have chosen to play their part to get us through one of the most difficult times in modern history, have worked so hard and feel sheer frustration at the actions outside the front of Parliament now.

At the same time, I would like to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Police, who are working incredibly hard in unbelievably difficult circumstances right now. I acknowledge the time they’ve had to spend already, the risks they’ve put themselves under—and they continue to do so—in order for New Zealanders and Wellingtonians to go about their daily lives safely and for people to get to work and to get home again. I would like to acknowledge all of those people who have written to me and expressed their frustration over the last weeks, and I’m pleased that action is being taken to resolve what’s been occurring.

This Government has taken action at a time when it has been unprecedented. We have provided stable, united leadership through one of the most challenging events New Zealand has had to face in modern times. And throughout this pandemic, the Government has worked to save as many lives as possible and also to protect jobs and to cushion the blow to our local and our national economy. We’ve acted early and decisively to prevent the worst impacts we’ve seen in other countries around the world. Our approach has worked. We’ve seen the lowest number of deaths in the OECD. The front page of the Dominion Post today is projecting that possibly 3,000 lives have been saved through the actions taken. Also, we’ve seen, at the same time, unemployment at record low rates, being able to cope at a time when there’s huge pressures on our economy. These efforts and these results are a powerful confirmation of our collective effort as all New Zealanders. The measures that we have taken have saved lives and the policies that we have put in place have protected the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders. We have done all this while continuing to make progress on the long-term challenges New Zealand faces: housing, child poverty, mental health, and climate change.

I have paid recognition to front-line Government workers, such as police, but I’d like to acknowledge teachers as well. As I send my kids off to school each day in times when numbers are increasing in terms of cases, they go into a calm, caring, and well-planned-out environment every single day. I’m hugely grateful as a parent for the effort that our teachers are doing every single day to put the best interests of our children forward. In order to do that, we want to be able to protect our school workforce by making medical-grade masks freely available. One of the best things we can do to keep front-line staff and students safe is to isolate—we know that—and that’s why positive cases are at home along with their family members. However, we also recognise that there is a need for rapid antigen testing (RAT), and that is why the Ministry of Education is ensuring that all of its regional officers have a supply of RATs on hand for schools and early learning services to access as needed. There are almost 700,000 RAT kits available for schools and early learning services.

This has been a hugely trying time for New Zealand but what we know is that we have worked to look after our people. We have worked to protect lives, to protect livelihoods, and to make sure New Zealanders, as a collective, are in the best place possible. We have a plan, and it has worked to date, and we know that it will continue to work. This has been achieved through a Government with strong leadership and a strong plan that is able to make sure the people in New Zealand are safe and looked after in one of the most challenging times we have seen in modern New Zealand history. Madam Speaker, thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a dramatic and unpredictable world in which we live, and, unfortunately, inflation is becoming the one thing that Kiwis can count on under this Government. New Zealanders are seeing it in the cost of living every day. I was down at Countdown on the weekend, where I saw a pound of butter for $6.50, on special; a block of Colby, 18 bucks; 2 litres of milk, over five bucks—five if you’re lucky—and at $18.50, a kilogram mince is no longer a cheap meal. Those are all good prices, by the way—I don’t want to run down Countdown. The fact is that people trying to feed a family find there’s too much week left at the end of the money.

And then, I went down the road to fill my car up with petrol—don’t hate me; I have one that runs on petrol!—and they pre-approve your credit card for $150. Now, the people that designed these petrol pumps must have thought nobody could spend $150 on one tank, so we’ll just zap their card for $150 and take out the difference. Well, the funny thing is, I pressed the buttons and it only filled it up by three-quarters of a tank, and at $3 petrol it’s not surprising. A lot of people—they’re people who actually need to drive to work, sometimes long distances, and take the kids to hockey practice and the doctor and the supermarket on the way home; the tank’s not full and their budget’s met, then that’s a real problem.

Let’s speak about homes. This Government was elected in October 2017, and it was elected, in large part, to try and fix housing. Back then, the median house price was $530,000—that’s the median; that’s not the average, which is higher; that’s not the Auckland price, which is higher; that’s the median for the whole country: $530,000 for a house. That was a lot of money when this Government was elected. Now that median is $880,000—a $350,000 increase that people have been trying to save at a time when the price of everything is going up and up and up.

Everybody is paying for inflation except one organisation—that’s the Government of New Zealand. You see, they’re in on it. They’re getting 15 percent of every price rise in GST. Some people say inflation is a thief in your pocket. Well, this Government is guilty of receiving stolen goods. They just had a $98 billion tax take—that’s last year—$13 billion up on any previous year. You know, I’ll get a billion here, a billion there, and suddenly Grant Robertson’s talking real money. We have a Government that is taking so much more in taxes and spending it, not only are they insulated from the problem, they’re driving the problem. When the Government goes out and spends $2 billion that it’s allowed to borrow—it’s allowed itself to borrow—bidding for land, bidding for builders, bidding for materials when there’s a shortage, they push up the price of housing. When the Government spends $50 million investigating a bike bridge it doesn’t build, they push up the price of everything, because that cash is swirling round but there’s nothing more to buy, and too much money chasing after too few goods—well, that is called inflation and people are feeling it everywhere.

When this Government inherits a Ministry of Education with 2,600 bureaucrats looking after 2,500 schools, that’s an opportunity to reduce the number of bureaucrats in this country. But what have they done? They’ve now got 3,900 bureaucrats, and they’re paid an average of $93,000—more than the top of the scale for an experienced teacher. We have a 50 percent growth in education bureaucrats, and they’re getting paid more than the teachers. And this Government, they stand up and say, “Oh, we can’t cut anything. If the other side, if ACT got in, if National got in, they’d fire all the teachers.” No we wouldn’t. What this Government’s really saying is “We don’t know how to make anything more efficient. We have to tax and spend all this money, otherwise the world will end.” Well, I’m telling you that, on this side of the House, we have alternatives, we have better ideas, we have efficiency, and we are going to make this Government efficient and stop the inflationary pressure that’s pushing up the price of everything for hard-working families that are getting squeezed in every direction. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a peculiar time here in our House. I know I have a lot of colleagues who are coming on through Zoom. We thank you for your cooperation and for your help keeping your colleagues and keeping other people safe by Zooming in.

I said it in the House last week and I say it summarised in the House again this week: Labour is in the fight against COVID-19 because we do not take lives for granted.

David Seymour: It will be for as long as possible.

BARBARA EDMONDS: To the family and friends of the 10 people currently in the intensive care unit (ICU)—perhaps Mr Seymour would like to listen to this, rather than interject. To the family and friends of the 10 people currently in ICU or the high-dependency unit, our thoughts and our prayers are with you and your loved ones as they fight this virus. To the family and friends of the 56 people who have died from this virus—

Simon Court: Including the guy who got shot in New Lynn?

David Seymour: Yeah, was he admitted for COVID?

BARBARA EDMONDS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that interjections can be varied and in between—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, thank you very much—thank you. This is a robust debate. I haven’t heard anything that has crossed a line.

BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I summarise again to the family and friends of the 56 people who have died from this virus—

Hon Michael Wood: If that lot want to join the COVID deniers, then head out the front.

Greg O’Connor: Ignore the little twerp.

BARBARA EDMONDS: —our thoughts and prayers are with you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! But it is a little ironic that the member’s own colleagues now start interjecting long and loud. So let’s just calm things down a bit.

BARBARA EDMONDS: Good, robust debate! Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your loved ones as you walked this different chapter of your lives without your loved ones: manuia lau malaga.

We are in a different phase in this response to this virus. We all probably have family and friends who are now infected or are recovering. One of my first family members to be infected by this virus was my six-week-old niece, Pei. Pei’s parents noticed that their new-born child wasn’t breathing properly. They noticed her nose was blocked. She wasn’t feeding. So there is an intuition that parents have: they know when it is time to move. So her parents trusted their gut and they took her to hospital. When she took her to hospital, straight away the doctors and nurses tested her for COVID and she came out positive. But this has a good ending. Pei received exemplary care in Te Puke in Tauranga. She is recovering really well at home with her parents, who also tested positive. Her parents are incredibly grateful to her community in Te Puke, especially the Poutiri Trust, for their help, for checking in on them, and for all the prayers and messages they’ve received from afar. As we experience this outbreak, it is those community groups and welfare providers that will be at the forefront of caring for our community as people self-isolate.

A member today in question time questioned our support for Māori during this pandemic. In my area of Mana, however, I’ve seen the total opposite. Our local iwi, Ngāti Toa, are leading both our vaccination programme, our testing station, our rapid antigen test distribution, and they are also responsible for the community-and-care model, Tiaki.

To our police service—who are currently dealing with a lot of pressure on our front lawn, which we can also smell within this House at this moment—many of those police officers are from my area of Kāpiti-Mana. I’ve been speaking to your area commander regularly throughout this particular protest. I thank you for your service, and together our community will come to thank you once this protest is over.

To our Māori wardens from across the Wellington region: they have provided a safety corridor for our school children, who either have to go up the road, up this hill, to their schools or to the buses which are at the Wellington train station. We thank you for looking after our children.

At this time, I reflect on the words of Tā Hemi Henare: “We have done too much to not do more, we have come too far to not go further.” Now, more than ever, Kiwis need to support our families, our neighbours, and our communities as we get through this outbreak. As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today: “Now is the time to care for one another. Now is the time to give a damn.” So, on this side of the House, we do give a damn. On this side of the House, we do care. So, once again, Labour is in the fight against COVID because we do not take lives for granted. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just before I take the next call, can I just put a reminder to perhaps those members who are wishing to take a call remotely: they do need to seek the call, just as members in this House need to seek a call. Members who are wanting to join the debate remotely can do that by using the message function. Thank you very much.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to draw to the House’s attention a headline in a local newspaper in mid-Canterbury talking about the harvest from hell. Mid-Canterbury arable farmers have suffered this year the harvest from hell. Yes, some of it has been weather-related. It’s been a cold, wet summer. But I would also contend that the harvest from hell has been exacerbated by the Government from hell. The farming sector of New Zealand has spent the last two years screaming into a wind tunnel, asking this Government to prick up its ears and start listening to it. For two years now, New Zealand’s largest export sector has been screaming out for border exemptions for critical workers like vets, like contractors, like shearers, like viticulturists, like grape pickers, and like dairy support workers. Dairy New Zealand asked this Government for an exemption for 1,500 essential workers to come in. What did it come up with? It allowed for 300 to come in. Tim Mackle put out a statement today, and he’s absolutely right, he said this sort of understaffing “Increases the risk of accidents and … puts animal welfare at risk.” In terms of mental wellbeing, it is a health and safety issue.

The Government response to this sector over the last two years has been utterly pathetic. I have seen the International Organization for Standardization health and safety plans from arable farmers around Canterbury, putting up full health and safety plans that would allow critical workers to safely isolate on farm. Once again, absolutely nothing from the Government. It’s literally tumbleweeds blowing in the wind. I have seen pleas from cropping farmers and contractors for rapid antigen tests so that they can get on with the essential job of feeding this country, of bringing in this year’s crop. Once again, absolutely nothing. This Government is completely and utterly unprepared to listen to anyone from private enterprise, and by goodness, the results are telling! I have a list as long as my arm of examples from New Zealand’s most arrogant and out-of-touch Government and its refusal to listen to industry, and never has there been a more obvious example than the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, a piece of law that is ideologically driven, devoid of any knowledge or practical implementation. But that is typical of this Government and its top-down approach rather than grassroots up.

Once again, I have another example, we are seeing this “we know best” approach with regards to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Everyone will contend that the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 was a terrible, terrible maritime disaster. But here we have an industry prepared to respond to it. It is saying to the Primary Production Committee: “Please, can you legislate a gold standard for us? Please allow us to be the world’s best in this export industry.” But will the Government listen? No. I asked the Minister had he read the gold standard, had he considered the gold standard. Answer: no.

I would like, actually, to return, from my list of ignorance from this Government, to the crop. This year’s harvest from hell exacerbated by the Government from hell. Eighty years ago, my great grandmother Mary Grigg, who was the member of Parliament for mid-Canterbury, stood in this Chamber and spoke of the importance of paying farmers a fair price for wheat, given that, at the time, they were obliged to increase production because there was a war. It is not dissimilar to this Government charging the agricultural sector with doubling its export earnings to $80 billion in 10 years, all the while it’s hamstringing them with regulations and restrictions that will actually force them to destock and reduce productivity. But in 1942, Mary Grigg got up and made the following very pertinent statement: “This is a matter that concerns very nearly the electorate [that] I am … proud to represent, and which is so dear to me—mid-Canterbury; but it also affects the whole of New Zealand; … whereas wheat may seem [to be] purely a farmer’s problem, when wheat becomes bread it concerns every man, woman, and child in this Dominion.” And here we are 80 years later, not in the grips of a world war, but in the grips of a global pandemic where the price of food is going through the roof, the productive sector is being forced to fill this Government’s coffers with its export earnings, but, at the same time, it is not being supported by the Government to do that.

I very, very much look forward to the 2023 election. I cannot wait to get out on that campaign trail. I cannot wait to see Simon Bridges in the Minister of Finance’s chair when we will at last start to see some disciplined spending from a Government. And I am very much looking forward to seeing Christopher Luxon as the next Prime Minister of New Zealand.

HELEN WHITE (Labour) (remote): I’m pleased to speak on this matter, and I’d, first of all, just like to reflect on Minister Twyford’s comments on the Ukraine, because this is a situation which it is very important that we actually acknowledge the distress of the people in that situation before I turn to the domestic situation.

But I do want to talk about Omicron in Auckland, because at the moment we’re suffering from, really, an unprecedented situation for ourselves. We’ve never had a situation where our neighbours have got COVID. We have never had a situation where we have known people in jeopardy. And although this is, hopefully, a milder version, for most people, of COVID that’s because we have had a distance between ourselves and the first iterations of the virus, and because so many people in New Zealand have been vaccinated. We should be incredibly proud of the numbers of vaccinated in this country, because it’s saved over 3,000 lives. And I’d ask people to think about the people they now know who’ve got that virus and think, “What if those people were at the edge in terms of whether they would live or die?”, because that’s what we were really looking at and we aren’t anymore.

We’re in a situation where it’s frightening but there are so many people who have been protected by the measures that this Government has taken, and I’d also ask them to reflect on the kinds of comments that were made at the time, the naysayers in this situation, and those are gathering at the moment. When things are dark, they tend to gather. I’d ask them to remember that Mike Hosking was absolutely adamant we’d never get to those kinds of numbers of vaccination, and yet here we are with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

This is a situation which hasn’t happened by accident. It has happened because the Government had a very strong value system, and it’s a very important value system in leading us through such a crisis. We chose things like wage subsidy; we didn’t choose helicopter payments. That’s actually not an accident, and it wouldn’t have necessarily happened under another administration, because the values are fundamentally different. Wage subsidies supported so many people through this. They supported the small businesses and they supported the workers in this country and we have record employment because of it. So we can be incredibly proud of that.

Now, there’s a lot of people who will say that there are issues, etc., and they’ll be right. There will be issues. This is an unprecedented situation and what actually has happened is that this Government has partnered with people and made that happen. So, first of all, I want to talk to and thank some of those people. I want to thank the small businesses that are struggling in Auckland right now. I know it’s incredibly tough for some sectors. It’s very hard when, actually, things are going well in your economy to remember and acknowledge the little areas like—not little, but—hospitality, which are really struggling, areas like retail that are struggling.

I’d like to, also, thank the people who partnered to do this, because a lot of the people who end up with naysayers telling us that they have been a waste of money, the bureaucrats, those bureaucrats aren’t bureaucrats; they are the people who made this happen. They are the people who set up the test and trace system. They are the people who nursed people. They are the people who are at the front line. They are a police force which have been doing so much more than they probably ever anticipated doing. Those people have been working really hard. So it’s really important that when people try and drive a wedge in us and tell us that these things, actually, they could have done them so much better, we’ll remember: who was it who delivered the situation we have now? Who was it who protected people and prioritised people? It’s very easy to talk and it’s much, much harder to make these decisions.

I’m incredibly proud of the decisions that this Government’s made and it will make in the future based on the learnings here as we build back the health sector, as we build back our workforce so that we actually can do the things we need to do in this country to make things work, as we build a climate-responsive environment and one that’s a healthy and good place for our people to live. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour) (remote): Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I would also like to say kia kaha Aotearoa New Zealand. There are things happening outside our Parliament at the moment, and we need to remember that we are here for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. I’d like to thank the 74 submitters and the 22 oral submitters on this bill. And my recognition of our submitters really is about the sharing of their experience of intimate, image-based sexual abuse and matters to do with intimate visual recordings that they have not consented to being shared with anyone other than sometimes their partners or people that they’ve engaged in sexual relations with. But, in other instances, they haven’t given consent at all for that recording to be created in the first place.

I would like to acknowledge the advisers from the Ministry of Justice, support from the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and I particularly want to acknowledge Marion Clifford, who helped in the initial drafting of this piece of legislation. And can I also take this opportunity to highlight the leadership of Ginny Andersen as the chair of the Justice Committee, and also mihi to the other members of the Justice Committee. He mahi pai, and thank you very much for your diligent work.

At this, the third reading, I think it’s important to again highlight the significance of image-based sexual abuse. And to do so I found a piece of research titled Image-based Sexual Abuse, which was an international study of victims and perpetrators. It had over 6,000 respondents; 2,000-plus from Australia, from the UK, and from New Zealand. They also compared image-based sexual abuse between 2017 and 2020. The non-consensual sharing of intimate visual recordings has almost doubled, within that context—that three-year period. And this is related to the shifting practices in technological use in dating and also in how people are now having sex.

The problems that were identified within that context point to issues of victim blaming and also the minimisation of the impact of image-based sexual abuse. The key findings from that study highlight that women are the majority victims of image-based sexual abuse, but also younger people—those aged between 20 and 29 years, those who belong to sexually diverse groups, those who belong to ethnically diverse groups, and it also says that men are victims of image-based sexual abuse too.

Last night, in preparing for the third reading today, I received two emails from two women survivors of image-based sexual abuse. One had intimate visual recordings taken without her consent. The other had intimate visual recordings that she did consent to; they were shared between lovers and they were “for your eyes only”. Both were feeling let down by the current law because there were no charges able to be laid under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. One of the perpetrators shared these and didn’t intend harm; the other sold those images to OnlyFans to make a profit—OnlyFans, by the way, is a porn site.

From the international study that I quoted earlier, perpetrators’ motivations for this type of abuse are that they do it for fun, they do it to be sexy, they do it to impress friends. They do it to maintain relationships, for attention, for revenge, to embarrass their partner, to control their partner, for financial gain, and to obtain further images. In all instances, no, there is no understanding or thought to the harmful impacts upon the victim and there’s no recognition that image-based sexual abuse is harmful.

In 1998, academic Liz Kelly in her article titled “Surviving Sexual Violence” discussed how women were encouraged to deny or minimise the impact of obscene phone calls, of flashing, of peeping, of wolf whistles. Women were told just to ignore such conduct. Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley who coined “image-based sexual abuse” in 2017 noted women being advised not to take online abuse so seriously and to get a sense of humour. Image-based sexual abuse is on a continuum with other forms of sexual violence and must not be tolerated. With this amendment bill we empower the survivors of image-based sexual abuse. There will be no need to prove intention to cause harm. There will be no need to prove the nature of the harm caused. If there is no consent, these sexual abusers are criminals under this law.

My Image My Choice is now a global campaign. It was started in December 2020 by victims of image-based sexual abuse to provide a safe and supportive environment for survivors to speak about their experiences of image-based sexual abuse. The goals are to change laws, to empower survivors with the legal framework to hold sexual abusers to legal account—that no consent to make, tape, or share intimate visual recordings.

I really wanted to end by sharing why it’s so important and what the harms of image-based sexual abuse are. A recent report titled Shattering Lives and Myths was conducted over respondents from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. They interviewed 50 victims or survivors of image-based sexual abuse. Again, that was McGlynn and Rackley, who were part of the research team, but also Professor Nicola Garvey from the University of Auckland. Their key findings were that image-based sexual abuse shatters lives, that there are significant numbers of victim survivors who experience profound social rupture. Social rupture means that people break down in all aspects of their lives and, in fact, some women also suicide—that the threats that they experience are life-threatening and paralysing leads to intense isolation from friends, from family. The online world and society in general categorises many experiences.

Victims spoke of how the abuse that is constant, ongoing, and relentless shatters not only their lives but also the lives of those who love and support them. Image-based sexual abuse, therefore, is motivated by control, by misogyny, and also by a feeling of men’s entitlement and laddish attitudes. It causes gendered harm, and the lack of support leaves victims isolated and they have to navigate processes—legal processes—alone, often, most of the time. So what this bill says to survivors is that you are not alone, that Parliament supports you, that society supports you.

And, finally, to the survivors and, again, those who participated in this parliamentary process, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou. Don’t stop using your voices. There is more to be done and Parliament—all of Parliament—is listening. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak for the National Party on this bill. This is my first contribution to the House remotely. I’m based in Auckland and have a household COVID situation, and so we’re all stuck here for the next few days, but it is nice to be able to continue to contribute to the debate.

This is the harmful digital communications amendment bill by Louisa Wall, a member’s bill, which is one which any member of the Parliament can put their name on a ballot and the House will debate the bills. We’re now at the final stage of this piece of legislation, which is designed to deal with a particular issue in relation to revenge porn, as it would normally be described, where intimate visual pictures are posted without the consent of somebody and that, obviously, leads to a dreadful situation. It was the previous National Government that brought in legislation that focused on this, and it did have a not untypical hurdle required, which meant an intention to cause harm in posting such pictures or videos. And I think the person who’s put this bill through, Louisa Wall, has made a good case that that hurdle can lead to too many excuses being offered, that “Oh, I didn’t mean to do any harm.” and has made it more difficult for cases to be prosecuted, notwithstanding the fact that a large number of successful prosecutions have been brought under the previous bill. So, on balance, we support this bill as a next step. We will be interested to review it, as we should all legislation, to ensure that it works properly over the next few years.

