Thursday, 31 March 2022

THURSDAY, 31 MARCH 2022

THURSDAY, 31 MARCH 2022

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, the second reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill, and the third readings of Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill and the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. Wednesday, 6 April will be a members’ day.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the acting Leader of the House for the update. A couple of questions: can he advise the House whether those Ministers participating in the annual review debate who are not needing to isolate due to COVID will be physically present in the House for the debate, and, secondly, can he advise whether or not the Government will be seeking to shorten the report-back date of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, or will it go through a full select committee process?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): In respect of the first question asked by the member, it’s always the case that the Government works to ensure that Ministers are available for that purpose. That will, of course, depend on the particular circumstances of that Minister, but I’d ask that if there are any particular queries or concerns about that, the member and the shadow Leader of the House get in touch, and we’ll be happy to try and facilitate that as much as we can. In respect of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, we’ve clearly signalled that we expect there to be a standard select committee process for that important piece of legislation.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that update, and just ask if he’s had any updates on the Organic Products Bill, which we asked about last week, and I think he said he was going to get further advice about the progress of that into the House, given that it came out of the committee stage over a year ago now.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): The additional advice is still digesting there, but I’m sure that we’ll be able to get good information to the member as soon as it has, and I will endeavour to get some clarity for him as soon as possible.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Gerard Rushton requesting that the House urge the Government to expand access to meningococcal vaccine and provide free vaccine for all preventable forms of meningococcal disease to all students in year 11 or at 16 years of age before they leave school to work, study, or pursue other activities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Worksafe, revised statement of intent 2020-22 to 2024-25

Activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2021.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Inquiry into the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. There are a number of them.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science, and Innovation Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews of:

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

AgResearch Ltd

Callaghan Innovation

Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd

Institution of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd

Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd

Crown Infrastructure Partners Ltd

Crown Regional Holdings Ltd

Air New Zealand Growth Capital Partners

Kordia Group Ltd

Commerce Commission

Electricity Authority

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

External Reporting Board

Real Estate Agents Authority

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd

New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd, and

Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the:

Border Executive Board

the earthquake sector and the

finance sector

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews of the:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

New Zealand Antarctic Institute

New Zealand Customs Service

Ministry of Defence, and

the New Zealand Defence Force

reports of the Health Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews of the:

Auckland District Health Board

Canterbury District Health Board,

Capital and Coast District Health Board

Hutt Valley District Health Board,

the Health and Disability Commissioner

the Health Quality and Safety Commission New Zealand

the Health Promotion Agency

Mid-Central District Health Board

Northland District Health Board

Tairāwhiti District Health Board

Pharmaceutical Management Agency

Southern District Health Board

Taranaki District Health Board

Waikato District Health Board, and

Waitematā District Health Board

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

COVID-19 Response (Court Safety) Legislation Bill

the annual reviews of the:

Human Rights Commission

Electoral Commission

IPCA

Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Law Commission

Privacy Commissioner

the 2020/21 annual reviews of the:

Crown Law Office

PCO, and

Public Trust

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:

2020/21 annual review of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori

annual review of Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, and the

annual review of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori

report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2020/21 annual review of the primary sector

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2020/21 annual review of the:

social housing sector

Sport and Recreation New Zealand

broadcasting sector, and

families and children sector.

Obituaries

Sir Wira Gardiner

Dame June Jackson

Dr Moana Jackson

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Point of order. Tēnā koe e te Pika. Tēnā koutou. I seek leave to move a motion, without notice and without debate, acknowledging the recent mate [death] of Sir Wira Gardiner, Dame June Jackson, and Dr Moana Jackson. I have provided a motion text, and would be grateful for the support of all parties.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Kia ora. I move, That that this House acknowledges the recent mate of rangatira Sir Wira Gardiner, Dame June Jackson, and Dr Moana Jackson; extends our aroha to their whānau, hapū and iwi; and celebrates their extraordinary contributions to Te Ao Māori, Aotearoa, and the world.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Climate Change

1. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yes, in the context in which they were made. In particular, I stand by the decision taken in 2019 to work with the agricultural sector on a plan to reduce agricultural emissions. Since then, the He Waka Eka Noa partnership has been engaging widely with the farming community, and the Government supports this work. In fact, I also stand by the decision to grant the partnership an additional month to conduct appropriate consultation with farmers ahead of delivering their advice to Ministers at the end of May. During that time, and including this very morning, Ministers have engaged regularly and constructively with the partnership leads, who represent the vast majority of the New Zealand agricultural sector, including Apiculture New Zealand, Beef + Lamb, DairyNZ, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Deer Industry New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the Federation of Māori Authorities, Fonterra, the Foundation for Arable Research, Horticulture New Zealand, Irrigation New Zealand, and the Meat Industry Association. I note that Groundswell NZ have to date and very recently refused to engage with the Government as part of that leadership collective. The agricultural sector has a critical role to play in our bid—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has well and truly addressed the question.

Mark Cameron: Does he continue to stand by his position, which he affirmed in the House on 10 March 2022, that farmers have the tools necessary to offset emissions, and, if so, to what tools was he referring?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think that the member needs to have more faith in the farming community of New Zealand. There are farms all over the country that have introduced a variety of technological and practice changes to reduce their emissions by more than 10 percent and increase their profitability at the same time. I think that he needs to look no further than research that was done by the biological emissions research group that was set up under the previous National Government, and a series of industry research papers and experiments done on farms all over the country.

Mark Cameron: Sorry, they’re not commercially available—anyway. Does he accept that if Kiwi farmers don’t have access to adequate methane mitigation technologies, they may be forced to reduce stock numbers to decrease emissions?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I accept what I’ve seen from the science so far, which is that there are farms all over the country that have reduced their methane emissions and increased their profitability by changing their business models, and I think what we need to focus on here is the profitability of farms, particularly for those farms that are particularly struggling with increased debt as a result of overleveraging in the last decade.

Mark Cameron: Does he agree with the Hon Damien O’Connor’s response in select committee on 10 February 2022: “I don’t think there needs to be.”, when he asked if we need a reduction in the national herd size?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes.

Mark Cameron: Would it be fair to push farmers into an emissions pricing scheme when they don’t have the tools to reduce emissions without reducing stock numbers?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I think that the member needs to have more faith in the New Zealand farming community and in the agricultural businesses that are conducting research and have been conducting research over the course of the last decade. This Government has spent something like $200 million over the course of the last 10 to 12 years—started by the previous National Government and continued by the current Government—into reducing agricultural emissions. It’s quite clear that the New Zealand agricultural sector, as I said, including Apiculture New Zealand, Beef + Lamb, DairyNZ, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Deer Industry New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the Federation of Māori Authorities, Fonterra, the Foundation for Arable Research, Horticulture New Zealand, Irrigation New Zealand, and the Meat Industry Association, have got with the programme, and I think that that member should too.

Mark Cameron: Is the Minister concerned if the methodology that he’s used currently in the consultation process between the emissions trading scheme and He Waka Eka Noa is not done in a fair and honest fashion, this will drive up the food prices of staples such as milk and meat?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I’m sort of reserving my judgment until we receive the final recommendations of the partnership at the end of May, and we’ll be conducting analysis after that.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government is “making sure that we do support those on low and middle incomes, who are the most affected by rising prices”; if so, what level of income does he consider qualifies as “middle income”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by that statement. The Government recognises that many New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis due to global factors, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This has particularly impacted on fuel prices, which is why the Government moved swiftly to ease that pressure by cutting fuel excise duty. It’s also why we’re supporting New Zealanders by delivering income increases for many families, superannuitants, and those on Government support, from tomorrow. In answer to the second part of the question, the definition of “middle income” does depend on each household’s particular circumstances. One thing we do know is that more than half of taxpayers earn less than $48,000. What I can say in terms of the definition is that it doesn’t cover those who earn over $180,000, who the member wants to give thousands of dollars of tax cuts to.