As I said, this is a member’s bill introduced by Louisa Wall. I would like at some point to see a statistical study done of the amazing success that that particular member has had in the drawing of members’ bills. I’d like to see the odds laid out clearly. I certainly would like to also join her bingo team if given the opportunity, given her incredible luck that she has shown in the drawing of bills over the years. And I’m sure she will be pleased that she has continued to make great contributions, certainly to the debate within this House, and legislation, as it goes forward.

In terms of this bill, which we’re looking at in the third reading, yes, we are conscious of the fact that the problem that has been focused on through this legislation is a real and urgent one. As everybody is aware, the ubiquity of smartphones in particular has meant that this has been an era, particularly for young people where, you know, material has been recorded and pictures have been taken in many circumstances more often than not, and with the vast expansion of social media platforms the opportunity has arisen for those to be shared. And so the consequences of this happening have become so much more rapid, so much more troubling for the victims of such a posting of intimate pictures or videos that could have a terrible impact on the victim.

The law has to move and respond to ensure that perpetrators of such a thing are held to account. And, you know, we can all talk about the circumstances in which this happens. It may be around blackmailing somebody. It may be around extortion. It may be around revenge particularly in the context of broken relationships. It doesn’t really matter what the reasons are for it. It is clearly unacceptable and this legislation will send a stronger and clearer message from this Parliament and from New Zealand society generally that we do not tolerate this behaviour and you will be held to account if you do it. The debate throughout the select committee process, such as it was, did look around that issue of intention to cause harm, and some amendments were made in the legislation just to clarify elements of that, and we supported that discussion.

I suppose the only point I’d make in conclusion is while this is a useful advance in a particular area of law and order, it does sit within a broader context of law and order that many New Zealanders are concerned about. It sits within a broader context of increased violent crime, a 50 percent increase in gang membership across the country, and a real sense of a breakdown of law and order in parts of the country. And we’re very conscious of the situation out in front of Parliament today being one example where New Zealanders are rightly concerned about the enforcement of the law and the speed with which that is done and a sense of disorder on our streets. I just wish and hope and would encourage Government members and the Government itself to continue to prosecute legislative change that helps deal with those much broader law and order issues that we are confronting, that increase in violent crime, that increase in gang membership.

The other blazing justice issue that we need to deal with is the incredible dysfunction or slowness of justice within our court system. That has been exacerbated by COVID but continues to be a real issue. Justice delayed is justice denied. So, even in the context of this bill, it’s all very well to pass legislation, but if it takes three years for a court to consider and deal with a case and a victim of a crime such as this, such as the posting of an intimate image, if they were to have to wait two years before the situation made it to court and had to relive and re-deal with all those situations two years after the event happened, then that is a hopeless state of affairs. So I just would encourage the Government in its justice focus to really look at those issues and make progress. When I look at the Government justice bills, I don’t see any focus on any of those issues. Instead, we see striking three-strikes laws and a range of other things, maybe some hate speech and other issues, all of which are reasonably important but not the fundamental law and order issues that we need to see addressed.

Having said all that, the member Louisa Wall, of course, is not responsible for all these things. She is one who has been very creative and thoughtful in the way that she’s come up with legislation before this House, and from what we see, this is the final reading of this bill and we in the National Party support it. Like I say, as with all legislation which more often than not has consequences that weren’t foreseen by legislators, we will three or four years down the line take stock of how it’s worked in practice and will always be ready to adjust and amend if required. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, in the name of Louisa Wall, at its third reading, aims to prevent and mitigate the harm caused by image-based sexual abuse. As I’ve learnt through the process and the passage of this legislation, while we typically think of sexual abuse being something that would happen in real life, as the world has changed and as our lives have become increasingly transplanted to being on an online platform, so do the harms and the crimes that come with that online platform. Therefore it is appropriate that our legislative framework changes to protect those who are vulnerable and to hold accountable those who have offended. I would like to commend Louisa Wall, as the member in charge of this bill, as taking a real issue—a real issue that affects the lives of predominantly young women in New Zealand and internationally—and endeavouring to provide further protection for women against image-based sexual violence that occurs on a daily basis.

We know from Netsafe that approximately 5 percent of New Zealanders have reported being exposed to such events and activities, but from hearing submissions, I suspect that that figure is much higher than what we see, as we know in around a lot of sexual violence offending that the rate of unreported crime is high in that space. So it’s important that we take the time to debate this bill, and it’s important that we get that message out there that being exposed and being threatened with having nude images of yourself put online is not only unacceptable but it’s illegal once this bill becomes law.

So the problem currently where the law sits is that section 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act passed back in 2015 stipulates that there is a requirement that the perpetrator intended to cause harm. So while there’s the act of posting the image, the mens rea or the intent that the prosecution needs to demonstrate is that there was an intention to cause the victim harm. So it is very easy in a courtroom setting for that perpetrator to argue that it was a joke or it was done in jest, or it was unintentional or not required. So for that purpose, those images have been able to stay online, to be duplicated, to be shared, to be replicated on multiple different platforms, and having those removed is incredibly difficult once they’ve been uploaded. So there’s been a real barrier to law enforcement and to New Zealand police in the past because of the difficulty of proving that intent that the perpetrator intended to harm the victim as opposed to just show off to their friends.

So what this bill does is it introduces a new offence of knowingly posting a digital communication that is the intimate visual recording without the consent of the person who is the subject of that recording. So in essence, the mere action of posting that image without consent, there is harm implied within that action. So there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator intended to cause harm. That is a significant step forward for victims of sexual violence online because it enables greater action to be taken early on for things such as take-down orders in order to remove those images as quickly as possible.

So why we support this bill and why this is a good move going forward is that we know that image-based sexual abuse is an increasing problem in New Zealand. As young people are increasingly using online platforms for relationships, for exchanging images, we need to make sure that there’s adequate legal protections of their rights and also the ability to hold those who are offending accountable. Image-based sexual abuse is most common amongst young adults. One support agency told media that five years ago they were working with victims as young as 15, but now they’re working with victims as young as 12 years old as more young people get themselves online. As parents, we want to make sure that our children are as safe as possible, even though they are engaging in online platforms more so than they have ever done before.

The next reason why we are supporting this bill is because of mental health. We know that the biggest impact upon young people who have those images of themselves unknowingly shared or against their will has a significant impact on their self-confidence, on their mental health, and their ability to grow up feeling strong, proud young women in New Zealand. Researchers found that the impact of image-based sexual abuse on mental health is similar to that of sexual assault in real life. Victims have reported experiences of trust issues, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and even suicide at points when there has been repeated sharing of an image that cause them real distress.

Victims are exposed to the threat of being stalked, attacked, bullied, and stigmatised, particularly if their contact details are published alongside their images. It only took through the submissions period to hear those sad stories of young women who felt like their lives had been ruined because a former partner or someone they’d had a relationship with had then gone on to share video footage or images of them nude. Once those images are available and uploaded onto different platforms internationally, it is incredibly difficult to remove those. So we heard stories of young women who had promising careers in certain areas who felt completely debilitated by the fact that a disgruntled or angry former partner was able to get revenge, was able to use power over them in a way that prevented their life from operating as it would have done before that image was shared. So it is only right that those people that endeavour to cause harm, and do cause harm to women, should be held accountable within the courts and within our legal system, and that is exactly what will occur going forward.

We need to also point out that this bill will protect victims. It’s a step as part of a wider suite that this Government stands strong by and is making sure that our legal system is more victim-focused, and that we look at things through the lens of how the victim is able to not only have rights but is able to make sure that their protections are guarded when they are going about daily work and activities such as engaging online.

We know, from all of the submissions that we heard, that there are some strong voices out there. I would like to acknowledge a few that that came forward and have been strong proponents of this bill. Netsafe came and stated quite well to the Justice Committee that in recent studies they found that New Zealand adults consistently perceive this activity as one of the most unacceptable types of online behaviour, and to note that. InsideOUT was one of the ones that gave a really great submission to the committee, and they acknowledge the effect of the harm on victims, and they referenced the significant effects of posting a person’s intimate visual recordings.

Also we heard from ones far out, such as Rural Women New Zealand, and they used their examples of their own members who had been exposed and gone through very traumatic circumstances. They stated that they believe that unauthorised posting of intimate visual recordings is consistent under psychological violence and/or coercive control. Many of those submissions talked about that power imbalance, that coercive behaviour we often see with perpetrators of family violence and sexual violence, and this is yet another tool along those lines of control over another person. And more often than not, it is a younger female that is at the end of that illicit intent.

So in terms of some of the changes that the committee put in place, we clarified the age of consent to make sure it did not contain a minimum age for someone to provide consent for an intimate visual recording to be posted online. It is important to note that the new section 22A(1A), set out in clause 4, sets a minimum age of consent at 16 years in line with the age of consent, which is also consistent with what’s in the Crimes Act.

I would like to commend Louisa Wall for seeing this bill right from the beginning through to the end. I would like to acknowledge all of the hundreds of people who have submitted to the committee, and I’m really proud that we’ve made good changes to a bill that will significantly not only improve the rights of victims but make New Zealand a better place for young women to grow up strong and confident. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies to the member again, but can I just encourage those members who would like to make a remote contribution that it would be very helpful to the order of the House that they indicate via the chat function that they will be wishing to seek a call. If the member who wishes to make a remote contribution does not seek the call via the chat function, the Speaker cannot give them the call. I would encourage a number of members who I anticipate, due to their speaking list, are going to want to seek a call—can I encourage them not to wait but to indicate via chat that they wish to do so. Apologies for that rather large missive; we’re all still learning.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker—we are all still learning. I’d like to begin my contribution to this third reading of the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill by congratulating once again Louisa Wall who does apparently have the Midas touch when it comes to having member’s bills drawn from the ballot.

The National Party is happy to support this bill. We do believe it is a very important change to a piece of legislation, by closing an existing gap. We’re happy to see the passing of it today because it will now make it an offence for a person to post online an intimate visual recording of another person who, by definition, is “naked or engaged in an intimate act” without their consent. I think the member who spoke previously, Ginny Andersen, canvased very well the issues of consent and that power imbalance and the coercive nature that often occurs in these scenarios.

As the Opposition spokesperson for women, I am firmly in support of this bill. It goes without saying that the unauthorised disclosure of intimate visual recordings is a form of gender-based violence, and very shamefully for this country, it affects women at a significantly higher rate. I think, as has been canvased already, the societal consequences tend to fall more heavily on the female victim. I personally could not imagine a more traumatising form of manipulation or abuse, but sadly, though, studies have also indicated that it’s our rainbow community, and those youth that Ginny Andersen mentioned—the 16- to 29-year-olds, who are at a very high risk of experiencing this type of what can only be described as sexual exploitation. I understand—and I didn’t sit on the Justice Committee, but having read some of the submissions—that throughout the select committee hearing, as was canvased by many, many submitters, it is clear that any non-consensual sharing of intimate recordings could cause harm and should therefore be an offence. It is very clear that if there is no consent, then this is a crime.

So the purpose of this Harmful Digital Communications Act, which this bill would amend, is very clear: it deters, it prevents, and it mitigates harm caused by individuals through any form of digital communication or platforms—of which there is a proliferation online. Importantly, it provides victims of these harmful digital communications with a means of redress, but it is also a deterrent, and we know already the numbers are starting to climb. I understand that in December two years ago, around about 420 people were charged with the offence, while 270 were actually convicted. In 2020 alone, there were 106 charges, with 74 convictions. So it is good to see that this is being enacted upon.

Madam Speaker, as I’m sure you’ll know, National has a very strong record on recognising and updating law to reflect harmful behaviour in, specifically, a digital age. It is—as other speakers have referred to—an ever-evolving space, and it is so important that we legislators in this House ensure laws are modernised at every possible opportunity. So with this bill we will be able to further the work, started by the previous National Government, to limit the harm caused by actions such as this. Where people are made victims to posting of intimate visual recordings—or is often referred to as “revenge porn”—it can have disastrous consequences on those individuals. It causes irreparable harm. They’re often exposed to bullying, stalking, attacks, and being stigmatised. As Louisa Wall said, it does “shatter lives”.

This bill is a great example of a select committee process that further improves law changes. A Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward further closes some of those technical gaps that were found in the bill’s initial drafting, which give more clarity to definitions and add the ability for the courts to impose interim orders that can order takedowns or disable materials. So I would urge members of this House, and particularly of the Government, to continue work in this area, and to make sure that laws remain relevant to the times of technology—and, of course, do also serve to protect people in our society who are more vulnerable to crimes such as this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I have to say it is a particular pleasure to speak to you today on this bill, to commend this bill to the House—on a personal note—because this is in fact my first re-entry into the House. Earlier this year I had the misfortune to take a tumble on a tramp with my family. Clearly, I should have heeded the teenagers’ suggestions and allowed them to stay on their digital devices safely at home. But the upshot is that I am personally, deeply grateful for the fact that we are now in a hybrid parliamentary system and I am able to contribute here remotely and do my job for my constituents in Whangārei and, in fact, for all of the people who are going to be helped by this very important bill.

So I want to start first by congratulating my sister, by congratulating our wāhine toa Louisa Wall, and I want to start by congratulating those absolutely brave young people, old people, everyone who came before us as submitters. There was so much trauma and pain that they needed to tell us about, and they did it superbly. They were so brave. Their voices were raised, their voices were heard, and our voices now amplified them throughout the land to create an important law.

Now, there are a number of things that I want to cover, and I am going to cover them in some sort of order and this is going to be it. So the first thing I really wanted to talk about was just how important this Act is on a general level. This is a remarkable piece of legislation, and I’ve said this in second reading, but I think it’s worth saying again, it’s a remarkable piece of legislation for what it does for the whole panoply of sexual violence offences in this country. When we were investigating how this Act was going and whether this bill was necessary, we looked at the other pieces of legislation that cover off this type of offending. And what we saw there was that there is a sense that if you’re going to be offended against digitally, it was only women who were not at fault or had not taken agency who were going to be protected by the law, in many ways. So, for example, we start with section 216G of the Crimes Act, which is the upskirting offence where you will be prosecuted if you post unauthorised digital communications involving someone’s intimate person, but only if they didn’t know about it. Then you look to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, where, again, you will be prosecuted for posting indecent images, but only of people under 18. So, again, it’s a case of talking about consent, and these are children we consider too young to be able to take ownership of their sexuality.

Then you look at the bill that Louisa actually brought to us, and the Harmful Digital Communications Act was there for women who had consented to the making of the images. Oh, yes. But they then were forced to jump several barriers. The threshold of proof that was put in place there was punitive. And that is in three respects. So, first, you have that requirement that the offender be intending actual harm. And the reality, of course, as the previous speakers have said—and I really want to mention the speech of our chair at the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen—is that a lot of the people who are posting these images don’t do it considering that they are going to do harm. They aren’t considering anything of the victim’s wants or feelings; this is a profoundly selfish—“laddish” was the word used earlier—piece of behaviour. It is a case of people who think they look cool doing this stuff. They think it’s some sort of trophy. This is laddishness to the extreme, and it was never going to be captured by this particular Act.

Then you get those appalling people who actually do this sort of thing for profit. And again, we have instances where we were being told that people weren’t being prosecuted because, oh yes, he did it, he admits he did it, but he did it to make money, so it doesn’t count. And then, turning to the other ways in which this Act was just failing, and particularly failing women, particularly failing our young people, particularly failing our rainbow community—and I echo Ginny’s statements when she said that she suspects the figure is far higher, because one of the things we heard was from Women’s Refuge, who said that 40 percent of the women who come to them have had this happen to them—40 percent.

How much of this shaming are people, are women, burying? Because I know women and girls, particularly girls, in my life who have had this happen to them, and it is appalling in its impact. But the way in which the Act then proceeded was to ignore the way in which this actually happens. It first required the reasonableness test: “Was it reasonable that you were harmed by this behaviour?” and then next, “Were you actually harmed?” And this is where we fall into a trap in the courts. While the courts are working really hard to pull themselves out of outdated ideas, the fact remains that we still have a judiciary who tend to underestimate the violence done by sexual offending. A bit of a laugh and a bit of a lad is still something that is seen as a real thing by some of our judiciary. We will work to change that, but in the meantime we’re changing the law.

So it is a very, very proud moment, and I am very, very grateful to be able to stand to talk to you about this now as we address some of the underlying misogyny that has been running through our law for so long. Well, no more. Because what will happen now is that we are, as the previous speakers have said, going to take notice of the obvious, of the innate, of the clear harm done any time someone decides to be so thoughtless, reckless, or just plain cruel as to post images of someone else without their consent.

I do want to address, also, the way in which we went about the question of age, because that was something that came up a lot. There were people who felt that we should have a firmer mechanism for recording the consent of these people who were making these images. It was felt that if we put in a requirement that if you wanted to post something, you had to have someone’s written consent—that would magically sort things out. But, actually, when you are talking about young, young people being targeted for this in such vulnerable moments of sexual intimacy, we didn’t believe that we could actually rely on written consent being given fully or safely. It was too open to manipulation, and we have seen that happen to women too often. So, instead, we decided to go with an age limit, and we have tied the age of 16 to the age of consent in the Crimes Act. Now, that still allows for the indecent images provisions to come in if it is necessary under the video classification Act, but we feel this is the safest and most sensible way to protect our young people and to ensure that in their vulnerability, they will not be exploited.

It is something where we struggled with the possible age of the offenders, because the fact is an awful lot of this is going on with some very, very young offenders and, in particular, young men. I am the mother of three young men, so I have a fair amount of awareness of their thinking. But it seems to me that we can still go ahead with this bill despite the youth of some of the offenders, because we can trust a world-beating, our world-leading Youth Court and the discretion of our police to ensure that our young people are not inappropriately criminalised when in fact an educative approach is appropriate. And for those under 17, of course they will inevitably end up in the Youth Court, and there it is a social response, an educative response which is used—and with great success on most occasions.

So to start to conclude, it is quite something—as someone who has spent a very long time on the other side of the lawmaking process, on the side that involves wigs and gowns—to come here today and to know that problems I have battled with on that other side of the lawmakers, in the courts, are going to be addressed for our women, for our young people, for our rainbow community comprehensively and in a way that will enable them to take ownership of their sexuality with pride and know that we are not going to tolerate the shaming—the sheer shaming of our young people. Your sexuality is there to be enjoyed, it is there to—[Time expired]

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This my first time speaking via a Zoom Parliament, so it’s good to be here, and I do want to acknowledge that everybody who is in the House right now in person is probably quite anxious and experiencing the anxiety that comes with what’s going on outside.

I do want to begin by congratulating my friend Louisa Wall, the indomitable Louisa Wall, who got this bill to us, for magically having every bill that she puts in—and they’re always very good bills—pulled from the ballot, and for shepherding it through the select committee process, which was actually quite a difficult one, at times, in terms of the details of the harm and the experiences that were heard from survivors. I had the privilege of sitting through some of those hours and hearing firsthand the kind of far-reaching, very serious harm that’s involved, not just in the actual offending that this bill captures but also in the process that comes after, which this bill seeks to amend and moderate—which is to say, proving the harm in court. So I do want to acknowledge her, but I also, on that note, would like to acknowledge and thank the survivors, in particular, who came to the Justice Committee and did the difficult work of telling us what the harm looks like and what that experience looks like, through the justice process and also in their own personal lives as a result of this type of offending. And also, with them, I want to thank the organisations that have been working on this for such a long time, who also came: others have named them, but the likes of Women’s Refuge, who told us about the sheer prevalence of this that we probably didn’t know and were horrified to find.

This is about posting intimate visual recordings, being intimate, sexualised, nude images that often the victim will have consented to having made and shared—maybe not always, but at some point, most often, done with the consent of the victim—that then have been shared without their consent. As others have said, that victim is predominantly female, but this bill does cover men, gender diverse people, the rainbow community—all victims—acknowledging that, actually, the full spectrum of our communities are now engaged in making recordings and images that are sexualised, because we live in a digital world, and that harm can come from the abuse of that trust.

So what this bill does is take away the incredibly high onus that the previous law placed on victims to prove not only that the harm had occurred as a result of their intimate recording being shared without their consent online but that the harm was specifically intended by the offender. That’s incredibly difficult, and it’s also a detail and an onus that isn’t part of the defence. It would be the prosecutor who would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So the onus and the standard of proof were incredibly high, and victims, barely able to make it known—to make a complaint—in the context of the shame and stress of offending like this were then faced with meeting that incredibly high burden. So this simplifies the law in terms of acknowledging that this type of harm is innate if consent is breached in posting the recordings.

Actually, the harm, as we’ve heard, is incredibly deep and long-standing. Again, we live in a digital world, so having an intimate recording shared online affects every aspect of a victim’s life. So whether she misses out on work, whether she’s shamed and humiliated in her profession, whether it’s her community—and certain cultural communities, we heard, would receive this differently and have different levels of knowledge and understanding of how this might have happened without consent. Different levels of shame and humiliation and loss of face would occur from the victim having even consensually made the recording initially with their partner, for example. And all of that harm—to have to prove not only that it occurs, which is hard enough, but that it was specifically intended is just impossible, and, of course, victims were working in the context of suffering the grave mental health costs of even having suffered this harm.

I think the other thing that we have to hold, and that was repeatedly made clear to us, is that the actual making of visual recordings that are intimate, and the sharing of them, comes with incredibly high prevalence among very young people—so teenagers. That’s because there’s pressure. There’s a cultural pressure. Whether it’s direct and interpersonal or just broadly at school and tech or wherever they are, it is there, and they’re far more likely to do it. So it’s far more likely that they will be the victims of that recording being, then, non-consensually shared—whether it’s the space where it’s been shared that wasn’t their intention or the people that it’s been shared with not being their intention—and, again, that can harm them, irreparably, often, for a lifetime.