Nicola Willis: Well, is he aware that, according to Stats New Zealand, the average household income is $110,000, and can he explain why these middle income families will not get a single dollar out of his so-called “income package”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Stats New Zealand numbers, depending on the day or depending on the month that is used—the household labour force survey ones for June 2021 have a median earning level of $56,000, and a mean earning level of $67,000. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, as we have said many times in this House, our focus in the 1 April package is on those on low and middle incomes who deserve a boost from the Government, denied for many years by National Governments.

Nicola Willis: When will the Minister give relief to the squeezed middle, who don’t qualify for Government entitlements but who are slipping backwards each week as they contend with the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member may not have noticed, but several weeks ago the Government removed 25c of fuel excise duty—

Nicola Willis: Oh, that’s all they get.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well it is, in fact, for the member, because it’s delivering—for those who actually fill up their tank once a week—somewhere between $10 and $15 a week, which is a great deal more than what a lot of people would get from the member’s tax package.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that an average household deserves no relief other than a reduction in the petrol tax he increased to begin with?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s my position that all New Zealand households deserve a Government that properly funds health, that properly funds education, that properly funds housing, and that makes sure that it gets the balance right in supporting low and middle income families. There have been no easy decisions for the Government through the COVID period, but I believe we’ve got the balance about right.

Nicola Willis: Why won’t he inflation-adjust tax thresholds so that an average income family could look forward to a $1,600 income boost this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have covered many times in this House, the member can’t have it all ways. It’s not possible to cut taxes, cut debt, and increase spending, and her leader just this week has said, “Yes, I want to see benefits increase. Yes, I want to see mental health spending increase.” You can’t have it all three of those ways.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What advice has he received on rent controls, taking into account that one in four renters, compared to one in nine homeowners, spend more than 40 percent of their income on housing costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Minister of Finance, I haven’t received any recent advice on rent controls. I know that those questions have been put in the past to the Minister of Housing and others, and I would direct the member to them.

Nicola Willis: Is the $20 a week increase for Working for Families more or less than the increase in the cost of living for the average household?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That will depend on what the average household is facing. What I do know is the 60 percent of New Zealand families who will be getting that family tax credit increase will be very pleased to receive that kind of support and possibly interested to know that the National Party voted against it.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can the Minister confirm that $20 a week is more than $2.15 a week that families earning $48,000 would get under the Opposition’s package?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m pretty sure that’s not in order.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that the $21 a week increase for Working for Families is less than the around $70 a week increase forecast in the cost of living for an average household on $60,000 with two children; and isn’t it the case that under this Government, all New Zealand families are facing a cost of living crisis that’s set to get worse?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the member’s question, we are aware—very well aware—on this side of the House that the factors that are driving cost of living increases, such as supply chain constraints, such as the war in Ukraine, such as the ongoing impact of COVID-19, are having an impact on households, and we as a Government have an obligation to look after those who are affected the most. We also have an obligation to invest properly in our health system, to make sure that we address the inequities in our health system, to make sure that we have proper schools, that we build housing, that we look after mental health. None of those things would be possible if the member carries through with her tax cut policy that would favour those on the highest incomes.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What evidence has she seen that consumers are benefiting as a result of the Government’s action to cut fuel excise by 25 cents a litre?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’m pleased to say the Government’s announcement to cut fuel excise by 25c per litre led to fuel prices across New Zealand falling. A little over an hour after the announcement, prices at the pump started falling and they continue to fall. For example, last week in Hastings the lowest price of regular 91 was 57c per litre less than on the day before the cut to the fuel excise duty being announced. That’s not all. In Hamilton the lowest price of regular 91 was 53c lower, in Greymouth it was 40c per litre lower, in Christchurch it was 39c per litre lower. All these figures show our reduction in excise is already making a big difference to the price consumers pay at the pump across the country.