So that’s there, but also I think that the thing that we need to acknowledge in Aotearoa is that we are also dealing with an incredible rate of domestic and sexual violence—that we used to call an epidemic, but I don’t know if that’s appropriate now, living in the pandemic—and that this is part of that continuum. Often it will be as part of an abusive relationship, whether it’s young people or whether it’s much older people, that the harm is happening and is intended. So it’s part of a power and control dynamic in the partnership: punishing a person for leaving the relationship, for example; shaming and controlling them with threats that may then be realised once they do leave or once they behave in a way that the abuser doesn’t like. At any rate, whatever the intention of that abuse, it’s an incredibly dehumanising way of treating that person for having shared their sexuality and it is always abusive, always a form of sexual violence, and, in the context of relationships, a form of intimate partner violence, as well. So this bill acknowledges that, acknowledges that this is a huge problem that we as a community and society need to address, starting with acknowledging that the harm is innate whenever consent is breached, in any type of sexual act, whether digital or not.

One of the concerns that I will address that the Green Party has is the focus on imprisonment, because we know that that’s not always the most effective way of addressing criminal behaviour. It is our hope that while this House acknowledges this kind of harm and this form of offending and makes it easier for prosecutions to happen, we also continue to acknowledge that, for example, Māori are far more likely to be targeted by any criminal justice reform; that prisons in Aotearoa are overcrowded; that we do over-imprison; and that our rehabilitative measures are far, far less effective and less invested in than they need to be. This is actually an opportunity, in particular when it’s young people at stake, to educate and invest in preventive measures to protect victims and to prevent harm from happening, prevent offenders from offending. So all of that needs to happen, and the investment needs to be in mental health care and addiction treatment and resourcing community connections and education, as well. With that, I do commend the bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope you can hear me. I rise—or, in fact, don’t—in presenting for the first time today via Zoom in this virtual, splendid House, with great pleasure, to support the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill at its third and final reading.

But before I start to talk to the bill, I’m considering some words that were shared with me just now by one of my colleagues, who was told when they saw the scenes outside Parliament today that we need to remember why we’re here. I do remember why I’m here when I consider what we’re doing here this afternoon. What we’re doing is we are continuing to work together to make things better for New Zealanders and for women, in particular, and for young people, for our rainbow communities, and for those who have been victims of this particular form of violence who haven’t been able to, until now, seek or receive any justice, and they have felt that keenly, as we’ve heard.

I’d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee, which has been very ably chaired by my colleague Ginny Andersen. So I would like to thank them for their work. I’m not a member of the committee, but I know that they have been working extremely hard, although, of course, not as hard as the Health Committee, which I’m a member of. They are working very hard and they’ve been doing some extraordinary work, and we are very grateful to them for everything that they’ve done.

I particularly want to thank my friend and colleague Louisa Wall for another piece of legislation in front of us that is going to make a real, palpable difference to New Zealanders—to us all—because although all of us aren’t going to be victims of this crime, many are. But I think that holding people to a standard that is higher is a good thing and benefits all of us.

I also want to say before I really go into detail here that one of the things that really strikes me is the need for me to share a little bit of a content warning. I apologise or, rather, I would just highlight that if you have been a victim of this sort of violence, I understand that us talking about it this afternoon is going to be distressing, and, certainly, the cases that I will be referring to—I’d just like to acknowledge the courage of the people who shared them, not just with the select committee but with Stuff reporters in various stories. It’s really to be commended.

We’re here because, as Netsafe have pointed out, up to 5 percent of adults each year in New Zealand have been threatened with this sort of personal intimate content being shared without their consent. So 5 percent every year, and I believe that half of those have actually been actuated, which is a huge number of people.

The Justice Committee heard from some of those people who have had that harm perpetrated upon them. Some of those people were brave enough to come forward and present to the select committee, and they shared stories that were very difficult to hear but, obviously, far more difficult to live. They have come forward so that we could make the changes to the current Harmful Digital Communications Act and make it better, because it wasn’t working, and I hope and trust that as this bill moves forward, that will change.

I’m speaking here not just for those people who presented to the select committee but also for people who’ve shared their stories—a Christchurch woman, for example. We heard that Christchurch police were unable to charge a man who uploaded a sex tape without consent because, as we’ve heard other speakers refer to, they were unable to prove an intent to harm.

The man, Jacques de Koker, had a consensual sexual relationship with this woman and she had consented, albeit reluctantly, to him filming them having sex—reluctantly—because he had promised not to share it with others. She, as my colleague Emily Henderson said before in relation to other people, other women, other men, and other young people, has done absolutely nothing wrong—absolutely nothing wrong. She’s had consensual sex, as we do, and she agreed to film that.

Intimate pictures, we agree, occasionally—I’m not speaking for the House or for myself, but really for the community. When intimate pictures are taken between consenting adults, consenting people, we agree to share them on the very clear understanding that they are not going to be passed on. We understand now that the act of sharing itself without consent is intrinsically harmful, and the need to actually prove harm is what has held people back from justice.

There’s nothing wrong, as I said, with sharing images of consensual sexual acts. The betrayal comes, as I said, by the sharing without consent to others. In the case I was referring to, the gentleman took the woman’s trust in him and totally betrayed it and totally betrayed her. He uploaded the footage to Pornhub. Multiple versions of the video were published, explicit descriptions, including the woman’s home city, were included, and although she’d asked him to remove them, he declined. At that point, in my view, he was aware that harm was being caused, but she had to contact every website herself to ask them to remove it, which is an extraordinary amount of work. That video, she said, has had 35,000 views and was live for a year.

Now, although she filed a civil case and was successful—the judge found that she, clearly, had not consented for the images to be splashed around the internet—the police were not able to proceed with the case with the law as it stood until this bill moves forward. The detective inspector confirmed that legal opinions taken under the Harmful Digital Communications Act as it stands said that Mr De Koker’s actions didn’t meet the evidential test under the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines because the person who posted the material—the police had to be satisfied that it was with the intention that it caused harm, and that intention itself was really hard to prove, as my colleague from the Green Party has pointed out.

I do slightly disagree with my colleagues who have referred to this behaviour as laddish. I have a high opinion of men and I agree with the Women’s Refuge adviser who said that revenge porn is a strategy to degrade and exercise control over former partners, and we have seen the highlighting of a lack of awareness among police and courts of how these instances are really part of a larger and insidious pattern of coercive control and degradation.

I am really grateful to my colleague Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House. It’s an important piece of work, and I heartily commend it to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in this, the third reading of the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. I must say it has been a very interesting bill to work on. In saying that, I’d like to take the time to acknowledge the work of my colleagues across the House from the Justice Committee, the officials who worked hard on this bill, Louisa Wall for her initiative in bringing it, but, most importantly, the submitters—the 74 who gave us written submissions and the brave 22 that came in and gave us oral submissions. I acknowledge how hard it was for some of them to share the details of what is ultimately, for them, public humiliation.

The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence to post an intimate visual recording without outright consent, and it also allows for the courts to issue takedown notices. Usually, a harmful digital communication is referred to as revenge porn. It involves intentional, and often non-consensual disclosure of intimate visual recordings, and then posting those intimate images online, or sending them to others. The outcome for victims and families has been devastating on their mental health, and, at this stage, I think it’s important to acknowledge those victims who have considered, or who have even successfully taken their own lives because of this harm. I acknowledge the families of the victims dealing with the fallout of harmful digital communications that they have experienced.

Through the committee of the whole House stage, there were a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that ACT supported. We supported SOP 82 under Louisa Wall, and we thought that this was important, and we’re glad that it went through. That actually changed the interpretation of a victim so that an individual receiving a harmful digital communication of another, not just the victim themselves, can be included. This was important when we heard of the story of a son receiving intimate visual communications of his mother from another man. This change allows for that son to be included as an individual that is also now a victim.

I was, however, disappointed that we did not manage to get a successful agreement to support the Green Party’s SOP 103, because that would have included legislating against the increasing rise of deepfake imagery. Deepfake imagery, of course, for those who are unaware, is where you have an image of a person, say their face, put on to someone else’s body, and this is happening more and more. We believe that there was a need in this bill to have that SOP 103 put through, identifying and recognising deepfake, because of the rapidly changing technology. This technology can be just as harmful as real imagery. We thought that SOP 103 was relevant as it was futureproofing, as well as acknowledging the increasing number of deepfakes that are occurring now. So we’re disappointed that Labour did not have the foresight to see that as well.

The safety of our community is paramount to the ACT Party. Women here are mostly the victims of harmful digital communications. But I think there’ll be a change, and we’ll see our youth coming through, also becoming victims, as well as offenders. We heard that victims sometimes find out about intimate visual recordings from others, and they often find that the recording has been downloaded and shared on multiple platforms, often internationally. Some of the submitters had said to us that there was nowhere for them to go, that there was nothing that they could do, and that there was nowhere for them to get help. I hope that when this bill is enacted it will give them some recourse.

I’ve got a bit of a concern, as I just mentioned earlier, a safety concern for our kids, for the future. I’m not young but I’m not that old, either. When I was growing up, we didn’t have cellphones as a teenager, and I remember video cassette recorders coming in, and getting really excited as a teenager. Teenagers nowadays have access to digital equipment that allows them to record and to post without care and, mostly, without supervision. They’re also asking each other to share intimate images of each other and not having a care for what they are doing with those images, or where those images go. I think it is the responsibility of us all to educate not only my generation that did not grow up with this technology but the next generation that could use it harmfully and not realise.

The world is changing, and it’s changing quickly. Technology is advancing at speed, and we need to constantly advance with it, protecting our community, our wāhine, our tamariki from the pain that technology is capable of delivering. It is the responsibility not only of everyone in this Whare but also those out there in our community. ACT are pleased to contribute to enhancing community safety by supporting this bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (remote): I first became interested in this law when I caught a news headline, and it said a man who uploaded a Snapchat screenshot of a woman—so basically, it was a modern digital version of a sex tape—uploaded it to multiple sex sites without her consent, and he wasn’t going to be charged for a crime. I thought, “How could that be?”, and then I saw a TV interview with the victim, or, should I say, survivor. Her name’s Tarryn Flintoft, and it was about her case, which to my mind epitomises the mischief caught by this bill and, gosh, what a horror story it was.

Tarryn spoke really bravely and quite compassionately, I thought, about what had happened to her. She said a man, her former partner, had pretended to be her and used the uploaded visual recording to engage in online sex with other men. So now there were two sets of victims: there was the woman in the recording and the men who’d been duped into having online sex with a predator man. Surely having an intimate photo or recording uploaded online for all the world to see must be one of the most humiliating and harmful experiences. It is a grave violation, and surely, therefore, subject to the full weight of the criminal law. Well, apparently not. Now, the man turned out to be National Party candidate for Upper Harbour, Jake Bezzant, and he wasn’t going to be charged because police couldn’t prove that he intended to do the woman harm. In fact, as she said in her TV interview, harming her probably wasn’t his primary intention, but harm her he did.

After a nine-month break from posting the recordings, while Tarryn thought her nightmare was over and she was trying to get her life together, the predator once again reposted the screenshots and the woman was victimised again. She was re-traumatised, she was harmed all over again, and yet the police could do nothing because under the current law—as we’ve heard today—if harm or intention to harm are not proven, then the police don’t have the grounds to prosecute. This misuse of intimate visuals can be done, as we’ve heard, to make money. It can be done as some kind of a sick joke. It’s often part of relationships which break up. In each case, whatever the reason, the posting of these images is just plain wrong, and, thankfully, that has been recognised across this House. So there is no public interest defence, there’s no threats to freedom of speech.

As a former journalist, it’s really interesting to me to see how my views on media freedom have shifted over the years. That shift parallels the shifts in the social media landscape and my experience seeing the real harm that can be done by unfettered media posting, and I’m thinking here of other digital media harms that have occurred: the harassment of TV personality Charlotte Dawson, or the intentionally harmful behaviour of bloggers such as Whale Oil. Actually, these examples were mentioned in this House by my predecessor in Dunedin South, the Hon Clare Curran, who did a lot of really excellent work in the digital space when the primary legislation was introduced into the House in 2015.

The posting of intimate visual recordings is at the hard end of harm, and research shows that the impact of image-based sexual abuse on mental health is similar to that of sexual assault, as we’ve heard this afternoon. Netsafe has been saying this since January 2019—including at the Justice Committee hearing on this bill—urging people to become aware of the dangers that this activity poses and urging us as lawmakers, actually, to do something about it. As we’ve heard today, the intimate images often go viral—I think I heard one of the speakers mention something like 35,000 views for one of them—as does the naming and shaming of victims, as do their contact details, and the public sharing of contact details puts victims at even greater risk of bullying, of harassment, and of physical assault. The harm of posting non-consented digital images causes harm to dignity, to privacy, to sexual autonomy, and in law these are collectively known as cultural harms. As Rural Women New Zealand told the select committee, the non-consented posting of intimate images is a form of control—a form of coercion—and often people feel so humiliated as a result that they can’t leave home. So they become prisoners to shame and humiliation through no fault of their own.

Now, we’ve heard these numbers a couple of times this afternoon, and they’re worth repeating. The Netsafe survey in 2019 found that 5 percent of New Zealand adults, or 170,000 people, had been the victim of online image-based sexual abuse, and 40 percent of the time that had occurred through perpetrators who were ex-partners. Now, the rainbow community is particularly at risk, according to the advocacy group InsideOUT in its submission to the select committee, and women are also particularly at risk, and the ages of victims are getting younger. I thought 15 years old was pretty devastating, and now the Justice Committee has been told by support agencies that kids as young as 12 are experiencing this extreme form of bullying.

Overseas research has found that 51 percent of victims of image-based sexual abuse have contemplated suicide. Now, we don’t have that research in New Zealand, but we do have one of the highest youth suicide rates in the OECD. We all know that one of the main causes of that is bullying, and that’s according to the Mental Health Foundation. We need to change that, and we are changing that with this law.

As Netsafe says, the law needs to keep abreast of technology. So the effect of Louisa Wall’s member’s bill is to provide a legal restriction on posting intimate images without consent that does not need to prove an intent to cause harm, and in doing so, the bill recognises that the non-consensual publication of an intimate visual image is harmful in and of itself. So harm is implicit in the action, or the actus reus, as Ginny Andersen has referred to.

It makes it very clear that the posting of intimate visual recordings of another person requires voluntary and informed consent, and full knowledge of how the recording will be used, and it removes the requirement to prove that the posting has caused serious emotional distress. So this bill will help protect victims of image-based sexual abuse and enable perpetrators to be held to account. The maximum penalty for offenders has been increased from two to three years in prison, or a $50,000 fine, which it’s hoped will make people think twice before they actually post.

It’s been referred to, and I’ll turn briefly now again to Supplementary Order Paper 82 in the name of Louisa Wall, which amends the bill’s definition of victim. It ensures the law catches the situation where an intimate visual recording of one person is sent by that person to another person with the intent to cause harm, so that captures a situation where someone sends an unsolicited nude picture or picture of their genitalia to another person. There is a name for it that I won’t mention—thank you; everyone will get my point. I want to thank my colleague Louisa Wall for shepherding this bill through the House from whoa to go. Like others, I want to thank the submitters, especially the individual people who shared really tragic personal stories to the committee. I read some of them—thank you for your generosity in helping us as legislators to get this bill right.

Back to Tarryn Flintoft. I wanted to thank her for her bravery for sharing her story. It turned out that there were multiple other women who’d been harmed by Jake Bezzant in very similar ways, so her story flushed out theirs. Tarryn and the other women may not have justice, but they can take heart in knowing that they’ve contributed enormously to ensuring others won’t go through what they went through; or if they do, that their tormentors will face the full force of the law. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I’d ask, Mr Speaker, that you’d just allow me leave for a minute as the Opposition police spokesman just to thank and acknowledge the New Zealand Police. We’ve all watched today, as parliamentarians, the distressing images around Parliament—something that has been festering now for three weeks. The police decided that it was time to act, and I fully support them in that decision. What started as a peaceful protest with genuine Kiwis with real issues, I’ve watched over the weeks turn into something more sinister, where people attach themselves to the protest with an obvious intent of looking at a confrontation with the police. And I noticed yesterday on the way back to my apartment that there was definitely, without a doubt, a growing gang presence inside that protest.

I want to acknowledge the actions of our police. We have got a world-class police service in this country, and they have shown professionalism, they have shown restraint, but they’ve shown intent and confidence in the way that they’ve dealt with this protest today. And I’d have to say that if there are any police officers injured—and I understand that there have been some police officers injured, and I understand that there’s been some members of the public injured as well—can I just say that I sheet home any injuries, any violence today with the protest, because the police from day one have been very clear from the start to please leave, comply with their instructions, and leave the area. They have failed to do that. They’ve stayed, and they’ve stayed for one reason, and that is because they’ve wanted a confrontation with our police officers. So I just want to say that I’m extremely proud of the way that our New Zealand police service have conducted themselves today. They have still got ongoing challenges for the rest of the day and into the night, and I’d ask that members of the public support them and comply and help here in Wellington as they continue to try and dampen down what is a small group that is still looking for ways to cause trouble, violence, and confront our police service.

Thank you for allowing me to make those comments, Mr Speaker. Can I just say in relation to the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill—I have spoken to this bill on previous occasions—that I just want to again acknowledge and congratulate the sponsor of the bill, Louisa Wall, who, as other members have noted, has actually made a very big contribution through our Parliament with the members’ bills that she has brought to this House. It is an important one. I think that all of us as members of Parliament have had cases come to us from constituents with sometimes terrible cases of online bullying. And I actually can’t think of anything worse in terms of creating humiliation, psychological harm, depression, and sparking the worst possible outcome—and that’s suicide—than having an intimate image of yourself put out digitally on the internet.

The only comment that I would make, and I certainly tried to impart this lesson on my own children—I’m sorry, but it’s just a very pragmatic one—is that when we think about writing an email or sending an image or doing anything like that, the minute that you press send, the minute that you hand it over, then to a large extent you lose control of it. And so always just be very, very careful and thoughtful in terms of what could be the long-term implications of what you’re doing. In saying that, it is inexcusable and I fully support the intent of this bill and the powers that it introduces in terms of making sure that people are held to account for intentionally publishing intimate images on to the internet or digitally. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I’m very proud to do so. Sadly, I do know about the prevalence of this behaviour. I’ve brought up three children in a world that’s changed. And this is very, very common in that particular age group and it does irreparable harm to it. But I don’t want to stop with that age group because I think that this does irreparable harm to many people. And what I would make the comment about is that although this is something that has affected more women in the past and has affected the rainbow community, it’s also very likely affecting men too.

It’s really important that we see that bullying moves in its type, it changes shape as new tools become available. This is absolutely despicable behaviour, and we need to educate our young people as to the consequences of it. A good law doesn’t necessarily mean everyone gets imprisoned. A good law actually teaches people good norms and values. It says this is utterly unacceptable behaviour. And so those fines of $50,000, that possibility of sending somebody to jail for two to three years, is, hopefully, something that doesn’t need to happen because people change their behaviour and they see what they were doing is utterly unacceptable.

I just wanted to talk about that breach of trust that occurs because it is something that I think we need—you know, I heard one of the speakers earlier talk about how one of the submitters had “reluctantly participated” in the behaviour, in a way that seems to me what we always do in these situations, we talk about the “reluctant” participant. It doesn’t matter if the participants are reluctant, it’s absolutely fine that you are participating in a sexual act. It’s absolutely fine that this is going on. It’s not actually a problem. What is a problem is the breach of trust that’s happened in a relationship that is intimate and special. And, actually, when somebody does this to you, that is totally unacceptable. So there is no excuse and it isn’t about reluctance, it’s about actually accepting that we live in a different world and, actually, at the base of what is happening here is a behaviour that is an abuse of power. That is exactly what is happening.

So I wanted to just talk about what Dr Emily Henderson talked about, which is how this actually impacts and reinforces on the rest of the law. Because the words that we were using in the law, the need for intention, the need for harm—these are concepts that didn’t come from nowhere. They came from their own time, when actually those were the sorts of prejudices that fed in to our law in this area. So what this law does is it reinforces something really important—that our norms and values have already changed and that those things were no longer working for us.

I wanted also to talk to the fact that this is often used as a tool to blackmail people, because what we have actually got is people who have had this happen to them who start in a state of shame—which is why it was very important to me, in this discussion, to talk about the fact that there was no shame attached. Because if this has happened to you, you shouldn’t be starting with shame and you shouldn’t be worried about blackmail and you shouldn’t be worried about the things that could happen. You should actually feel that you are affronted, and we should be angry at this behaviour.

So I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House, and I’d like to congratulate Louisa Wall for putting something forward which is actually really significant for people out there. I am very thankful for her doing it, I’m thankful for the people who actually came and talked about what had happened to them, and I hope that we can see the line within this, the universal issue which is that, actually, bullying is not acceptable any more. It cannot just change form, it’s got to actually be dealt with. It’s an ethical issue for us all—we need to stop abusing power. That is in this area of people’s lives and many others. That is what the heart of this bill is about. I commend it to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) (remote): Kia ora koutou, Mr Speaker, and to the House. I thank you for an opportunity for me to speak on the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill at the third reading. Again, as most of those this afternoon have said, I just say thank you to Louisa Wall for championing another piece of legislation to protect people, to care for people, and to ensure the whole wellbeing of someone who often is vulnerable in this space. This piece of legislation seeks to amend the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. And, very much, this bill is about introducing a new offence of knowingly posting a digital communication that is an intimate visual recording without the consent of the person who is the subject that is being recorded. We’ve heard this throughout the day.

Now, as a person who has worked with young people for many, many years, I understand the challenges that we’re facing in this modern world, and I was reflecting on it earlier. On my bookshelf, I probably have about five or six photo albums from all of my life before social media. I probably have taken more photos this year on my phone than are in all of those photo albums. We’re living in a different world, and as legislators, as leaders, we need to ensure that we are tracking, ensure that we are often playing catch-up—I’d like to say ahead of the ball for most things—but sometimes, particularly with things like cellphones and social media, it very much is a game of catch-up. For most people in this Parliament, we didn’t grow up as teenagers with a cellphone in our pocket and the ability to connect with the world but also the ability to be bullied, the ability to be harassed, the ability to take photos, whether consensual or not, and then what was done with those photos, which this piece of legislation is looking at.

As I reflect on our history and where we are, as a male speaking to this piece of legislation, I realised that we as men must speak up. I was going to say to our children how we live our lives better and how we do this better, but I realised, actually, I need to be talking to my peers, I need to be talking to my seniors, and I need to be talking to my friends about the fact that “Boys will be boys—it’s just a joke” is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. The whole phrase “boys will be boys” is just something that should be no more, and I believe that the taking and then the using of intimate photos is just another one of those often clubroom gags, it would be seen, or sharing it around with your mates. And, of course, as this legislation is about, it’s not stopping people from sharing intimate images; it’s actually around ensuring that they aren’t shared and they aren’t used to bully—they aren’t used to blackmail.

I was reading earlier from a survey—it was back in 2016 in New Zealand. It was looking around abuse and harassment within New Zealand. It said that 52 percent of women have experienced some frame of online harassment. This number rose to 72 percent amongst those under 30, and the same was for men—that the numbers under 30 were far higher than those over 30. So it shows that our online worlds have changed massively, that our under-30s and so on are so used to, now, the online world that we need to make sure we are here to support and we are here to ensure that people are protected. Looking through this research and reading notes about this piece of legislation, we also looked into the fact that this kind of abuse, this kind of sexual abuse and harassment, has mental health implications, and they’re very similar mental health implications to that of sexual assault: feelings of depression; feelings of helplessness; feelings of being violated or abused; feelings of being afraid; and, of course, feelings around suicide—and that’s what shame does, that’s what fear does, that’s what stigma does, and that’s what guilt does.

So this piece of legislation is around ensuring that people are safe online. There’s a lot more work to do; this is one piece of it. But it’s ensuring that people are kept safe online, and if I choose to, if someone else chooses to share an image, that can’t be used against them. I’m grateful to be part of a Parliament that is working hard for the wellbeing of all people but, in particular, of younger people. Again, looking at young people I’ve worked with over the years, at the age of 14, 15, 16, or 17 the consequences aren’t always thought through so much; the consequences aren’t reflected in terms of what could happen in the future. So I want to thank Louisa Wall. I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee, and those that have submitted. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill

Third Reading

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a third time.

If I may, just before I begin, because it’s quite an unusual time to be about to start a final reading of a member’s bill when we’ve got the extraordinary scenes outside. I just want to make a short acknowledgment, in particular, of the police efforts. And there are a number who have come down from the Bay of Plenty. I actually met them in the last 48 hours, and I just want to pass on to them my personal thanks, and I’m sure the thanks of the Bay of Plenty community for their service this afternoon.

This bill is really personal for me. When I was a young fella, we used to go to the Mount Maunganui beach for the summer holidays. We’d take 45 minutes to drive from Te Puna across to the Mount, and I would spend most of that week enjoying myself, playing cricket, and swimming in the Mount beach. And, really, I can recall like yesterday, actually, the sunscreen that we used: it was Coppertone sun protection factor (SPF) 4, possibly even Coppertone SPF 6 if we were really wanting to protect ourselves. You know, there was the coconut oil option, but my father always used to seek refuge from the sun under a beach umbrella. He was a redhead, which is why when I married a beautiful red-headed lady we have two red-headed daughters—actually, it’s because of my dad. But anyway, he avoided the sun quite a lot, but it still managed to chase him through his life. He had a melanoma cut out from him. So I can always remember him hiding under the shade of the umbrella, and me being less worried about the sun, and if I was really up for it, putting Coppertone SPF 6 on.

Fast forward to when I was 18. And again, I can remember this like yesterday, it was the America’s Cup challenge, our first. It was Fremantle. We were in Taupō, again a summer holiday. I had moved from about six to the age of 18, where I had decided it was time for me to get a tan. And so I laid out on the gravel of Lake Taupō seaside and managed to get second-degree burns the next day. And I am still paying for that: that lack of judgment of a young fella has seen a number of basal and squamous cells cut out of my face; in fact, I’ve got another one planned in a few weeks’ time. Skin cancer has been a front-of-mind consequence for me because of my particular skin type and some of the challenges that I had when I was younger, some of the choices that I made. But I’m fully accountable for that and have to own it.

But who is accountable for the very well-informed mum who goes to the supermarket or any of our chemist outlets and buys an SPF 50, on the assumption that it is an SPF 50, only to find that it’s not? Who’s accountable for those in our country who want even greater protection and find that the label doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, whether it is 30-plus, 40-plus, 50-plus SPF? Frankly, that situation is unacceptable, and this bill, that we have the last reading of tonight, is a small step to try and remedy that on behalf of New Zealand consumers. For it is absolutely critical in 2022 that if you need, as we all do, to protect ourselves from the sun, that if you purchase a product that has a claim of protection, that that claim can be matched by testing and actually has an efficacy that can be defended. And too often in this country, we have products that are being sold that do not meet that standard.

So this bill, as has been well traversed in this House, through a very good select committee, provides a strengthening of the consumer position, because what it does is it takes the joint Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, which is voluntary in this country but compulsory in Australia, and it lists that standard as a deemed product safety standard under the Fair Trading Act, which then triggers the Fair Trading Act regime—including the Commerce Commission, potential prosecution, and exposure to $600,000 corporate fine—if you are found to have been misleading consumers with the claims about your product not matching the reality for people who use it.

It’s a relatively simple bill. It seeks to strengthen the consumer experience, and I’ve been delighted with the support that it has had as it has gone through the House. I do want to acknowledge, of course, my parliamentary colleagues on the National side who are very supportive of this right from the first genesis. But also across the House, including, obviously, with the makeup of this Parliament, the Labour Party, who has decided to support this bill, knowing, of course, that the ultimate solution is the natural products or therapeutic and natural products bill, which is in its own gestation; in fact, it has been now for successive Governments that is pending, and may well—

Hon Member: It’s always pending.

TODD MULLER: It’s always pending, and it may well provide a more comprehensive regulatory solution for this issue. But I do acknowledge, I have heard through the grapevine, that it did get quite a debate at the Labour Party caucus. It was the Celtic stock, the red heads of the Labour Party, that swung in behind me to ensure this bill got supported. So I call out in support—we don’t do this often on this side of the House—but I do want to acknowledge Chris Hipkins, who I’m sure it must have played a fundamental part in swinging that debate.

Hon Member: We all supported it, mate.

TODD MULLER: I mean, you know, a man as suave as you, you know, with your hair, I’m sure you would have supported it in here anyway. But seriously, it’s a bill that I have a lot of personal stake in, you know, pride to have actually brought it to the House, for it to be supported, as I understand it will be, and I just want to acknowledge the House for their support.

One final comment, we did debate as a select committee when it should come into effect, its commencement date, and then some stock and trade provisions. Now, we got some pushback from elements of the sector saying that there should be a three-year transition. It is only 18 months from Royal assent. Frankly, I think that’s quite generous. But, I think in its own way signals that despite some of the sector’s positioning and potentially even protestation around the need or otherwise for this bill, there is an acknowledgment that, frankly, there still is too much in this New Zealand supply chain of product that doesn’t actually meet the joint standard with Australia. There is an updated standard, it’s 2021, it’s coming down the track. This bill enables and assumes that the Minister will make the requisite adjustments to the regulations when both Australia and New Zealand have landed agreed transitional arrangements. But it’s a good first step, it protects New Zealanders, and I have great pride in being able to put it forward this evening. Thank you.

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

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to make this remote call, my first one. It’s somewhat fitting, I suppose, after a long, hot Kiwi summer, to be here tonight and to be debating the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its third reading. I’d like to just take a moment to commend my colleague who’s just taken his seat, Todd Muller, for ushering this bill through up until this stage. It’s been really clear during this process that it’s something that he is very passionate about and something that he’s been quite rightly exercised about. So as one of those people from Celtic stock, not necessarily prone to quick burning, but I do congratulate him, and—yes, I do congratulate him.

Notwithstanding that sentiment, though, there are definitely some shortcomings in this bill—some shortcomings that, as Mr Muller pointed out, no doubt will be usurped by the proposed therapeutic products bill in due course. So, on this occasion, it’s not so important. We view it, on this side of the House, as a perfectly adequate stopgap measure.

The bill allows for the provision of a regulatory scheme for an important safety product that is currently without one, and it’s a safety product that many of us no doubt take for granted. If it says “SPF 50” on the bottle, then we assume that that’s correct, and we make decisions for ourselves and we make decisions for our loved ones or people that we’re caring for based on that. And we should be able to safely do that, with confidence, so it is important. During the process, we’ve heard from stakeholders, particularly from—one that stands out is from consumer.org.nz, who have long highlighted the issues with sunscreen products which, when treated, too often fail to meet the actual sun protection claimed by manufacturers. And I think that bears repeating: sometimes, some products simply fail to show that they offer the protection from the sun that we think that they do. And, obviously, it’s neither fair from a consumer rights perspective; it’s certainly not satisfactory from a health perspective. And that really does bear noting.

It’s unfortunate, as Mr Muller said, that we are unable to update the standard for the sunscreen as proposed by the bill in the original form. Reflecting on that process of the bill, it was something that would have been good to do. But it’s perfectly reasonable, in so far as our counterparts in Australia are simply meant to do it themselves and it is important that we remain in alignment with our friends across the Tasman, with whom we share many regulatory standards, not to mention the rather large hole in the ozone layer. So given that, as such, the member’s Supplementary Order Paper, which reverts to the 2012 standard, is perfectly appropriate in this sense.

It’s also worth noting that those of us on the Health Committee sought to broaden the definition of the term “sunscreen product”, one that will apply to skincare products labelled with SPF greater than 15, and, for instance, insect repellents labelled with sun protection factor (SPF) of 4 or more. In doing so, it has this dual benefit of not only aligning us with Australia but, more importantly, it shifts the focus from the stated purpose of the product to the manufacturer’s claims regarding sun protection. So if a moisturiser, for instance, also in the small print claims to have SPF 15, then rather than being conceived as or perceived as a cosmetic, it should be held to the same standard and we have those manufacturers claims robustly protected. That’s the salient point.

So this is a bill that’s a good interim measure. As I said earlier, it obviously does have some shortcomings. Specifically, it doesn’t provide sufficient detail on a few important issues: it certainly doesn’t provide sufficient detail on frequency of testing, it doesn’t really provide sufficient detail on how to ensure that quality control during manufacturing, and it doesn’t really provide sufficient detail on the role that accredited labs will play throughout this sort of process. But the therapeutic products bill, as Mr Muller pointed out, will provide a much more comprehensive and a much more robust framework that will cover the regulation of sunscreen products, and we very much look forward to the introduction and look forward to the progression of that particular piece of legislation.

Given that, and with, I suppose, that backdrop in place, we will in the meantime support the passage of this member’s bill. And having said that, therefore, I commend this bill House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The next call is a remote call on behalf of Dr Shane Reti.

Hon Member: It’s not on behalf of. He’s actually doing it!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for your help.

Hon Member: Sorry. Sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Which I’m sure you won’t give me any more of.

Dr SHANE RETI (National) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a pleasure to speak on this bill tonight. And can I offer heartfelt congratulations to the member for getting his piece of work to this stage and getting his bill through the House. This is a nice piece of work. I did enjoy his walk back through sunscreens through his life. Mine probably starts with QTOL if I look back and work my way forward. And as he correctly pointed out, sun risk, a feature of several things: clearly, exposure to the sun’s rays; secondly, your ability to protect; and then thirdly, as he commented, a fair complexion or that genetic predisposition. And interestingly, he mentioned that he’d had a number of basal cells and squamous cells removed because of his fair complexion. I caught up with a 40-year-old gentleman about three months ago, and he has a syndrome called Gorlin syndrome, G-o-r-l-i-n, and that’s a syndrome where the DNA repair mechanism to the skin is faulty. And at the age of about three, they start developing skin cancers, basal cells and squamous cells. And he removed his shirt, because I’ve been fascinated in this condition, I’d only seen it in books, and he was like a patchwork quilt across his back. There must have been 70 incisions where cancers have been removed. Can you imagine that from the age of three or four? And so clearly that genetic predisposition—he could reduce that incidence by being sun smart like the rest of us would be, but he particularly is the beneficiary of a sunscreen that is compliant with best practice and compliant with the highest sun protection factor rating possible; so a beneficiary, without doubt.

I think that this bill, looking through the select committee process, the 36 submissions, I thought all of them added value and I thought there were particularly interesting parts segueing into what the therapeutic products bill may eventually become with discussions around natural products, alternative products, and this indeed sitting as a cosmetic. I think part of that discovery has exposed other parts of the process. If we look at where this bill is working, it’s working at performance standards and product claims. It was interesting to note that the manufacturing component currently has no statutory legislation, and so that may well be covered in the therapeutic products bill, be that good manufacturing practice or whatever manufacturing standard is determined. It’s another part of this process that makes it even better.

I think interesting also, I’ve mentioned genetic predisposition, the fair complexion—this must be one of those slightly unusual health situations where equity for Māori is less applicable because of Māori having a darker complexion. We generally get less melanoma than others. So odd in that respect—beneficial in that respect.

I also think there’s something interesting going forward to look at how we might measure the effectiveness of this bill as it moves through here tonight. It’d be interesting to have some sort of a snapshot before and after. What impact did the passage of this bill have on sun-induced skin cancers? Hard to determine, but, you know, if there was a 10 percent reduction in skin cancers for no other obvious cause, one might reliably point to, well, maybe it was the passage of good legislation. So it’d be good to snapshot before this bill is actually enabled. And that sort of leads to something which one of the other members has spoken about, and that is the ability to monitor compliance for what we’re looking to achieve here today. That manufacturers and retailers will adhere to the standards that we’re wanting to embody here, and how do we monitor that? Who monitors that? That’s all been part of the committee discussion, certainly under the Fair Trading Act. But it will be interesting to look and see how resources are applied, how often, how much, and what those findings are, because that is a large part of what we’re looking to do here tonight.

So in summary, this may be a small bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call—

Hon Members: He’s still going.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, sorry, Dr—so Dr Reti is finished, thank you. No?

Hon Member: You cut him off.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I won’t cut him off.

Dr SHANE RETI: OK, well, I will be shortly. That’s quite OK. I will be shortly. This is as good a bill as it was 30 seconds ago. So I want to commend the member. I really do look forward to applying it in practice. Well done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies for the flopping around. Just trying to get our ducks lined up—always an interesting thing.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) (remote): Kia ora. Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. It’s slightly confusing here—I’m speaking via Zoom—because we have occasionally some microphone feedback as I’m getting at the—I’m just going to talk over you so forgive me. If you want my attention just yell. Forgive me, we’re experiencing a little bit of microphone sort of input here, but I am absolutely delighted to be speaking this evening—lit, as I am, by the evening sun, so forgive me for the somewhat uneven lighting, to speak to the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its third reading.

I am part of the Health Committee—the very hard-working Health Committee and just wanted to add my thanks and congratulations to our chair, Dr Liz Craig, but also to thank Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House. It really has great value, although we’ve heard members say in previous speeches that we in Government will be introducing the therapeutic products bill, which we hope will be able to be a little bit more, or significantly more, comprehensive, but in the meantime this is such a pressing issue and we did with our Celtic skin recognise that it was of value to do something straight away. So I commend him for this bill. Also like to thank the hard-working clerks and officials for their input.

Fundamentally, as we’ve heard before, really what we’re trying to do is just to ensure that sunscreen does what it says on the tin. With some products it’s pretty clear that that’s not going to happen. You know, regardless of what advertising or what products say on the tin, I know that applying it to me is not going to turn me into Rachel Hunter for the simple reason that I’m not blonde—I mean, obviously no other reason. We can laugh but it is a serious issue. We’ve heard Mr Muller speaking about the impact of the sun on fairer skin. Certainly, I can speak to that myself.

As I said in a previous speech, I believe, I came from an area which had a great deal of sunshine and we were back in the—gosh!—1980s more keen to get a tan than to avoid the sun. And so you’d find us on our lunch breaks actually putting olive oil on our skin to try to get that tan. But, you know, not for long; a couple of decent burns would have us stopping doing that. I was chatting to a friend this morning and just mentioned to her that I was going to be speaking to this bill this evening. And she said, “Oh yeah, it’s really important because I, you know, I had melanoma.” and she’s a young woman, and I hadn’t realised that she’d had it in her early 20s. She did have melanoma successfully removed, has no long-term health outcomes from it, but she was really concerned to learn, as she did in our conversation, that the reason for this bill was that the tins were not accurate in representing, in some cases, what was really happening in the product inside. So she told me of her personal experience.

Another colleague was so alarmed when we spoke earlier—well, last year, when this first came to the House—that her children are being covered pretty much from head to toe, not in sunscreen but in clothing, and I think I’m having visions of us all in hand-knitted Victorian bathers trying to keep ourselves protected. I think having a decent sunscreen is probably preferable, although I think some might benefit from Victorian bathers. I’m not going to say who.

This year, we have seen, sadly, already three brands failed their Consumer New Zealand testing, and they were three brands that failed the year before, interestingly enough. I won’t name them but a quick Google search will bring them up. They failed either on broad spectrum or sun protection factor (SPF) claims and it’s pretty serious stuff because when we’re putting this sunscreen on our bodies we really do need it to work to protect us. We really do need it to do what it says on the tin. Otherwise, we don’t just risk a nasty burn—as I’ve received and I’m sure many of my colleagues have—but we actually risk skin cancer, and this is potentially fatal and we know that it is a significant cause of early and preventable death in New Zealand.

We need broad spectrum cover—and, you know, for those who aren’t aware, we’re looking at ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) cover. They do differ; they’re ultraviolet radiation. Neither of them we can actually see or feel but they do penetrate the skin. And with UVA, for example, and these shorter wavelengths, UVB—UVB with the shorter wavelengths does make a small amount of vitamin D. But I think it’s probably really important to realise that we don’t need a huge amount of sunlight on our skin to produce the amount of vitamin D for good health and certainly a decent sunscreen applied all the time isn’t going to stop us from having the vitamin D that we need. Increased levels of that, you know, UVB are going to lead to sunburn and also turn to cancer, whereas the UVA, it goes a bit deeper and causes ageing of the skin but also cancer. And both of them suppress skin immunity, which isn’t something that we need.

I guess what we’re looking at is an SPF reading which will tell us how long we can stay in the sun being exposed to those ultraviolet radiation levels without burning and without increasing our risk of skin cancer. So a lot of us choose the highest possible SPF so that we can guarantee the greatest amount of time outside because, let’s face it, none of us—we do enjoy being outside as much as we can, although today I don’t think I’ve got a great deal being in the virtual House from home, but I do like to enjoy going outside. It’s very much the Kiwi way to get out and enjoy this beautiful countryside. So, yeah, so we’re relying on that SPF really to give us that protection and, reading DermNet, a lot of us aren’t even applying it correctly: six teaspoons of sunscreen, as I said before, to the “mountains and valleys”, whatever that means, and two coats like painting a wall. I’m trying to have a little bit of a public service announcement here so that we will have a greater understanding of what we need to do.

But, as I said, we have defined “sunscreen” a little bit more completely in this bill than in the original draft and I think in part due to the interactions from my colleague Naisi Chen, who gave us a pretty comprehensive understanding of products that might be seen to contain some protection factor in her first reading speech. I was certainly blown away and learnt stuff, so it’s really good to see that we have got that. We have got that definition that basically, as my colleague Dr McLellan said, does include insect repellent that’s labelled with SPF of 4 or more. What I learnt in my research was that insect repellent actually can reduce the SPF of the products that you’re using so it’s more important that you have a higher level and you’re applying more frequently.

Obviously, you know, sunscreen is something that’s primarily to protect the skin from ultraviolet radiation. But also we’ve included here a product that’s represented as skincare with an SPF greater than 15 or a product that’s represented as a tinted base or foundation, which is something that a lot of us really do rely on actually on the day-to-day basis to provide us with that, you know, bottom-line SPF coverage.

One of the things that Mr Muller was alluding to earlier was the stock-in-trade amendments and the discussion that we had around whether or not—what particular time line we should look at before these products—

Hon Member: Read it like you mean it!

SARAH PALLETT: I’m sorry, it’s not you, Madam Speaker; I’ll carry on talking. The stock-in-trade—we needed to balance the need for, obviously, getting products off the shelves as quickly as was reasonable with the harm that might be caused by having products still available that were not accurate. We’ve landed on 12 months after the legislation commences, so that’s 18 months from the date of Royal assent, I believe. Obviously, we really are clear in the committee that—all of us are clear and probably I would say in the House that we would like our manufacturers and our stockists to, basically, put products on the shelves that do what they say on the tin and keep everybody safe. In the meantime, those boys are going to be in protective gear. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. E te Māngai, e te Whare, tēnā rā koutou. On behalf of the Green Party and as a member of the Health Committee, that heard this bill, I rise to take a very short call in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the sunscreen protection, or SPF, properties of sunscreen products.

It is also personal for me, as we have shared in previous ones. Fortunately, my Māori blood has given me some protection from the fierce Aotearoa sun, but that Irish blood is really, really strong, and so as an adult I’ve always used the highest-quality skin care and products that I could afford. So it was quite a shock when in my 40s, the little lump—a little tiny thing that was in my eye—suddenly grew really, really fast and turned out to be skin cancer. Now, I wasn’t well off, and when I went to the doctors, they said there was a minimum of six months, a six-month waiting list, but I would always probably be low priority. So I was able to, thankfully, loan the $2,000 it cost to spend 15 minutes in a private clinic to get it removed, and I’m thankful that it never came back.