Rachel Brooking: How will the Government ensure consumers are receiving the full benefit of the cut in fuel excise?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yesterday, new information disclosure regulations that will require fuel industry participants to disclose information relating to their wholesale and retail fuel margins were signed off by the Governor-General. These regulations will come into effect tomorrow, 1 April. The regulations will monitor whether the reduction to petrol excise duty is being passed through to consumers. People will be able to see if they are getting a fair deal on fuel at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website. The transparency will enable consumers to make informed choices about where they buy their fuel.

Rachel Brooking: How long has the Government been working on ensuring there are fairer prices at the pump?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government passed legislation in 2020 in response to a market study we commissioned that found there was a lack of competition in the industry. This demanded more transparent pricing at the wholesale level and on forecourts so motorists can clearly see what the pricing is. The information disclosure regime coming into effect tomorrow is only possible as a result of a work programme of action by this Government.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statements and actions around the July 2020 measles catch-up campaign that was paused 8 months later in March 2021?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the measles catch-up campaign cost more than $20 million but only managed to vaccinate 3 percent of the target group, representing a cost of $1,900 per person?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. The member is applying fictitious maths, which is, of course, the stock in trade for the National Party these days. The reality is that the campaign has not concluded and the campaign will continue. It is planned to continue until at least the end of June this year and possibly will be extended.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he also confirm that nearly $2 million was spent on a public relations agency to target Māori and Pacific people, yet only 1,181 Māori were ever vaccinated, representing a PR cost of $1,500 per person?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. The member’s figures are completely wrong, which is, again, his track record, because he repeatedly now has to withdraw figures he puts in the public arena. The reality is there was a communications campaign associated with the catch-up MMR campaign. The House needs to recall, of course, that in 2014 the Government of the day received advice that there was a gap in vaccination coverage for this area. They received advice again in 2017. On both occasions that Government did absolutely nothing about it. This Government embarked on a campaign. It was planned in 2020, well before the advent of COVID, but COVID interrupted at the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021, depending on how you look at it, and like so many things, it disrupted the planned health programme at that point.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that more was spent on PR than was spent funding the entire Māori delivery component of the campaign, and doesn’t this show he actually cared more about PR spin than vaccinating Māori for measles?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, and, again, that member is wrong, because he acts as if the campaign is over. The campaign has not finished. The reality is this Government has had to make decisions in the real world, in real time, and things come along and disrupt that. This Government makes hard choices and hard decisions, unlike members on that side of the House, who have just become a pack of nit-picking niggly nattering nabobs of negativity.

Dr Shane Reti: Isn’t a $20 million measles catch-up campaign that lets $8 million of the vaccines expire, spends nearly $2 million on PR, and only reaches 3 percent of the target audience another example of why people shouldn’t believe any health announcements that he makes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I think what New Zealanders should feel an absolute sense of disgrace about is that the members opposite, when they were in Government, twice were notified that there was a gap in vaccination and did absolutely nothing about it. This Government did the responsible thing to put in place a programme to catch up on this very important vaccination.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I allow the supplementary, that was a barrage of interjections, OK? We need to—

Matt Doocey: Yeah, well, it’s his fault. He started it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Doocey, no. We need to dial it back, OK?

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that the $8 million he wasted on expired measles vaccines or the nearly $2 million spent on PR would have been better spent helping to clear the backlog of 50,000 women currently waiting for cancer screening mammograms?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I remind that member that the backlog he talks about today is a consequence of the COVID pandemic that started in February 2021, which was not known about in the earlier part of 2020, when the MMR vaccination catch-up campaign was arranged. That catch-up campaign would not have been necessary if the previous Government had listened to the advice that they got in 2014 and in 2017. But once again we have the party on the Opposition benches who is the party of anti - quality public health services, compared to this Government, which invests in quality public health services.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with Fairer Future that incomes of some beneficiaries are up to $300 behind the actual cost of living for families, and that further increases are needed so that the 1 April changes do not lock whānau into poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Every individual and whānau is different, with different costs, locations, and incomes. While this Government has lifted incomes substantially, and lifted 66,500 children out of poverty, we know there are still children living in poverty and there are families doing it tough. The benefit increases that come into full effect tomorrow are forecast to lift an additional 33,000 children out of poverty on the after-housing cost measure for the 2022-23 year. We cannot lift people out of poverty by just lifting incomes, which is why the Government is taking a broad approach. Alongside lifting incomes, we’ve put more free lunches in schools, provided more free doctors visits, started an ambitious social housing build, cut school fees, and begun health and disability reforms. The half-price public transport fares coming into force tomorrow will also make a big difference. We’ve always said there is more to do. Our review of Working for Families and childcare assistance will be another step on this journey.

Ricardo Menéndez March: When the Minister says, “there is more work to do”, how long will families have to wait to be able to meet their cost of living with their baseline benefit alone and free their tamariki from poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve been very clear from the time that we’ve taken office that families shouldn’t have to wait. That’s why, when we first got in, in that first hundred days, we invested $5.5 billion into the families package. That’s why, following that, we made other changes including the repeal of two sanctions that now will see more money in the pockets of particularly women. We’ve lifted benefits. We’ve lifted abatement thresholds. We’ve increased Working for Families. There’s a range of things that we have done, but there certainly is more to do.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she guarantee that all families receiving a core benefit will be at least $55 better off after the 1 April benefit increases, and, if not, how much on average will families actually get?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The modelling that we got at the beginning when we announced the benefit increases in the Budget last year was that families overall, with regards to the benefit increases, would be better off by between $32 and $55 per week.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement in February 2020 that “This is also the first of four years that income abatement thresholds will be increased in line with movement in the minimum wage”, and, if so, why isn’t she adjusting abatement rates this year to reflect increases to the minimum wage?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a review of Working for Families that we are undertaking, and, also, I do think something that does need to be considered is the indexing of abatement thresholds to minimum wage. It’s something that we haven’t got to yet.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she acknowledge that when benefits are increased without subsequent adjustments to abatement levels, families who are likely to experience claw-back, which may result in an overall net decrease in assistance, are not receiving the full amount of the benefit promised?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s very fair to say that the welfare system is incredibly complicated. That’s why there are other reviews that need to be undertaken, including a review of the accommodation supplement, childcare assistance, and, as I said, Working for Families. Those interactions are very complicated and result in different outcomes for different families. We’re certainly committed to looking at those interactions. That work has started, but there’s more to do.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she started the work to fix the abatement rate thresholds, so that people can receive the full benefit increases, and, if so, when does she expect to finish that work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Just to be clear, the abatement thresholds that the member is talking about is the amount that you can work before you start to lose benefit. We haven’t indexed them yet. That is work that needs to be considered down the track. We certainly haven’t started that.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How will New Zealanders benefit from the 1 April changes to benefits and payments that come into effect tomorrow?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): From tomorrow, more than 1.4 million New Zealanders will see more money in their pockets from boosts to main benefits, superannuation, Working for Families, the minimum wage, and student allowance, but the benefits to New Zealanders go beyond just a lift in financial support. These historic lifts to main benefits in July 2021 and April 2022 will see up to 33,000 children lifted out of poverty on the after-housing cost measure for the 2022-23 year, compared to the projected number for the same year without the Budget 2021 increases. As a Government, we are committed to improving income adequacy, and tomorrow’s changes are another step in the right direction. While we have delivered the biggest lift in incomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable in decades, we know there is more to do.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other initiatives come into effect on 1 April, which will help New Zealanders?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In addition to main benefit increases, childcare assistance income thresholds will also begin to increase annually in line with net average wage growth. This is the first time these income thresholds have been adjusted in 12 years when that was stopped by the previous Government in 2010. Orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit will also increase by between 12 and 26 percent per week. In addition to this, this Government is reducing the tax on fuel and halving costs for public transport, initiatives which will help all New Zealanders by reducing the costs of transport for themselves and the goods and services provided by businesses.