Of course, it’s not just my experience. As noted by the Cancer Society in its submission to our committee, although skin cancer is largely preventable it’s our most common cancer. Over 90,000 new cases are diagnosed per year and around 500 New Zealanders dying. Contrary to popular opinion, and certainly my thinking when I was young, our brown skin does not protect us, and although, as our colleague Dr Reti said, Māori and Pasifika have much-lower incidence of melanoma, we get it worse when we do. We’ve got a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis. So along with the personal costs, substantial public healthcare resources are consumed in managing skin cancer.

Of course, prevention is better, and I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Dermatological Society, who recommended minimising time in the sun, particularly when it’s most intense; seeking shade; and wearing a broad-brimmed hat, wraparound UV protective sunglasses, and high ultra-protective clothing covering most of the skin. That is not how most New Zealanders spend the summer, and we try really hard just to get our kids to do that.

But of course, applying a broad spectrum SPF 50-plus sunscreen to areas not covered by our clothes. What this bill addresses is that when people actually use a broad spectrum sunscreen, what the label says is what they get; unfortunately, it’s not the case in Aotearoa where there’s a wide range of sunscreens available on the market in the guise of many different types of products, each with different formulation and ingredients, and no requirement to comply with the existing Australian - New Zealand standard or even to have the product tested.

The Greens have long supported consumer protections that ensure people can trust what they are buying. This bill would increase consumer trust in the claims of sunscreen brands. It would do this through the mandatory regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to prescribe a safety standard in line with the Australia - New Zealand 2012 or later sunscreen standards as adopted by the Australian authorities. A mandatory standard will reduce skin cancer and it will save lives.

I thank the member, Todd Muller, for bringing it in—congratulations—and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) (remote): Sorry, are you able to hear me? That’s better. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Apologies, I’m having some technical issues.

It is my pleasure today to take my first call during the historic sitting of Parliament, for the first time ever, virtually. I want to start off, first of all, by just acknowledging Dr Reti, who was talking about Gorlin syndrome. I actually had to look it up, because it is quite a rare syndrome, and I was looking it up on DermNet, which is the Bible that all doctors go to whenever they’re looking at something related to dermatological condition. It was founded by Dr Amanda Oakley, who is from Hamilton and has done a lot of good work in making sure that all this information about rare and very common medical conditions, especially around dermatology, is available to the wider public. But also, recently, I was at Pāpāmoa Beach during the summer break, not too far from Mr Muller’s electorate, and while lying on the beach, amongst all things that I could think of, what was really on my mind was the bill Mr Muller has just put forward, which is on the Table today.

We have one of the highest rates of skin cancers in the world, which results from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B rays, and one of the highest age-standardised incidence of melanoma in the world, with 35 to 40 people per 100,000 affected. Four thousand people get in situ melanoma, 2,500 get invasive melanoma diagnosed every year, and there are about 363 deaths from melanoma every year. We also spend quite a bit of money on it—$183 million a year is spent on skin cancers, and it is projected to grow to $298 million soon.

Now, the number one way to protect from skin cancers is to have a strong sun protection against UV exposure, and the application of a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen—sun protection factor (SPF) 30 or, ideally, even SPF 50-plus—is the best way to prevent a lot of these skin cancers. Unlike Australia, though, there is no mandatory standard for sunscreens in New Zealand, and it is important that one of the most crucial things that prevents skin cancer is well-regulated, so people can have confidence in the safety standards of sunscreen in New Zealand. Now, the Government is separately progressing the regulation of therapeutic products, which covers the type of products like sunscreens, but other products as well, as part of its proposed therapeutic products bill. The current bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, before us in the House, provides an interim measure in regards to sunscreen, while the Government’s therapeutic bill goes through its development and legislative stages.

We do support this bill, I support this bill, because it will help address the current gap while implementing a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand through the Fair Trading Act to ensure that they meet the standards laid out by the Joint Standards Australian/ New Zealand Committee on this topic. As I expressed in my first reading, while Mr Muller’s bill is an improvement on what we have at the moment, it does not address issues such as using accredited labs, how often testing should happen, and manufacturing quality control. Now, the Government’s therapeutic products bill will be new, and it will be a comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate a wider range of therapeutic products in New Zealand, and will be able to address the issues canvassed by the bill, as part of the more comprehensive and complete approach.

It was my pleasure to be on the Health Committee, through which this bill came. Although the Health Committee did not change the purpose of the bill, we did change the mechanism by which the bill operates. New Zealand and Australia have a shared sunscreen standard, the AS/NZS 2604, that specifies testing methods for sunscreens, and labelling requirements. In Australia, the standard is mandatory, whereas in New Zealand compliance with the standard is voluntary. As introduced initially, the bill required the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulation be set to prescribe a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The regulation would be set under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, which empowers the Minister to recommend product safety standards. The bill will require the standard to be NZS 2604:2012, or any New Zealand standard that was substituted for that standard. In the same essence, this would have the effect of moving the existing standard from voluntary to mandatory in New Zealand.

During the select committee process, however, the committee received advice that the empowering provisions of the Fair Trading Act do not appear to allow a product safety standard to be made for the purpose of mandating the Australia - New Zealand standard for sunscreen. The advice was based on the interpretation that section 29(1) is designed to prevent or minimise the risk of injury by addressing potential harm that is inherent in a product. So this was a problem for the initial bill as it was proposed, because the AS/NZS standard for sunscreen does not seek to prevent or minimise the risk of injury resulting from the intrinsic properties of the sunscreen. Instead, the standard sets out how products may be labelled in terms of the protective factors so that the degree to which a sunscreen product offers protection from adverse effects of UV radiation is disclosed to the consumers.

So, to address these matters, and to provide legal clarity, the Health Committee instead decided to recommend that the compliance with the standard should be mandated in the primary legislation. According to this, we had to replace clause 5 of the bill. What that does is it removes the requirement of the Minister to make a regulation, instead simply mandating in a primary Act that the standards apply as if they were a product safety standard made through regulation.

So, as introduced, the bill’s commencement clause provided for it to come into force the day after enactment. That was fine when the bill required further regulations to be made, as that process would give time for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the new requirements. However, as the committee amended clause 5, as I’ve just talked about, to provide for the product safety standards to be made in primary legislation rather than through a regulation-making process, the immediate commencement of the legislation would be impractical as it would give no time for the manufacturers and suppliers to make the required change. So the Health Committee ended up recommending that the bill commence six months after enactment, providing time. In addition to that, the committee also suggested implementing some stock-in-trade amendments, giving suppliers time to move old products. It is quite important, and I think my colleague, Sarah Pallett, alluded to this before as well.

The committee, at the end, ended up deciding that the existing stock-in-trade should be allowed to be supplied for up to 18 months after the legislation was enacted, so that’s 12 months after the legislation commences.

So I guess, overall, in summary, it is a great bill because it closes a lot of gaps that are present at the moment, which are causing harm to New Zealanders—not only in terms of their health and their lives but also it’s quite a financial drain on the health system if you’re spending over $200 million a year treating something which is easily preventable with a sunscreen lotion. We just need to be able to regulate these sunscreen lotions. I’m quite looking forward to the Government’s therapeutic products bill because it will be a little bit more comprehensive, and it will include other therapeutic products as well, not just the sunscreens. But until that happens, and until that legislation comes through, it is important that we have something in place.

So I’m quite in support of this bill, which has gone through quite a significant process in the Health Committee and, as we just talked about, has had quite a few amendments made to it to be able to come this stage. So I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I sense some frustration over here and some use of the mobile phones on the other side, and I thought I’d keep this pretty concise. First of all, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support Mr Muller’s bill. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting as a mandatory regulation. Tonight we will have gone the first step to actually showing New Zealanders that they can trust the efficiency of their sunscreen products, and to purchase adequate sun protection is—they know that it’s tested.

But, you know, going back in history—just to bring some context—sun protection in early civilisations in Egypt used the extracts of rice, jasmine, and lupin plants to help protect their skin from the heat. The ancient Greeks used olive oil—so it’s a good thing.

Hon Member: What was the SPF factor of that?

DAMIEN SMITH: Well—

Hon Member: We all used olive oil at some point.

DAMIEN SMITH: Ha, ha! Zinc paste has been used for a thousand years—not just the Australian cricket team and Shane Warne. Then came the Dark Ages and the mediaeval times, when there must have been no sun, because there were no records. But the 1900s saved us again. The simple story about Coco Chanel: she was on a boat in the Mediterranean in 1923 and she got too much sun. She came off the boat and her look symbolised health, and people wanted her glow. So it took off, sunbathing. But actually the origin of sun cream and the sun protection factor (SPF) rating system was by the founder of L’Oréal, Franz Greiter, who had the Piz Buin mountain product. He actually designed it for the back of his neck, and it was an SPF of 2.

So the unintended consequences showed that in 1946—and Ginny would appreciate this—along came the bikini. Clothes, as we know, should have an SPF of 50, but, in the 1950s, as Mr Muller pointed out, we had the Coppertone self-tan girl—and now we have “Muller man”. We had Malibu Barbie in the 1970s, and sunbeds—nobody’s going to admit to this—in the 2000s. But, you know, the concept of SPF goes as far back as 1962.

Melanoma is the deadliest of all skin cancers, and a lifetime exposure to sun does leave a person at risk for developing other types of skin cancer, like basal cell carcinoma. My daughter had a melanoma cut out of her leg at 13—she was a redhead—and it had to be sent to the United States for analysis because we hadn’t got the service here. If you can’t remove the lesions, it’s a pretty invasive process to take chemotherapy and radiation for this. Over 500 people a year do die from this condition.

So what we have now is a standard where—and I thought the earlier presenters were a bit flippant about the mandatory requirements that this actually does carry. We are actually prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen, which I think’s the first step, irrespective of other legislation that comes through. So, on behalf of the ACT Party, the healthiest thing to do is to use sunscreen, but also to use it in the proper fashion, because we do need vitamin D, and we do need some exposure to sun. Broad-screen, water-resistant SPFs of 30-plus with zinc and titanium every day does make a difference, and you can see it here, obviously. So in terms of the visible signs of ageing, I wish Mr Muller all the best, and it is critical that—[Interruption] Ha, ha! It’s never too late to turn your skin around. So, on behalf of the ACT Party, we commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (remote): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call this evening at the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, and it’s always a pleasure to follow ACT parliamentarians in calls, because Mr Smith should not be surprised. And he shouldn’t be surprised because this is a serious piece of legislation. And because it is so serious, that is worthy of the House’s time this evening.

I want to commence my contribution tonight by acknowledging Mr Muller, who is the member in charge of this bill. Certainly, it’s a member’s bill, but it is the hope of all non-executive members of this House that their bill will be drawn from the biscuit tin. And so I want to pass on my congratulations to Mr Muller for being able to shepherd this piece of legislation through what appears to be its third reading later this evening.

And I have to say, you know, when I look at—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to Mr Utikere, the member will not interject when he is standing in the Chamber and not in a seat. The House will continue to show its usual level of respect to the person who is speaking.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I look at this bill, it is a sensitive piece of legislation. And, having cleared all hurdles this evening—or about to clear all hurdles it seems, based on the contribution from members all around the House this evening—I do think that is worthy of congratulations to the member who is in charge. And what I will say also is that I think that this particular piece of legislation has been approached in a collegial fashion and in a collegial way, which we obviously all hope for a number of things around this Parliament.

When we look at what the bill is seeking to do, my sort of take on that is that it looks to provide some certainty, it looks to provide some assurance, and indeed it looks to provide some comfort to many, many people. And I actually, like others, am surprised that there hasn’t been something in place up until this point in time. And as Mr Muller has said in his contribution tonight, it is also about accountability, and I’ll get to that shortly.

The position of members on this side of the House is that we support an approach to regulating the safety standards when it concerns sunscreen and sunscreen products. And many colleagues have talked about the fact that this is an interim measure, or a stopgap, in order for us to get us where we want to be in the longer term. And many colleagues have pointed to the role of the therapeutic products bill, which is something that not just this Government, actually, but many Governments have been looking to champion for quite some time. And it will come as no surprise that that’s the case for members all around the House.

My colleague Dr Sharma briefly touched on, I guess, the points of difference between the bill that’s currently before the House this evening and the therapeutic products bill in what it seeks to achieve—which will be, I guess, more of a wholesome, more complete approach to the industry, or some form of regulation where it would look to address issues like the use of accreditation of labs. So not just using any laboratories up and down the country but making sure that there is a regulatory system in place for accreditation of the use and operation of those. So that’s the first thing. The second, I think, we anticipate, would be around the frequency of testing—how often things would be tested—the procedures by which the testing would be undertaken, if there was some testing to take place. And then, of course, a third is, I guess, around that quality assurance—ensuring that those that are manufacturing products are doing so in an environment that is controlled in a quality sense.

So this bill in front of the Parliament tonight doesn’t seek to address those three issues, but it’s important I think that we are aware, as a Parliament, that that’s something that we see in the longer term, running alongside this as a short-term or a short gap measure. I am a member of the Health Committee—I have to say, though, that I joined the Health Committee partway through its consideration of this bill. I know that there were 36 submissions from individuals and also from organisations, and that all of them—every single public submission that the select committee received—was in support of this bill. And I guess that’s a rare achievement, but it underscores the significance of a desire to ensure that there is a minimum standard—a threshold—when it comes to the provision and certification of sunscreen products for our communities all around the country.

And so, I want to commend members on the Health Committee and also Mr Muller for the collegiality in which they approached this particular piece of legislation, because I think it actually also proves that even though you might have some submissions that come through a process that are fully in support, that doesn’t mean that the job is done. There is still an opportunity to provide that opportunity or avenue for good legislation to come out from that. And I think, my view certainly, is that has been the case in what’s before the House this evening.

Although the Health Committee didn’t look to change the purpose of the bill, it did seek to change the mechanism by which the bill would operate. And if we look at what the aim of the bill is—and I think it is important, because, when we get to third reading, it’s important for members to understand what it is that we’re actually voting on. So when I look at the bill and the rationale for it, the bill’s aim is around improving the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor—the SPF, which we commonly all know—of properties of sunscreen products. And obviously there is a positive flow-on effect if we were to do that. So that’s the aim of the bill, but the bill itself also presented an opportunity for the select committee to provide a few tweaks.

And I have to say, looking back through second reading contributions by members, I learnt a lot from my colleague Rachel Brooking, who took us through a number of different standards, including, actually, the safety standards for children’s clothing. So having a standard that applies to sunscreen products is really important, because there are not many of them—I’m talking about standards per se—but also so is the penalty provisions for someone who contravenes those standards. So the bill, by virtue of where it sits alongside or within the Fair Trading Act, will allow for some penalties of up to $200,000 for an individual and $600,000 for a body corporate. So they should serve as fairly significant deterrents, and that’s certainly what we’ve heard out and about.

The bill itself actually is quite short. It runs five clauses, it has one schedule that is of one singular part. But even though it’s a short bill, it is still an effective one none the less. And I want to just point to clause 5(1), which identifies the standard. And I know that Mr Muller, as part of the committee of the whole House stage did introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to amend what was introduced. And there was a lot of conversation in the select committee. I did join the conversation as a member of the select committee for that purpose as well at that time, and where Mr Muller, with the agreement of the committee of the whole House, has landed is that it’s appropriate to reference a standard that will be accurate in the New Zealand context but also in the Australian context. And as he has said, the point of difference is that they’re at different stages—it’s the same standard—of status across the Tasman. But clause 5(1), in terms of that part of the bill, effectively, allows for that to happen under the Fair Trading Act, whereas clause 5(3) is an easy mechanism to make changes. So where standards might be either added to, or they might be varied, or indeed they may be replaced, there wouldn’t be a need, a desire, or a requirement to have to bring this back through the Parliament to give effect to that change. It could simply be done by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—I’ve often referred to that as the “Minister of or for Fair Go”—to progress that as he or she sees fit. So I think clause 5 of the bill, even though it’s a—well, quite a big part of the bill, because it’s a small bill, is still important none the less.

Just to conclude, I want to indicate that as I see it, the crux of this bill is about trust and confidence for consumers in New Zealand. And when I talk about consumers, I use that in a very broad description. We are talking about whānau and family members. We are talking about children, who actually don’t get the choice or the say in terms of sunscreen product. They actually have members of their whānau or others who apply sunscreen under the knowledge, which is often unknown, that actually SPF 50 is not SPF 50. So that is simply not on. And what this bill does is it corrects that. I commend the member and I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Madam Chair—Madam Speaker. In person.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Matt Doocey—a five-minute call; though, I might make it four, just for that.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I must say, it’s great to be here in person, and, hopefully, we can wake up and have a bit of debate about what I think is this very important bill. And I must say, my first statement is to all New Zealanders: when they are out, in the summer, on the beach, on the farm—when they’re rubbing the sunscreen into themselves or their loved ones, they should think of Todd Muller. Todd Muller is the man that stood up for them, gave them confidence. He’s a man you can trust, Todd Muller. And that’s why we have this bill in the House today at its third reading. We can always think of Todd Muller when we get the sunscreen out.

And it does pose one question, when you think about this bill—and I think it’s been very harshly criticised by members of the other side. But it does pose the question: what have they been doing for the last five years? Why did it take for Todd Muller to come in and use his member’s bill to address a problem the Government should have done? I think what it shows is that every day we are looking like a competent alternative Government. And Todd Muller’s put his hand up for the consumer affairs Minister. I think he will make one of the best consumer affairs Ministers New Zealand has ever seen.

And then you start to think, well, who is the current consumer affairs Minister? Why didn’t he do this? And then, of course, we realise: because it’s David Clark. No wonder: the worst health Minister in 50 years, and fast becoming the worst consumer affairs Minister this country has ever seen. So I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague Todd Müller—

Todd Muller: Muller!

MATT DOOCEY: —Muller—for standing up for New Zealanders. And I must say, he’s worked very hard on this bill, and, I must say, I’m a bit jealous, though, because when I look at some of my member’s bills, I actually reckon that they were better than this. If you think of the prohibition of synthetic urine bill that I put forward—that, I mean! And these guys voted it down. I couldn’t believe it. And then they vote in favour of this bill. And what about my increasing penalties for killing a police dog bill: the Government votes it down, yet they support this bill? Where’s the justice in that? Oh, sorry, Todd Müller!

But on saying that, Todd and I came into politics at the same time, so we’re great mates. And I must say, this will go down as sort of a key victory for him. He’ll be able to update his Wikipedia, and, let’s be honest, he’ll be off to get some help from caucus members on that. And that’s something he can really say that he’s achieved, by raising standards for sunscreen in New Zealand.

Look, I think I’ve said enough. It’s good to be in the House and debating face to face. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): What happens when the whip needs to whip the whip? That’s the question for tonight—for that tirade from the person who couldn’t quite even get their own member’s name correct, in speaking on their own member’s bill that’s being heard a third time! So we heard about Todd “Müller” and also the fact that that member thought his own member’s bills were better than his own member’s, which I thought was quite apt in summarising the entire attitude of a self, kind of, mode—what we see opposite. But we are supporting this bill because it’s a decent bill, and that’s why. I’d say that the reason why Matt Doocey’s bills didn’t get supported was they weren’t decent bills. When you get a good bill, you vote for it, and that’s what this party stands for. So congratulations to the member opposite, Todd Muller. I think that you’ve made a good effort at actually putting towards a bill, and the reason why we support this bill is that we support taking a regulatory approach to the safety standards of sunscreen.

Look, I think every person can remember a time as a kid when you got really badly sunburnt. I remember it clearly, at a time of about 12 or 13, not having any sunscreen on or having some sort of coconut stuff someone had given you when you were at intermediate and you spent the day out at the swimming pool, and you get home that night and you go to have a bath or a shower, and you realise that you’ve actually caused some long-term damage to your own body. Many New Zealanders do that without actually wanting to, because they can’t be reassured that the quality of product they should be buying off the shelves is verified. So full credit to the member for bringing about a bill that has some good benefit for New Zealanders going forward—particularly given where we are placed in the world, particularly given we know we get burnt here more than we do in other countries. And it took me travelling to figure that out myself—that you don’t get as burnt as what you do in New Zealand.

I think it’s important that we note, also, that we have the therapeutic products bill coming through as well. This will provide an interim measure with regard to sunscreen while this bill goes through its development and legislative stages. Unlike Australia, as has already been mentioned, there’s no mandatory standard for sunscreens in New Zealand; so it is important that we do that in a country that has very high rates of melanoma, very high rates of people who need further protection and are outside, active, playing sport, and working. We should be protected in those spaces. We support this bill because it will help address the current gap that’s been identified in implementing a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand through the Fair Trading Act to ensure that they meet the standards laid out in the Joint Standards Australia/New Zealand Committee on the topic. As we’ve already expressed, there are types of products that fall into this that are proposed, as I’ve already mentioned, in the therapeutic products bill—a new, comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand. The therapeutic products bill will be able to address the issues canvassed by this bill as part of a more complete approach. It’s important that, while this is a great issue to address and resolve now, we need a wider approach for the long term so we do not see repeat instances of what this bill has brought around.

While it’s not a complete solution, this bill provides an interim measure in regards of sunscreen regulation, and we welcome that on behalf of the Labour Party. While the Government’s therapeutics bill goes through its development and through its legislative stages, we will support this bill because it makes a good change for New Zealanders. When you go to the shelf and you buy a sunscreen product that you are putting on your children at the side of the pool, you want to be reassured that what you do is doing the best for your young children and making sure that they are protected. If it says sun protection factor (SPF) 50-plus, it damned well should be SPF 50-plus, and it’s wrong for anything else to be sold to you, pretending to be so. Changes have been made by the select committee, and I think they’ve made some good improvements in general on the bill. I think it fits into a wider plan of making sure we’re looking after New Zealanders, and it’s great to see a National member stepping up and ensuring that they’re thinking about the wider wellbeing of New Zealanders and making some good improvements for that, then. I commend the bill to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to be here. It’s the first time I’ve had the opportunity to speak in the House this year, so it feels a little odd to be doing so from Pāpāmoa—and I just would like to acknowledge that is the electorate of my colleague and friend Todd Muller, and so it’s a real pleasure to be here with you today, Todd, from home, recognising that this is the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. So first and foremost, congratulations, Todd; today was a day here back in the electorate where we needed sunscreen. And I would just like to make comment to the member Matt Doocey—I will not, I repeat, I will not, be thinking about Todd Muller as I put my sunscreen on my body. But thank you for that enduring image.

So as I say I’d like to congratulate you, Todd Muller, for bringing this bill, and for what I understand to have been a very collegial process through the select committee. I’m not a member of the Health Committee, and I’ve only had the opportunity to speak on this bill one time previously, so I haven’t had the opportunity to hear from the submitters. I understand that there was not one single submitter of the 36 who was against the bill, but some made some useful suggestions to make changes. I also understand that there was oral evidence given by seven submitters. So I think, while not a huge number, I think probably those who did inform the select committee were entirely on point, and very much able to speak directly into this bill.

I would like to acknowledge the Health Committee and my colleague and friend Liz Craig, who is the chairperson, who unfortunately doesn’t get an opportunity to speak on this bill tonight, but is here with us. I would like to acknowledge Liz because of the extreme amount of work that the Health Committee has undertaken in this last term of Parliament—it is an incredibly busy time for you as a select committee. I’d like to acknowledge also the Minister, the Hon David Clark, for the work that he did, including the work that he did in regards to working alongside Todd Muller around the Supplementary Order Paper and agreeing to that and working for a clear and clever workaround to something that, unfortunately, in the initial reading we hadn’t picked up as not applying to Australia and New Zealand. So with that, having said that, I also wanted to acknowledge some of the previous speakers that I’ve heard today, some of you have given me some opportunity to learn some more, and I have paid attention to the debates throughout each of the readings—just a personal interest of mine.

One of the things that people have talked about is the incidence or amount of melanoma and sun damage that we have in this country. I live at the beach; I grew up surfing; I spent many, many years in the sun. Yes, I was that person who had sun protection factor (SPF) 2 “tropicana oil”, which got me nice and tanned, and, as a consequence, at age 50—much like my colleague Todd Muller and many of us here—I’ve had bits of me cut out. I’d just like to acknowledge the skin clinic, Skinspots—they do a great job to keep me safe and to remove what needs to be removed at the time that it does.

So this bill is an important little piece of legislation in that who knew, who understood that when you went to the supermarket or the chemist and you picked up your SPF 50 and you religiously put it on your body—and you didn’t think of Todd Muller at the time that you did it—that, in fact, it’s not necessarily going to do what it says on the label? Who would have thought that we would have had a voluntary option as to whether we complied, whereas Australia has a mandatory system? Who would have realised that? And I think it’s really useful that the member has drawn this to our attention. And I’d just like to acknowledge Ginny Andersen and her statement, we do support bills that have good value and lots and lots of use, and this is one of those bills.

It is universally agreed in this country that we need to ensure that we are protected from our sun. In this country, we have the highest rate of melanoma in the world. In fact, we have a very high death rate as well for melanoma in this country. So, as a consequence, when we discover that five out of 10 sunscreens weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing with Consumer NZ looking to and doing a study, then it’s actually quite shocking. I think about my children and how I slather them up with sunblock, thinking that I was doing the right thing. And, of course, I was doing the right thing, but perhaps the product itself wasn’t doing what it said it was going to do. So I would just recognise and acknowledge that that research and those findings have perhaps fed into and led into Todd Muller’s bill—and useful, very useful to do so. I’d also like to, without going into who failed and who passed, acknowledge and recognise that—go google that information because it is actually really important that you get it right.

So, coming now to the bill, I am really particularly interested in the stock-in-trade provisions of this bill. So it shows to me—and I am an outsider only looking at the legislation and reading the reports on it—how thoughtful the submitters have been. It also shows how the officials have given such good and sound advice on this matter. So some of the submitters talked about stock and trade. So, essentially, we all know and recognise that stock is sitting on the shelves in supermarkets or chemists, etc. So that stock is sitting there and then that stock is, essentially, sitting and existing under the existing standards that we have, which is a voluntary standard and may not meet the standards that we would prefer, i.e., not necessarily do what it should do. And so it was felt that there needed to be a period of time in order for that stock to be used or that stock to be moved off shelf. As a consequence, in direct feedback—direct feedback—from submitters that this was put in place. So members have spoken about this. Once the bill is signed, there’s a six-month period and then there’s another 12 months while the stock is removed off the shelves. I think that it’s important, it’s practical, but, like I say, do go back—for those of you listening—and have a look at whether, in fact, what’s sitting on the shelves is something that you would be happy to purchase.

I am nearly at time, but I do want to just acknowledge once again that this is a good bill. It is a practical bill. We have the therapeutic products bill coming, so this will do in the interim. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): A very good evening and it is my pleasure that I rise on behalf of National and as the member for North Shore to speak on the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, a bill that is in the name of Todd Muller, if I pronounce it correctly, by Prussian origin; family came here in 1862 and we do want to make sure that we get the pronunciation of that very clear. So, Todd Muller, congratulations on your second member’s bill, a bill that I know, as you’ve articulated, you have a personal stake in, and something that you have taken pride in also, in regards to pride within your community.

The bill is very simple and I quote Todd Muller when I say this: how can it be possible, in 2022, for manufacturers of sunscreen in this country to not have demonstrably met the sunscreen standards that we share with Australia? What it says on the bottle should be what is in the bottle—that last bit was my quote, not Todd’s, but the first part was very clear. Obviously, this standard is voluntary at the moment in New Zealand—compulsory in Australia—and I was a member of the Health Committee who went through this process in much detail.

I am encouraged to hear from the other side of the House, and as we’re advised, that the therapeutics products bill will be introduced, I think officials advised us, later this year to the House, which we do look forward to. But I think I do want to just acknowledge my colleague on the Health Committee Dr Elizabeth Kerekere; I just want to acknowledge your personal story that you articulated here to the House, and I know that you are not alone in terms of your experiences. We heard that from a number of members in their speeches this evening, so thank you for sharing that, and we do think about all of those individuals in this country that will benefit from this bill.

That is all I want to say in regards to this. Todd Muller, congratulations, well done on your second member’s bill. I commend this bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in the Whare, or the House, this evening as it’s always a real honour and a privilege to kōrero or speak in this House of change. Not only a privilege, as the member for the Ōtaki electorate, but also at this historic time where this House for the first time is sitting as a hybrid or a virtual Parliament. And so while I mihi to my colleagues who are taking a call virtually and, obviously, the other party members, I’m grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to stand in the Whare tonight to speak about this member’s bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill.

But first, if you will allow, I would like to lend my voice to the many others tonight across the Whare or the House just to say thank you to our police officers out there, also to our ambulance officers out there today on the forecourt this evening. I have been hearing from some of my colleagues who have spoken to some of the ambulance and police officers that they have been going since 4 o’clock this morning. So I just wanted to lend my voice to everyone else who has spoken in the House, across the House, tonight to say thank you to those people. Also just to mention I did hear that some of those police officers tonight had just graduated literally this weekend. So yeah, what a baptism of fire in terms of your first couple of days, and again I just want to say thank you to all of them and for keeping us all safe.

This is the first time I’m speaking on this bill. I understand it’s the third reading. But while it’s my first time, I just wanted to also say a mihi and a thankyou to Mr Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House. I think we can all agree how important it is, and while we might make light of us having to make a 10-minute speech on it, I actually know that even though it’s a simple bill, I really do know the effects it’s going to have for many. So I truly am genuinely meaning to say thank you very much, Mr Muller, for bringing this to the House.

The other thing about this bill is it’s for everybody, right? It’s for the benefit of everybody and it will ensure that people who do go out and buy sunscreen can be sure that they are buying a product that is of high quality and high standard and is, essentially, going to do what it says on the label, instead of currently being confused by the different 50-plus sun protection factor (SPF) or whatever numbers it is on the bottles or the tubes when you’re purchasing that sunscreen product. And I guess if you’re like myself and not au fait with all of that, you just kind of put your trust in the product that it is going to do what it says, and it has got that 50 SPF or whatever it says on the label, on the bottle. So you would expect when you’re purchasing that sunscreen, you’re going to get that full coverage. And also for your children, you’ll have that full coverage as that’s what it says on the bottle.

But we all know, and I think others have said this in the House tonight, and I, myself, have also purchased sunscreen—I’ve put it on myself, put it on my children, and then 10, 15 minutes later, you’re feeling the pain. And yes, as a brown person, I do get burnt. Many people ask me if I get sunburnt. This is really weird, and my husband, who’s African, he’s very dark-skinned—we call it “black is beautiful”, in our house. He’s beautifully black skinned, and many people look at us quite weirdly when we’re at the beach or the river and he’s putting on sunscreen. But I’m like, yep, black people burn too.

I guess that goes to my point as well, which is that you see so many products. You see products for kids, like Mr Muller mentioned when he first stood up, you know, especially for people who are light skinned or our ginger whānau. You need to be assured that you’re going to get the right products and making sure that essentially you’ve got that full cover. So again, you know, for us, that’s really important given that I’ve got three little boys and they’re always wanting to be outside in the sun playing, especially during this summer, whether it’s playing basketball, going for a walk, or going for a swim. Again, we need to make sure that sunscreen stays on, it doesn’t come off straight away when they hit the water, and that they’ve got full coverage for their beautifully mixed black-brown skin. So that’s really important for us.

But what I would mention here is that sunscreen, although extremely important and a necessary part of your family’s budget, can be really costly even at the supermarkets, and there’s such a range, again, right? There are so many products to choose from again, with all those different SPF 50-plus and you’re just really not sure. So given that you’re spending quite a bit of money—so a tube or bottle of sunscreen can range from $18 to $25-plus, which is quite a lot for a whānau of five, like mine. You’re want to make sure that when you’re purchasing it you’re getting your bang for your buck; you know, the money you’re spending, you’re going to get that full coverage. And a family like ours—like I said, I’ve got three young boys and they love to be out and playing in the sun all the time—we could easily go through three or four tubes or bottles, especially—[Audio issues] Someone wants to join my kōrero; ka pai, Penny; that’s all good. So I guess for a family like ours of five, we would want to make sure that—[Audio issues] Are you all good? We would want to make sure that when we are purchasing those three or four bottles over a summer, like we’ve just had, which has been really, really hot, we are getting our money’s worth.

So for me personally, I quite often would buy the Cancer Society one and, to be honest, that’s not me even looking at the 50-plus SPF; that’s just me looking at “Cancer Society”. And I guess for me, not knowing a lot and thinking: well, it’s the Cancer Society; surely the product will do what it says it does and will make sure that we get our protection from the UV rays of the sun in Aotearoa for me and my children. That’s how I would pick it. So a bill like this where it makes sure that there’s standards or there’s regulation around that to ensure that we truly are—when we go in, are purchasing a product that can be quite costly but very important to a family—going to get what we’re purchasing and it is going to give us coverage for us and our families.

For me also, I understand, and while this is a really good start—Mr Muller’s bill is a really good—start, I do also understand that this Government is working on therapeutic products, which my colleague Ginny Andersen also mentioned in her contribution, which covers the types of products that sunscreen will fall into, as part of the proposed therapeutic products bill that this Government is currently working on. However, this bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill from Mr Muller provides a really good interim measure until we’ve been able to go through the development and legislative work through the proposed therapeutic products bill.

We know that we have the highest rates of melanoma or skin cancer in the world. We know Aotearoa is hot. And we know that obviously, due to those high numbers, the current products as they are or as they are labelled certainly aren’t labelled properly, because we have got those high rates and it’s not doing the job it said it would. So, again, I just want to say thank you to the select committee also that made those changes. But, again, I thank you genuinely, Mr Muller, for bringing this bill to the House. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Speaker’s Statements

Remote Sittings—Seeking the Call

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, before I move on to the next members’ order of the day, can I just alert the House to the fact that we are just about to go into the committee stage. If there are any members who are on the Zoom call who are intending to seek a call, it might be a good idea to line yourselves up to do that on the chat function, which will make everything easy for those of us presiding.

I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. And I’ll just ask the committee to have a little tolerance: I feel a bit like an opening batsman going in against an unknown attack.

I’ll remind members that they’re able to participate remotely, as Jacqui just has, and if you’re on the Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members, so that they can refresh the House page to see the new amendments. And, finally, it will be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge of the bill during their call.

The bill will be debated clause by clause. The first debate is on clause 1. [Waits for members to seek the call.] And, there being no debate, the question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye, to contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

CHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Chair. I think I’m right in saying that voting is likely to be on a split basis—at least for this party; I can’t speak for other parties. That being so, perhaps I might ask your indulgence for a couple of minutes while I add up totals of those who would have me cast a vote for or against in the case of each individual clause, seeing as that’s how we’re conducting the vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): So, effectively, you’re seeking leave of the House to do that?

CHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Yeah, or just requesting just to slow down a little bit so that we can—

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair. I wonder if we might simply take the bill as one question. It’s a short bill, and that would simplify matters considerably. If there’s no objection to that, that would seem a sensible course of action.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Thank you. So, members, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. I’m sure there’s none.

Clauses 1 to 5

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that clauses 1 to 5 stand part. Do we have a call? So, if you wish to take a call from outside the House, would you remember, please, to ensure you ask for that call, and if you don’t, then I imagine that we’ll move on. The question is that clauses 1 to 5 stand part. All those in favour say, Aye. To the contrary, No.

Chris Penk: Aye and no, ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): That’s fine. Well, effectively, you’re calling for a—what sort of vote are we calling for, then?

David Seymour: He’s calling for a party vote—party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 62 (Allan, Andersen, Ardern, Belich, Bennett, Boyack, Brooking, Chen, Clark, Coffey, Craig, Davis, Eagle, Edmonds, Faafoi, Halbert, Henare, Henderson, Hipkins, Jackson, Leary, Lewis, Little, Lorck, Lubeck, Luxton, Mahuta, Mallard, McAnulty, McLellan, Nash, Ngobi, O’Connor D, O’Connor G, Omer, Pallett, Parker, Prime, Radhakrishnan, Roberts, Robertson, Rurawhe, Russell, Salesa, Sepuloni, Sharma, Sio, Tinetti, Tirikatene, Twyford, Utikere, Verrall, Wall, Walters, Warren-Clark, Webb, Whaitiri, White, Williams A, Williams P, Wood, Woods); New Zealand National 14 (Bayly, Bennett, Bridges, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Kuriger, Luxon, McClay, Mitchell, Smith S, van de Molen, Watts, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 12

New Zealand Labour 3 (Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, Leavasa, Strange); New Zealand National 9 (Brown, Hipango, Lee, O’Connor, Penk, Pugh, Simmonds, Upston, Woodhouse).

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Chair. I just wanted to check for the House’s record that I correctly heard the National Party’s vote. Did he say 14 in favour and nine against? He seems to have lost 10 MPs there.

Hon Member: Yes, that’s correct.

Bill reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The committee has considered the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just a moment, members. I’m just checking who wishes to take the call.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Madam Chair, a point of order just to assist. Steph Lewis has asked for the call on the thread—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, it’s here now—it’s here now. Can I remind, ask, plead with members Zooming in—not for the first time today—that the only way a Speaker can accept a call is if you seek the call. And when you are joining this debate via Zoom, the only way you can do that is in the chat function. I call Steph Lewis.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) (remote): I move, That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is my pleasure to take the first call in the virtual House on the second reading of the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments.

I want to thank the committee members from the Primary Production Committee for their collegial approach to considering the bill and for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. I also want to thank officials for their advice and guidance throughout the select committee process. Finally, I want to thank and acknowledge all of those who took the time to make a submission on this bill.

As I said in my first reading speech, this is a common-sense bill which will strengthen the layers of defence against biosecurity threats at our border. It will protect our food and fibre sector that’s the livelihoods of our farmers, growers, and their families, but it also protects our environment. I was pleased to have the opportunity to put my name to this bill, because in the Whanganui electorate, we have a large number of farmers and growers who contribute significantly to our local economy and who, like farmers across the country, have played a significant role in our export-led recovery.

As noted during the first reading, it’s currently optional to provide passengers with information about our biosecurity arrangements. Many conservation advocates and those from our food and fibre sector have raised concerns that only some airlines are providing passengers with such information, and this creates an unnecessary biosecurity risk. A biosecurity incursion that took hold in Aotearoa would have a critical impact on our economy, on our environment, and on those in our food and fibre sector, especially our regional economies.

As indicated, this bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments, and I’d like to take this opportunity to share with the House and those at home what those amendments are. The first amendment I’d like to discuss is the proposal to create secondary legislation or regulations which detail what information and how information is to be provided to passengers. As a committee, we agreed that this allowed for a degree of flexibility that would not be available if we prescribed the format of information in the primary legislation. For example, clause 4 of the bill as introduced suggested that written information also be provided. However, that could propose logistical challenges for some airlines where space and weight restrictions are paramount considerations. It was noted by several submitters that shifting away from providing paper-based information to passengers will help a craft to reduce their carbon footprint.

Moving detail about what information and how information should be provided into specially drafted regulations also allows Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials time to consult with airlines. It also means that the regulations can be drafted and more easily amended in future to account for changes in technology. For example, many airlines and cruise ships have their own apps which allow them to engage with passengers before they board a craft, so it’s possible that, in the future, the provision of biosecurity information could be incorporated into those apps in a way that also makes translation into multiple languages efficient and easy.

It was noted during the select committee that the future of our border is digital. There is a move away from paper-based cards in favour of utilising technology like smartphone apps and websites so that passengers can provide arrival information in a digital format. Again, this shows why it’s appropriate to include detail about what information and how information is to be provided into specially drafted regulations. It ensures sufficient flexibility which will make the uptake of new technology a lot easier than if officials had to amend primary legislation each time technology changes.

Evidence we heard in the select committee also suggests that the advantage of providing information to somebody before they board a craft means that they have the opportunity to dispose of prohibited items before they begin their journey. Again, this could lessen the risk of a biosecurity incursion in Aotearoa. For these reasons, the committee also agreed that clause 4 should be amended to say that before a craft arrives in New Zealand, the person in charge of the craft must provide biosecurity information to passengers as set out in the regulations.

This leads me to the second amendment proposed, which was to the commencement clause. In light of the changes discussed and the need for consultation and to draft bespoke regulations, the committee has proposed a change to the commencement clause. So, rather than coming into effect on the day after the bill receives Royal assent, as proposed in clause 2 when the bill was introduced, the committee has agreed to a recommendation from officials that the bill come into effect by Order in Council, or 12 months after Royal assent.

As introduced, the bill created an obligation to provide biosecurity information to all persons on a craft. However, after hearing submissions and advice from officials, the committee agreed that it was not necessary to provide information to crew on a craft. Therefore, we agreed to amend the bill to refer to “passengers” rather than “persons on board”. This is more in keeping in line with the purpose of the bill, which, as suggested in the name, was about providing biosecurity information to passengers. The intention was not to create a legal obligation to provide crew members with biosecurity information every time they come back into New Zealand.

The committee also agreed to narrow the definition of “craft” as proposed in the bill. As introduced, the bill referred to all craft en route to New Zealand, and that was so broad, it would have included small private yachts and planes, air ambulances, cargo ships, fishing vessels, defence force aircraft and ships, and donor organ retrieval flights. Again, it was not the intention of the bill to cover all of those scenarios. I want to thank MPI officials for their assistance to the committee to help us reach a definition which better reflects the intention of the bill—that is, that the bill should apply to commercial craft with 20 or more passengers.

As introduced, the bill proposed pecuniary penalties for failing to provide biosecurity information to passengers. However, after considering evidence and advice from officials, the committee formed the view that a failure to comply with the proposed section 17AA involves a lower level of harm compared to the offences punishable by orders under section 154H of the Act. It would also be inconsistent with the kind of conduct and harm already targeted by pecuniary penalties under the Act. The pecuniary penalties are intended to target the commercial gain that could be made, and there is very little commercial gain to be had by failing to provide information to incoming passengers.

The committee also agreed, for the same reasons, that a penalty of a strict liability offence is too high and not proportionate to the offence of failing to provide information. Members considered that an infringement notice would be a more appropriate punishment for such a breach. However, to enable the creation of an infringement offence in the bill, an offence for a breach of the proposed section 17AA needs to be created. Therefore, the committee recommended retaining the strict liability offence in the bill, but reducing the penalty to the lowest level under the Act. That’s up to $1,000 for an individual and up to $5,000 for a body corporate.

Those are the most notable changes proposed by the committee. Again, I want to thank committee members and officials for their work, and I thank the submitters who took the time to submit on this bill. The changes I’ve outlined this evening received the unanimous support of the Primary Production Committee, and I’m looking forward to that support continuing through the remaining stages of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have you on board as one of our Assistant Speakers in Parliament and it’s a pleasure to speak on this bill tonight. I want to congratulate Steph Lewis on bringing it forward, and it’s been good to be part of the Primary Production Committee as we’ve been working it through. And given that we are on biosecurity tonight and incoming aircraft, I’m just going to let you know that I’m going to be winging this speech to some extent.

This morning, I was actually on a 3½ hour extended Zoom call, didn’t get to Parliament by the allotted 10.30 time, haven’t been able to get in to get my notes or my computer, and I have been winging it all day on my phone. So it’s been a rather unusual bill to go with, because we started it in lockdown and I remember sitting in my house when we were locked down during August and September and taking in submissions, which were very good. So I really do thank Steph for her level of detail. The second thing is that I saw the most recent bill on safe zones, actually, tonight and I thought, “Oh, I’ve got plenty of time.”, and, all of a sudden, I had to get my jacket back on and get in front of the screen, so I really am literally winging it.

But what I do want to say is that biosecurity is really, really important to our country. And thank you, Steph, for pointing out the fact that, in terms of agriculture, it really is a saving grace. You know, there’s a whole lot of things that can get into our country right from diseases like, you know, fruit flies and things like stink bugs that sneak in in vehicles and can actually ruin our whole horticulture industry. We’ve got to be careful that we don’t bring in things for our animal industries like foot-and-mouth.

We did have, obviously, a big case of Mycoplasma bovis, which we still don’t actually know how that got in. So it was a biosecurity issue but we still don’t actually know how it got into the country, but it created a lot—a lot—of stress and effort for farmers and actually was probably, in some ways, in terms of tracking and tracing, a precursor for what we’re now facing with our own COVID in human species. And I want to thank the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for all the work that they’ve done with the Ministry of Health in terms of helping them around tracking and tracing, because we might be different animals, but when we’re tracking and tracing diseases, it works out the same.

I also want to make note during this, while we are talking about biosecurity, that one of the things I think about is that as we closed the border, a lot of people were redeployed into other parts of MPI or redeployed into other jobs. I often think about that, as we are reopening the borders now, it’s going to be ever-important that we make sure that those people are deployed back to the borders, where they need to be, because, as more and more passengers start to come in—and it’s really important they do—we’re going to find ourselves in a space where we’re going to need those people back on the borders again and looking after us.

I want to thank all the submitters for their submissions. In particular, one of the things I did want to mention that we had quite a long discussion about was, yes, it’s great to collect all the information and it’s great to make sure that we know what’s going on, but we did have particular submissions from Air New Zealand and others who looked at the level of paper we might use, not only in terms of it’s a massive weight to carry a lot more paper but also when you start looking at what we’re trying to do in climate change—and we’re trying to reduce our emissions and make things a bit more favourable for the environment—the last thing we want to be doing is taking down more trees and producing more paper so that we can get more incoming passengers filling in paper forms and then, at the end of the day, once those are recorded, then we’re going to have to find some other way of destroying them. So just looking at absolute practical ways to do that. MPI and others were right across that. So it was really as much making what we do as practical as absolutely possible as we could without undermining the importance of what Steph was trying to achieve and make sure that we keep our borders as safe as we possibly can.

So I wish you all well in the House tonight. I’m going to stop there and recommend the bill to the House because I really am winging it. I’m sure there’s people in the House tonight that have got all their notes in front of them and are going to do a much better job than I have but I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) (remote): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you to my colleague and neighbour in Taranaki - King Country Barbara Kuriger, and you did a really good job of winging it. I am part-winging it tonight. My computer system actually went down, another whole story I won’t tell you about, but I did get locked out of my house for 20 minutes this evening. But that’s another story. I’m glad to hear that Barbara Kuriger, that people across the floor, are supporting this piece of legislation, because it is, as I said, around protecting Aotearoa New Zealand; it’s protecting our biodiversity, it’s protecting our plant life, and so it’s very much worth protecting.

Now, I often think that people from overseas don’t quite understand the uniqueness of New Zealand and, as the world has shrunk in the last 70 or 80 years with the means of being able to fly and not just being on a ship for six to eight weeks, I often think that people don’t understand the uniqueness of New Zealand, the uniqueness of our position in the world, the uniqueness also of our indigenous biodiversity, our indigenous pieces of plant life that are here in our beautiful nation. We need to protect that, and, I think, for too long we haven’t, and so this is another piece of work, another piece of legislation that will ensure that.

I’ve had many friends come to New Zealand who, of course, as many of us are, are blown away by the beauty, by the scenery of our natural environment here, and we must do all we can to protect it. As was mentioned, we’ve had things come through such as Mycoplasma—and as he’s winging it, his notes have just gone off his screen. We’ve had things come through around our kiwifruit industry. We’ve had issues come through in many spaces, and we need to ensure that we protect everything here, and that’s why a piece of legislation like this, as simple as it is, is required to ensure that we look after and keep our space safe.

Now, when I talk about friends from overseas, they arrive in New Zealand and they just don’t realise quite how far away we are and how, for many of my friends in parts of Europe and Asia, of course, to go to another country is a day trip, or to go to another country is where you go shopping, or you go to the mall. But, of course, in New Zealand, that’s not really something we do, and haven’t done for a long time. So I support my colleague and another neighbour Steph Lewis on this piece of legislation.

Obviously, as she spoke about, this bill amends the Biosecurity Act of 1993, to require large commercial aircraft that are en route to New Zealand to, before the craft arrives in New Zealand, provide information to the craft’s passengers about the biosecurity law relevant to arrival in New Zealand. This is required by regulation made under this Act. And, like I said, how many times have you been with an international traveller who has had a banana or an apple or things in their bag which, to them, seem very insignificant but, to us as a nation, are very, very significant? Like I say, I’m just trying to get my device working, which is just wonderful how technology works so well, and it doesn’t like me at all.

People who come into New Zealand, they come here for the experience, but also people come here to New Zealand for the natural beauty and, of course, also people from within New Zealand have lives to live and businesses to run, whether it be in our agriculture sector, our farming sector, and in many other parts, where, like, for example, with our kiwifruit industry and the Psa it was a massive challenge for us here in New Zealand. As Barbara Kuriger alluded to, and I said before, around the Mycoplasma, and the challenges that we faced—but the fact that we’re now working really hard to eradicate that. But we don’t want to have to eradicate; we want to make sure that we stop it at the border. And because we are a nation that has a border of water, we are really, really well set up.

Now, when my friends and visitors come here, they often think of things like The Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth, and they think of the experiences of Boy or Whale Rider, and the beauty of our nature and our scenery, and we need to ensure that we do all we can to protect that, and this piece of legislation is a part of doing that, a part of ensuring that we keep and protect what is here. And, again, as I said earlier, it is very much around the indigenous biodiversity that is unique only to New Zealand, is unique only to us, and we must do all we can. We must do everything we can to ensure that we protect that.

I’m grateful, again, that Steph Lewis has brought this. I was unable to be part of the select committee, to listen to and hear submissions. I’m glad and thank Steph Lewis for your explanation in first speech, letting us know some of the changes that were made to this legislation, to make it more robust and more fit for purpose for going forward. Steph Lewis is someone who I respect, who I know comes out of Whanganui, which is right next to me and, as she said, this is for the sake of her own constituents, as Barbara Kuriger then also spoke about—for the sake of the work she does and her constituents, and, for myself, here in Taranaki and as the MP for New Plymouth, which stretches around part of Taranaki here, it is around ensuring the safety of our people here.

Now, we in Taranaki don’t have an international airport just yet—you know, it’s always on the cards, why not, let’s think big, right—but, again, it’s that transition. When the world is so small, when there’s so much connection going on around the world, we know that a flight from Asia or South America or North America or Eastern or Western Europe, or wherever it is around the world, can so quickly come into Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch, and then divert straight away to a flight to the beautiful Taranaki. Can I also add just a little wee plug that New Plymouth, I think for the second year running, has the most sunshine hours in all of the country. Yes. No, Nelson, sorry, you’re not in the mix there, but anyway, this is just a side note.

So we need to ensure that (1) we protect our sunniness but (2) we protect our biodiversity. I’m grateful to speak on this bill. I’m thankful to Steph Lewis for bringing it to the House, and for being so thoughtful around it, for the work that the select committee has done, and to the submitters. This is the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): A point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following discussion amongst the party leaders during the course of the evening this evening, I seek leave for the House to begin tomorrow with a debate on a motion without notice regarding the police operation out the front of Parliament, after prayers, and for the House to then adjourn for the day, following the conclusion of that motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection? There’s no objection.

Bills

Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf the National Party to speak on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. And let me just take a moment, Mr Speaker, just to congratulate you, because I didn’t previously this week, for your elevation to the role of Assistant Speaker. I look forward to your wise adjudication from the Chair. It has been an interesting week for your elevation, with the creation of the hybrid Parliament. So we have, this evening, been listening to other members of Parliament beaming in through a kind of Matrix-type moment with big screens in Parliament, and it’s been quite interesting to see. So it’s been a mix of the new and the old, and that has been quite something. I also should note very briefly just that it has been quite a unique day in the country’s history. We’ve seen scenes that we haven’t seen before, and it has been a sad day for the country.

But I’ll turn to this bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that all craft coming to New Zealand are required to provide biosecurity information to the persons on board by means of an audiovisual recording and writing. The main provisions of the bill are to insert a new section into the Biosecurity Act that applies to craft that are en route to New Zealand and requires the person in charge of the craft to provide approved audiovisual and written information about New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements. I would congratulate the member for Whanganui, Stephanie Lewis, in whose name this bill has come before the House.

Biosecurity is an issue of critical importance to New Zealand due to our unique ecosystems and our economic reliance on primary sectors, and that has never been truer than through this last couple of years in which other sectors like our tourism sector have been deeply impacted and we have been hugely reliant on the primary sector to carry our country’s economy through and ensure that we have the money, basically, to keep the engine going.

This bill creates a simple but effective mechanism to enhance our biosecurity system. New Zealand’s unique island ecology is a massive selling point for our international tourism industry. It’s also incredibly important for our primary sector, as I said, and I certainly hope that we do see more aircraft coming to New Zealand with tourists in the not too distant future once the Omicron peak has passed.

Our distance to other land masses has resulted in an ecosystem where many organisms are found here and nowhere else. From wetlands to forests, lakes and alpine meadows, there are over 60 different native ecosystems in my electorate of Southland alone. Each ecosystem is a small part of a complex jigsaw and is an integral part of the Southland environment. In Southland, we have areas with particularly high biodiversity values like those in Fiordland, Te Ānau lake, Waituna Lagoon, and Stewart Island. There are smaller remnant patches of bush and wetlands, rivers and lakes throughout Southland, they provide havens for native species, and native biodiversity can also be found in surprising areas like gardens, around our woolsheds, or in the schoolyard. This bill makes a practical contribution to protecting those natural environments, which contributes to the wellbeing of our communities and also attracts many, many thousands, or millions previously, of international visitors to partake in and enjoy our natural environment.

At its core, this bill helps to ensure that we take care of our environments biosecurity while supporting our ability to host others to enjoy those as well. And I’d note that, in the 2020 financial year, New Zealand earned $48 billion from our primary sector; $20 billion of that was from dairy, which is equivalent to our total expenditure on health; $11 billion was from meat; $5.5 billion dollars from forestry; $6.5 billion was from horticulture; and $2 billion from seafood. So it just gives an indication of the value of our primary sector and it’s something that we need to do our best to protect, and this bill will enhance that protection.

In terms of the other aspect of our economy that this bill will have an aspect in helping protect is that of international tourism. I’d like to note that, in a few days’ time, I’m very pleased that we’re taking a very good step forward in enabling vaccinated Kiwis from abroad to be able to freely come back to New Zealand without having to spend time in managed isolation and quarantine. This is a very welcome development, which the National Party has been calling for, and I’m glad to see the Government has made steps very much in the right direction in this respect.

In terms of the Primary Production Committee, there have been a number of largely practical changes that have been made to this bill through select committee as a result of feedback from stakeholders, which we are supportive of. These changes include delaying the date from commencement of this bill by 12 months, rather than the day after Royal assent. This will enable stakeholders and officials time to prepare and ensure that the implementation of changes is well-thought-through. Detail is being removed from the bill in regard to how biosecurity information is delivered; it is instead recommended that this be included in secondary legislation. Myself and Mr Penk are on the committee, which will, no doubt, have time to consider that in the future—and a great committee it is, if I may say so.

Chris Bishop: Oh, it’s a great committee.

JOSEPH MOONEY: It is. As Mr Bishop, who has experience and has seen how well it works, that he knows it’s a very, very good committee.

Chris Bishop: It’s very well chaired, too.

JOSEPH MOONEY: It is very well chaired, and we’re fortunate to have a fantastic chair for that committee. Now, as biosecurity threats can change rapidly, this will enable future changes to be made flexibly, efficiently, and responsibly. The select committee has recommended a practical change for the bill to require biosecurity information to be provided only to passengers, rather than all people on board, eliminating the need for crew members to hear the same message, which they will, no doubt, be all too cognisant of. Amendments have changed the duty to provide biosecurity information, which will apply only to commercial passenger crafts with 20 or more passengers, excluding private planes, fishing vessels, and cargo ships. These crafts are already highly compliant, and there would be limited value in additional regulations and compliance costs. That is a very sensible amendment, which I am pleased to see. Another practical change in the bill is removing the requirement to provide biosecurity information to passengers within our exclusive economic zone. This level of operational detail is, again, best left to be dealt with through regulations, rather than through primary legislation. That is, again, sensible.

So, in conclusion, this bill is a common-sense way to make sure people entering New Zealand are aware of the biosecurity rules and enhance and increase compliance with them through that awareness. The amendments that are proposed in this bill will support sustainable tourism activity in the future—which tourism operators in my region will be very, very pleased to see—as well as mitigating the devastating impact that biosecurity incursion could cause for our biodiversity and for our agricultural sector, especially as other speakers have alluded to. Biosecurity outbreaks can result in New Zealand losing access to important markets and, with our economic resilience reduced by COVID-19, now is the time we can least afford a biosecurity outbreak in our agricultural sector. In addition, this bill will pull us into line with Australia, which has a similar piece of law already. Finally, the National Party believes this is a low-cost, common-sense measure to enhance our biosecurity system and, as I said, reduce the risk of biosecurity incursion. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote): I’m delighted to be here. This is my second time speaking this year in the House; so may I just say I am very grateful that we are all able to join digitally, even though it is clearly not desirable that we be doing so as a result of a pandemic—another pesky biosecurity risk that hopped aboard the plane of humanity, although not one, unfortunately, that could have been stopped by this excellent bill.

I am deeply and familially involved in some aspects of this bill. I’ve not had the pleasure and privilege of being part of the Primary Production Committee, but, many years ago, it was my grandpa Ian Watt, who wrote some of the original biosecurity rules for New Zealand. He was a Government vet. As a result, we were brought up in fear and trembling at the thought of bringing anything into New Zealand that might risk our precious flora and fauna, because we are so vulnerable, we are so unique. I was reminded today when I was doing some research that the original source of biosecurity contamination in our beautiful country could be called Captain Cook’s Endeavour. Had they only had the benefit of Steph Lewis’ bill, we might now be enjoying the beautiful birds that were heard off Queen Charlotte Sound and were said to be deafening of a morning. We all know what we have lost; we are determined to preserve what we have.

The bill is of particular interest to me at this moment because Whangārei—the beautiful, beautiful city, which I’m quite sure Taranaki must be cheating in some way to claim the sunshine crown—finally, has opened the most beautiful museum Hundertwasser on our waterfront. This has been the product of 30 years of hard effort and passion from my local community, and one of our great hopes is that this will be a source of tourism and tourists when our borders reopen. Now, I would just like to add that every single member of this House and your friends and family would be most welcome to come and experience this extraordinary jewel on our waterfront, but we are hoping that maybe cruise ships might enter our upper harbour and be brought down to the Hundertwasser building. There is no way I want to see those tourists bringing biosecurity contaminates or risks into our country. So I have a certain personal interest in seeing Ms Lewis’ wonderful bill passed tonight.

I was really interested in looking at this bill and the background to just explore a few of the biosecurity risks that we’re actually facing at the moment. I suggest that it is worth a wee trip to the Ministry for Primary Industries’ Government website to have a look at some of the biosecurity threats we have, whether it’s kauri dieback disease or myrtle rust. Now, I’m not saying we could have stopped the spores of myrtle rust coming over our border, but, again, it does underline just the fragility of our biosecurity as opposed to the rest of the world. And I would echo my friend and colleague Glen Bennett’s comment that overseas people, who do not enjoy the protection that we on this island nation enjoy, often do struggle to understand why they can’t bring an apple or a mandarin or a baby bottle full of formula into the country, and there have been a number of times when I’ve had to say to visiting friends, “No, no, please, it may seem a bit overkill, but this is absolutely vital to us. This is our livelihoods, and this is where we live. This is our life. These are our taonga. Keep your apples out, thank you very much.”

There are other issues we have. We have everything from something terrifying called Johnson grass though to velvetleaf. Now, I’m not sure how they hopped aboard, but I do have a few suggestions because I’ve also had a look at the Customs site as to the sort of things that we really need to be warning people not to bring in. Now, I’ve already mentioned the fruit and veges problem. You can have your fruit and veges, tourists, but we really need them to be our fruit and veges, not the imported version. Meat, fish, and poultry—we’ve all seen the border control programme and watched the way in which people just thoughtlessly, or sometimes out of a misguided sense that these are gifts they needed to bring their whānau in New Zealand, have tried to bring in egg products, obviously, hunting trophies, sports gear, bamboo, cane, coconut, and straw. I remember when Thomas and I brought our two-year-old back home from the UK to live, finally, when we’d done our big OE—I remember getting home, unpacking our containers, and discovering that the movers had packed the entire rubbish bin. So I have sometimes wondered and had a reflexive moment of deep and abiding guilt, and I can only think that my grandfather must have been watching over us and made sure that he zapped any nasties in that particular rubbish bin that was brought over.

Further things: we have saddles and bridles, gardening equipment, outdoor furniture—all things, unfortunately, that I in my current state am unable to share in. But, there you go. They’re biosecurity risks and if I can’t enjoy them—because currently I am sitting here with a broken leg—then no one else should either! I have to say it has been slightly difficult to have to engage with the biosecurity bill in my current slightly busted state. When one is unable to scooter across the house without great difficulty, when one cannot drive, one is suddenly somewhat jealous of those who might decide to talk about taking a lovely ocean voyage or possibly coming in from overseas on the plane. It does, I have to say, cause me a certain amount of sadness, but I will overcome that. I will overcome my personal sense of jealousy at my current limitations, which are, thankfully, going to be of short duration, I hope, and I will look toward the future of our people who are going to be crossing the border happily. And I will try to count my blessings and see the wonderfulness that is other people enjoying the travel that they will shortly be able to enjoy because we are, of course, opening our borders because we have done so incredibly well in stamping out that virus that we could not keep out using Ms Lewis’ wonderful bill.

So, as I continue, my goodness, you’re having an interesting evening there, Mr Speaker, clearly. It’s an interesting experience, it has to be said. It’s an interesting experience doing this digitally, hearing the feedback, seeing the faces. I have a few tips for those who are Zooming now. I’ve realised the trick is don’t put it on the view where you can see the speaker because it’s very distracting to have to look at yourself all the time. It’s much more fun to be able to look at the wonderful faces of your colleagues and, of course, to be able to ignore the slight background noises much more than one was usually able to do.

To conclude my speech tonight, I just think that this is a small and perfectly formed bill and one that we deeply needed. I am grateful to the committee who worked so hard; I am grateful to the submitters who helped make it better; I am grateful to Ms Lewis who brought this in to us so that we can just have that added layer of protection. As I sit here in the beautiful Whangārei, inviting you all to come to Hundertwasser, and any overseas people who might be riveted to New Zealand and Parliament TV, please consider booking yourself upon a wonderful cruise ship so that you too can venture into Whangārei and meet Hundertwasser. But you will do so—you will do so, my future international visitors—knowing full well what you can and what you can’t bring in. From the bottom of my heart, Ms Lewis, on behalf of my family and my grandfather, thank you for updating our laws to take better care of all of us. On that happy note, I very much commend this wonderful bill to this wonderful House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Before I call the next speaker, I’ll just remind those people on my left that members’ day has traditionally been the day of great initiative and imagination, and it should remain so.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m coming to you from the mighty Manawatū, and it’s really great to see the neighbours—yourself, Mr Speaker—ascend to that great seat there in Parliament.

So I’m here on behalf of the Greens to support this bill, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This bill would amend the Biosecurity Act to require that passengers on craft arriving in Aotearoa are provided with biosecurity information via writing and audiovisual recording. This would, essentially, mean airline and ship operators would need to show a video and hand out a form advising passengers of their obligations before arriving. This is similar to Australia’s regime, where there are mandatory inflight biosecurity announcements. I actually thought we already had this happen in planes, because it’s been so long since we’ve been on an aeroplane—all I’ve gone, really, in the last year and a bit is from the mighty Manawatū and right down there to Parliament, and back to the “Palmy-tropolis”. And so it was surprising for me when this bill first came out that we actually didn’t have this stuff embedded in our regulations and our law.

So I would like to thank the member Steph Lewis from Whanganui for bringing this bill to the House. I feel that there’s a lot of support for it around the House; I haven’t heard anyone say that they don’t like this bill. So congratulations to the member for shepherding it this far. I’m sure it’s the sort of bill that you’re going to take straight to the pool room—it’s the vibe, it’s the constitution, it’s not quite Mabo, but straight to the pool room for this one, for you, the member. And congratulations in shepherding it through the Primary Production Committee as well.

One of the issues that we had when we were thinking about it was around the way that the information would be shared. And we thought, you know, translation of the different languages for our electronic provision for use for screen, spreading awareness around—it would be a really good way to do that, and I saw that that was discussed in the reports, so good on you. My understanding is that will happen in the regulations, and I hope that that detail really carries over, because it’s really important if people are going to get on those planes, or get on those ships or whatever, to come over here, that they understand the real importance of biosecurity.

For those of us out here in the rurals, out in the provinces, we know that this is where the food and fibre sector is, and that it’s really, really important to support that sector. I was flicking through the reports from the select committee and I saw that a number of submissions were made talking about that exact same thing. They could see the common-sense approach of it, the importance of protecting our food and fibre sector, given the contribution that it makes to the lifeblood and livelihoods of people out here in the rurals, the provinces as well, and making sure that we have those protections in place is really, really important. And also acknowledging the biodiversity that makes this place, Aotearoa, what it is—the unique biodiversity—making sure that we do everything that we can to protect that biodiversity. So I think it’s the reason why people all want to come here: the nature, the mountains, the rivers, the places that we call home. And to make sure that we do this practical step to make sure that those things are protected is really important.

I noted that in the report there were a couple of amendments made, common-sense ones, making sure that it will be specified for the passengers on the planes as well. That makes sense, the last thing you want is a pilot having to read this stuff 10 times if they’ve been here 10 times or 20 times before. The same with the aircrew as well. So congratulations to the select committee for getting into the detail and sort of seeing that kind of issue, and, also, for making sure that there was some space to make sure that when the transition to the new regime comes into place, that there is some space to do it. So delaying the commencement date, I think, also makes sense as well. I was reflecting on I think it was the Air New Zealand submission which talked about that, about the need to be able to do that—if you’re going to bring laws into place, well, you’ve got to make sure that folks can actually pull the bits and pieces in place so that they can comply. That detail, I expect, will fall out of the regulation.

Also, I wanted to acknowledge the Wellington Community Justice Project as well. They did bring up that issue that was really important for us, around making sure that that information was as accessible as possible, because we know that when people have that information—and I could tell through the discussions that you had at select committee so that people know before they get on the plane, what they’re getting into is a really, really important thing.

So this is a really short call, but, once again, I’d just like to congratulate the member on shepherding this through the House, and it looks like it’s got all the support around the House. I hope my comrades there in Kaipara will also support it as well. I think they were a bit iffy the last time we talked in the first reading, but, hopefully, folks will see the common sense on this—particularly on this day, with all the issues happening right out there on the Parliament lawn as well. It’s good to see us coming together to discuss something as simple but also important as well and to show to the country, “Hey, look, when these issues make sense, when they’re common sense, we actually can come together as a Parliament and agree on things.” So congratulations to the member. Yeah, so for me, it’s straight to the pool room. It’s the vibe, it’s the constitution. It’s not quite Mabo, but congratulations to the member. I recommend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the excellent contribution from the Green Party, very much appreciated that. This bill amends the Biosecurity Act 1993 and further protects New Zealand’s natural environment, biosecurity, and primary industry. I commend the member Steph Lewis for such a great bill. I think she’s a great member who advocates strongly for her community, and this bill is a testament to the fact that she’s thinking about those impacts on the primary industry and how we can further strengthen a key backbone of our economy at a time when we need it more than ever.

This bill means that we can require large commercial craft that are en route to New Zealand to provide information to the craft’s passengers about the biosecurity law relevant before they arrive in New Zealand. It’s a barrier to protect us from those things coming in. A really good example is—we’ll remember well the Queensland fruit fly, for example, which came in through Northcote and Devonport: that cost the New Zealand economy $12 million to eradicate. But if travellers are told on the plane not to bring the apple that they’ve put in their bag—to leave it on the plane or to put it into the Ministry for Primary Industries bin that they get at the airport—that reduces the risk of undetected fruit fly or larva hitching a ride into New Zealand. It also prevents the taxpayer from having to shell out to eradicate a pest that can cause significant damage to the New Zealand economy and primary industry. So I’d like to congratulate the member for having the foresight to see that this is a key area that we need to do more about.

There’s two main reasons why the Labour Party supports this bill, why the Government will be supporting this bill. And that, first of all, is the environment. We know that making New Zealand’s biosecurity system more resilient will help protect our taonga. That’s our ngahere, Tāne-mahuta: the forests, the rivers, and the beautiful natural environment that we’ve been gifted. We love to take our children for bush walks. We love to enjoy what we’ve been given in New Zealand, and protecting that and making sure that we nurture it and look after it, as the caretakers we should be, is incredibly important, as New Zealanders, to our identity, to our future, and for the generations to come. We owe it to the kids yet born to make sure we look after the natural environment that we’ve been given. More than 3,000 of our native species are in serious trouble or at risk of extinction, and, in fact, 142 species were at risk in 2008, and three-quarters of our native fish and one-third of plants were threatened with extinction. We have a fight on our hands to keep in place the beautiful natural environment we have now, and it’s a worth a fight, I can tell you.

Unwanted pests and diseases can further endanger native species and upset delicate ecosystems. And we know this for a fact, and we’ve seen it happen with many instances: kauri dieback, Mycoplasma bovis. We’ve seen these instances. We know how damaging they can be, and it’s important that we have a strong service to make sure we protect them. It’s important to note that the Ministry for Primary Industries do an amazing job of making sure this works well. They work incredibly hard to protect our local businesses, to make sure they can keep earning a buck and exporting internationally. I think Mycoplasma bovis is a fantastic example of how New Zealand was one of the first places in the world to eradicate and work hard to make sure that we protect those areas hard.

It’s also important not just for our natural environment but also for our economy. New Zealand’s economy depends very heavily on our primary industries, and this means we need to run a tight biosecurity system. Farmers and growers have been at the forefront of New Zealand’s export-led economic recovery, and, over the past two years, we’ve seen this continue to do well, despite the global economic conditions that we find ourselves in under COVID. Aotearoa New Zealand is largely free of many of the pests and diseases that we see in many other countries—Australia, next door. This gives us a unique comparative and economic advantage to other countries that we are trading against. New pests and diseases can undermine the advantage that we hold right now on the global stage, and so it’s more important than ever that we maintain this and keep working at it. These can have consequences both across regional and national economies, and that’s local jobs, local businesses, and local farmers. Unwanted pests and diseases can weaken New Zealand’s earning potential and introduce new costs, including by reducing the health and the productivity of commercial animals and New Zealand’s access to export markets.

We work hard, as well, as a Government, to make sure we continue to have access to those export markets. An example recently is the new trade agreement with the UK, which we are setting in place. It will provide new opportunities for our primary industry. Incredibly proud, as part of this Government, to promote new trade agreements that provide great opportunities for local growers and producers to continue providing their products at top standard into those markets overseas.

It’s also important to note that unwanted pests and diseases can also require costly controls, and these fall back to the business owner. The impact of bacterial kiwifruit vine disease Psa on the kiwifruit industry, highlighted the extreme difficulty we face in our growing industry when you’re having to fight back on that basis. Horticulture New Zealand has spoken up and said that they are thrilled to see this bill drawn from the ballot. New Zealand’s top-performing horticulture and other primary industries could be easily destroyed, particularly if a virulent pest or disease entered the country, and this could potentially have catastrophic effects on our exports and New Zealand economy at a time when things are already fragile.

It’s important to note that there is a growing risk. While we have a huge advantage of being an island nation and being able to have tight borders, that we’ve used, it’s also important to note that the size of New Zealand’s biosecurity security challenge has been increasing. I’ve already noted the example of Queensland fruit fly. It’s important that we continue to make sure we have tight controls, that we make sure we look after our primary producers, and that we maintain the ability for primary production to continue to thrive, as we do.

Thank you to the Primary Production Committee. They’ve made a phenomenal amount of changes, when we go through what’s been happening at the select committee process. I’ve never seen so many changes come through. A really important one and a practical one that the select committee have agreed to is to change the commencement date. So, initially, the bill had that it would come into effect as soon as the bill was passed. But the committee has recommended that instead of it coming into force on the date specified, it would come into force by Order in Council or by 12 months after the bill receives its Royal assent, which gives time to prepare, time for the right preparations to be in place for this to come into effect in the best practical way possible.

The other changes, I’m not going to go through them in detail. I wasn’t a member on the committee, but I acknowledge that they’ve also provided for a general duty to provide biosecurity information. They’ve also moved detail duties from primary legislation into secondary legislation. In addition to that, the powers of the director-general have been changed and a new provision in that space for “the Director-General of the ministry to approve written and audiovisual biosecurity information shown to passengers, and [to] notify it in the Gazette. It is our view that this is an administrative matter, which does not need to be set out in primary legislation. We consider that … the Director-General’s powers should be set out in regulations.” In addition to this, changing the duty to provide information to passengers rather than all on board provides greater clarity as well, and also applying the duty to provide biosecurity information to commercial craft.

It’s really great to see that we have some really hard-working local members of Parliament who are out in those rural areas, who are well connected into people, working hard on a day-to-day basis, who understand the types of challenges that come to primary production and those business people who have to fight to be able to earn a crust each day. Making small changes like this, piece by piece, shows the commitment that this Government has to backing the backbone of our economy, which is primary production in many ways. We are committed to continuing to promote free-trade agreements with the UK, to provide new markets that no other Government has previously provided, like into the UK. We continue to strive to give working New Zealanders a fair go and an open market to be able to sell top-quality products that we are proud of. I commend Steph Lewis for an awesome bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The previous member, Ginny Andersen’s speech was actually very enlightening until the last minute, when I totally got lost when she was affirming how well the Government’s done on behalf of the rural sector. I’m quite happy to stand on behalf of the ACT Party to address the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill in the name of Steph Lewis.

I actually know intimately well the importance of biosecurity. I had M. bovis on farm, and I think most of you are acutely aware of it. It was pretty much the most heartbreaking part of my farming career—I’ve been farming for 30 years, which I often share with this House—and it was the hardest 18 months of my farming life. It absolutely devastated me, the local community, and I think we would share in the concern of what M. bovis has meant to the country. It’s a billion dollars; it’s an absolute rort on my small community, and all of the 50-odd farms that were involved in it.

But, I think, more importantly, biosecurity and what it means to New Zealand—we’ve seen many, many incursions, and I know the members on both sides of the House would be aware of it. We’ve seen the velvetleaf in Nelson as far back as 2008, and what that meant for the good people down in that part of the country. Foot-and-mouth: I’m not even going to postulate what that would cost to this country. I think anyone worth their salt would be acutely aware that if that was to get into New Zealand, we’re looking at billions of dollars to the loss of our GDP. We’ve already seen myrtle rust and kauri dieback and the degradation of biodiversity.

But, specifically, if I can actually speak to a couple of the key points of this legislation, in the member—this name, Steph Lewis. And I do support the bill, and the ACT Party does, and we’ve changed our position because the Primary Production Committee resolved to reconcile its differences and find a way to proceed forward with it. In its original format, the bill as proposed would come into effect on the day of Royal assent, and that was a concern because it didn’t give industry and the necessary stakeholders the time to make the necessary adjustments to the new legislation should it be enabled. It was agreed that suggestions upon adopting alternative will allow the bill to come into effect either by Order in Council or 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, and I think this was a fundamental concern for us in the select committee.

Stakeholders gave very good feedback. And I noticed the member—my dear friend and colleague in the National Party Barbara Kuriger—that mentioned that Air New Zealand was cognisant of the fact that it would actually help them mitigate their greenhouse emissions and help with climate change insomuch as they didn’t have this onerous task of carrying around huge amounts of paper. And the technologies could be embraced, that would be enabled, say, through the Air New Zealand app. This is wonderful.

Proposed subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) would also create duty, which was noted in the changes of legislation, on the person in charge of the craft to provide biosecurity information. As worded, it was found to be quite onerous and overly detailed. Provisions were made to amend that clause, and a proposed new section—17AA, (2)(a), and (2)(b). In addition, it would stipulate that before craft arrived in New Zealand, a person in charge of that craft must provide biosecurity information to passengers as set out in the regulations. The wording was changed to “passengers”, rather than “all people on board”, and I think that was a distinction that the select committee ironed out, having listened to stakeholders and industry leaders.

Amendments were suggested that were made to address several concerns. The term “crafts”—and I think this was well-canvased in the select committee and has been again this evening. It ironed out the kinks, I think is the best way to put it, when it spoke of large commercial craft. And there was some concern early on that the bill in its first iteration encapsulated anything from small aircraft, boats that perhaps would have come out of the islands, and small private planes.

So I think, and the ACT Party certainly thinks, this bill has gone through its first reading, it has gone through quite a rigorous select committee process, and ironed out what I think, and we think at the ACT Party, were the concerning pieces of it. And I stand here quite content on behalf of the ACT Party to see this bill proceed further, and we can certainly debate it and see what other things need to be addressed. Thank you very much.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And may I begin by congratulating you on your appointment today. As we’ve enjoyed very collegial relations on the Governance and Administration Committee, I look forward to your careful and thoughtful and wise presiding over the House. So congratulations to you, Mr Speaker.

This is my first opportunity to take a call in the virtual House, from my home town of Nelson. It is certainly an interesting experience, giving a speech into Parliament from our second bedroom. But from sunny Nelson—and we’re looking forward to taking that crown back from other members who’ve bragged about that today, including my dear friend Glen Bennett. We’re looking forward, here in Nelson, to taking back our crown next year.

So, look, it’s a real pleasure to take a call on this bill from my colleague and friend and bench mate Steph Lewis, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. I’d like to congratulate Steph on her bill, and on getting it through to this stage. I’d just begin my speech by acknowledging the ACT Party and the previous speaker, Mark Cameron, and acknowledge for you how difficult it would have been having M. bovis on farm.

These issues of biosecurity are ones that actually affect all New Zealanders, and all New Zealanders care about them. For me, I’ve been advised by the whips I’m not allowed to use a prop in the virtual House, unfortunately, but I thought I’d share my own experiences of engaging with biosecurity. I’m known to be quite over the top about biosecurity when I come back into New Zealand. My very first trip overseas, when I was 16 years old, I went to the United States with my mother and some others on a choir trip. When we were at Disneyland, of all places, we went into a little shop, and I ended up purchasing a rain stick, which for those of you who know, is a musical instrument that comes from some parts of the world, including—it’s often used in South America. So I do have a rain stick here and in the virtual House but I’m not allowed to demonstrate it, unfortunately. But when we went back into Auckland International Airport, by this point, being 16, I’d run out of money and had to declare the rain stick going through biosecurity because it has seeds through it and cactus pieces inside it as well to help the seeds make the rain sound that it does. So I had to declare this, and it was sent away for heat treatment. I think it ended up costing about three or four times as much as the actual rain stick cost in the first place. Of course, because I’d run out of money, my mother had to pay for it. At around two weeks later, it was couriered back to me in my then hometown of Palmerston North. That was my first experience of New Zealand’s biosecurity system.

But, I must say, having had the privilege of being able to travel since then, a lot, every time I’ve come back into New Zealand, I’ve seen the signs at the airport, and I’ve taken them very, very seriously. In fact, I’ve often declared things I didn’t need to declare, and even been told off by the biosecurity officers for declaring something I didn’t need to declare. But for me, it’s partly my personality, but partly, I think, as a New Zealander. I think all of us feel this way. We are incredibly passionate about both our environment, in terms of protecting it, but we’re also incredibly passionate about the economic contribution of the industries that rely on not having biosecurity incursions.

So, many of us tonight have spoken about the impacts on our own livelihoods, on our own regions. For me, in Nelson, obviously, we have a huge reliance on our horticulture industry. Just to name a few of them—it’s a pity I’m not sitting in the House with my friend Anna Lorck, because we could probably have an argument about who had the best pipfruit—we have a range of horticultural industries that are very prominent in Nelson, one of which is hops. We’ve been growing hops since 1842, and we’re proud to have some well-established companies, such as Sprig and Fern, McCashin’s, Founders Brewery, and other craft breweries in the Nelson-Tasman region, rely on our hops. We have, in my view, the best berries in New Zealand—amazing boysenberries. I’m sure my colleague Damien O’Connor would support me in that view. And we grow amazing apples, and, actually, amazing cider is produced from Nelson. Berry cider is something that we’re incredibly proud of. All of these industries rely on the goodwill of people coming across the border and not bringing bugs or diseases that can impact on those industries.

We know there is a range of things that we need to do to protect these industries, but this is one more tool in the tool box. Thanks to my colleague Steph Lewis for bringing this bill to the House, because it is another tool in the tool box. For those of us who’ve been at the border, coming through the likes of an international airport and seeing people being pulled aside for not declaring something or for trying to bring something in that they shouldn’t—I’m sure people who’ve witnessed that, like I have, actually feel quite angry when they see it. We have a duty to ensure that people coming into New Zealand are given good information to understand why it’s so important for us. We are not a landlocked country—we’re surrounded by water—and so we have an opportunity to put these strict measures in place to ensure that we can protect these industries and the industries that rely on not having pests and diseases come across the border. So anything that we can do to add a tool to the tool box will be incredibly important to protect this industry going forward.

My point I just want to note, as well, is that this isn’t just for craft coming into airports. For those of us who come from port cities, the practices coming into our ports are also just as important. I note that the Primary Production Committee made a couple of changes, one which was a really practical and pragmatic change, which was to take away the reference to all people on a ship and to refer only to passengers—over 20 people—on a ship. I would note that in my electorate of Nelson, we regularly have cruise ships come into the port of Nelson. It’s an important part of our tourism industry that at some point in the future we’re looking forward to bringing back into our region. But it’s important that people on cruise ships coming into New Zealand are given this information, as well, just like passengers on an airplane. I just note that for those of us who might not have international airports, but do have international ports. It’s just as important that we have strong biosecurity measures at our ports, just as it is at airports.

The other practical change that was a sensible change that has already been referenced tonight that came through select committee was to put the form of information that is used in the provision of information into secondary legislation, as opposed to being in primary legislation. As things change, as we move to more uses of digital technology, this is a practical change from the select committee that I agree with so that we don’t burden the primary legislation and make it need to be changed unnecessarily when we can put something into secondary legislation. It’s a very good thing to do.

Just to sum up, this bill adds another tool into our tool box of protections for our border. It amends the Biosecurity Act so that all crafts with passengers of over 20 people are required to provide information to passengers on what they can and can’t bring into New Zealand. That does two things: it protects our environment, protects our natural forests and our fauna and our animals, and it also goes to protect our industries, like agriculture and like horticulture. So I want to commend my colleague Steph Lewis for what is a practical bill that is supported from all sides of the House, because, as New Zealanders, regardless of our political persuasion, we all know the benefit of the environment and how important our agriculture and horticulture sectors are to our economy. It’s exciting to see this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Your time’s done, Rachel. I call Nicola Grigg for five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I do feel like I’ve got the graveyard call on the graveyard shift, and everybody’s stolen all my good lines, so I will definitely try and keep this brief for the House’s sake, and all the good people that are in it.

In a world where we have become so much more aware of the impact that the spread of disease has on our communities and on our society, and most specifically on our economy, I think the protection of New Zealand’s biosecurity is probably more important than it has ever been. I think we’d all agree that that is why every possible effort should be made to bolster any protection we can against possible incursions. In the bill notes, it says that this bill creates a simple but effective mechanism to enhance our biosecurity system. We on this side of the House like simple but effective mechanisms, rather than highfalutin waffle. It is very timely, though, to have a bill like this in front of the House. It amends, as has been canvassed, the Biosecurity Act to require all craft coming into New Zealand to provide biosecurity information to those on board. And as we look forward with great anticipation to our borders re-opening and, hopefully, the influx of international aircraft and international cruise ships and shipping lines, there will, of course, be a heightened risk that comes with that. So it is an insurance policy of sorts.

We do know that this economy is fuelled by our world-class primary export sector and our reputation out there in those global markets for being largely pest- and disease-free. It doesn’t come cheap. A lot of hard work has been put in to our economy and our society over decades to try and keep us as clean, green, and pest- and incursion-free as possible. We do already have those strong biosecurity measures in law and in practice, thanks to the Ministry for Primary Industries and Customs and all of those front-line staff who must be acknowledged for the very hard work they do—they’ve probably had their feet up a little bit more recently, with slightly less to do, but I’m sure they too will be anticipating that large influx of foreign travellers.

We are lucky, for the most part, for our remoteness. What we’ve often referred to as the tyranny of distance has actually served us well to a degree in the past in our defence against biosecurity breaches. But as, I think, a previous speaker mentioned, it does just take one passenger with an apple in their backpack—or a nectarine, I think Chris Bishop mentioned—for the risk of severe damage being done to our international reputation.

For those of us who hail from the primary production sector, it’s a very, very real threat that we face all the time. We don’t have to cast our minds back very far to the devastating impact that that Psa incursion had on growers around the country—I think about $800 million in damage and lost revenue. Then, as Mark Cameron of the ACT Party referred to, the Mycoplasma bovis incursion has been devastating for rural communities around New Zealand, and I would also acknowledge those farmers around Canterbury that have had to suffer from this terrible disease. But then, of course, we’ve also had myrtle rust, and we do always live in fear, as, again, Mark Cameron—I told you everyone else had stolen my good lines—mentioned that we do all live in fear of the threat of diseases like foot-and-mouth disease and, probably, mad cow disease as well.

But coming back to this bill, it has been seen by most of the industry—specifically Horticulture New Zealand and Federated Farmers—as a sensible and beneficial extension of extending the biosecurity measures at our borders. There were a couple of minor updates suggested, including the requirement to translate biosecurity information into multiple languages and the ability for airlines to be able to produce their own video. Don’t we all love a good inflight video? I would have to say I have noticed a decline in the standards with the departure of the previous CEO of Air New Zealand, but we’re very happy to have him here in this House.

But other than those changes, the bill seeks to make some very sensible changes to existing law, which can only be a good thing. I am also happy to commend this bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Can I first also start by congratulating you, as your neighbour for the Ōtaki electorate and you being Rangitīkei, on your elevation during this week and what a great job you’ve been doing, Mr Speaker.

Just a thankyou for another opportunity to take what will be a really quick call in the House tonight. First, can I start by congratulating my friend and my colleague, the member of Parliament for Whangārei—sorry, Whanganui. She’s going to kill me for that one! Whanganui—sorry Em. Congratulations Stephanie Lewis on bringing this Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill to the House and also acknowledging both the member, the select committee, and the officials on the changes that they made to this bill to ensure that it is the best piece of legislation or bill that we can make it.

Can I also just say that it’s great to have peace of mind for our environmental warriors in the Ōtaki electorate, as well as our food and fibre farmers, including Woodhaven Gardens and Lewis Farms in the Ōtaki electorate. I know this bill will give them peace of mind, knowing that they can be affected by those diseases and insects that slip through and can devastate our horticulture industries but also papatuanuku and our whenua, in terms of our climate space. We want to make sure that people still know us as a great place to visit, that we have our beautiful native plants, our beautiful biodiversity, we want to ensure that that continues to happen. We want to ensure our farmers have peace of mind that nothing will come in and wreck their crops. So for that, this is a great bill and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): This debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.