Hon Louise Upston: Will there be fewer children growing up in benefit-dependent homes as a result of the 1 April changes; and if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our priority is making sure that we reduce the number of children living in poverty, and so that is why the increases to benefits tomorrow and also the increases to the family tax credit are going to make a significant difference to a large number of New Zealanders’ lives.

Angie Warren-Clark: Will there be any more support provided to superannuitants and beneficiaries?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. In a month’s time, superannuitants and beneficiaries will receive the winter energy payment. This payment was introduced by the Government in 2018 and helps over a million New Zealanders every year meet the cost of heating and power during the winter months. Since we came into Government in 2017, we have consistently delivered boosts to the incomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable. Tomorrow is yet another milestone on the way to supporting New Zealanders most in need.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by the decision to loosen protections under the COVID-19 traffic light framework, when Aotearoa’s COVID-19 daily mortality rate has for the first time passed the daily mortality rate for the United States?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister for COVID-19 Response) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Yes. The changes announced last week, informed by the latest evidence from here and overseas, have been specifically designed to make life simpler and closer to normal while retaining the things that have proven effective in reducing the spread of the virus, like face masks, testing and isolation, and capacity limits in the highest risk settings. Our response has and will continue to focus on protecting those groups who face a disproportionate effect from this virus, including Māori, Pasifika, immune compromised, and disability. I know hearing about reports of deaths can be confronting and, of course, reflect a loss for the affected whānau. And I would note that while deaths linked to COVID in New Zealand have, sadly, been rising at this stage, a comparison of death rates between two countries based on a single day is not a useful comparison given our different stages in an Omicron outbreak. New Zealand’s daily death rate per million remains five times lower than the US at its peak in late 2020, and four times lower than the US’s more recent Omicron peak in February. The United States has now had almost 1 million people die from COVID-19. New Zealand’s total mortality per capita is still one of the lowest in the OECD.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Supplementary, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Hon Member: Muted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, we’re not getting any sound through the system. I wonder if we can get some technical help with that, hopefully.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can you hear me now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can hear you now.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Anō—is he concerned that the recent announcement to loosen restrictions sends the wrong message to the country when Māori, Pasifika, disabled, and low-income whānau are still greatly at risk from COVID-19; if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Government needs to justify any public health restrictions in terms of their efficacy, and we know that the removal of mandates or the use of vaccine passes at a time when there are high levels of immunity does not further increase the public health risk. We’re also advised that there is minimal additional public health risk from the removal of gathering limits at the red setting. People who face high risk of illness from COVID can be reassured that we continue public health measures where they make an important difference. This includes the recommended use of masks, the isolation of cases and contacts, the use of testing to identify cases, and the provision of care in the community and in hospitals to ensure that the impact of COVID is minimised.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is being done, if anything, to strengthen support and resourcing for Māori, Pasifika, disabled, and low-income whānau, who are the most at risk from the worsening COVID-19 mortality rate, and ensure this support continues into winter?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Indeed, a large amount of work across our response is under way in partnership with those providers. So if we take any aspect of the COVID response: for example, ongoing efforts to roll out boosters are under way with over 70 Māori providers; efforts to make sure that rapid antigen tests are provided to Māori and Pasifika whānau are vast—there are over a thousand Māori organisations providing rapid antigen tests. There is an integrated welfare response, between Māori providers and the Ministry of Social Development, that ensures that food is provided to whānau who need it while they’re isolating, and that whānau’s needs are managed in a holistic way. And, indeed, these efforts will be sustained through winter should another peak arise.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Thank you. I understand the answer given. However, my question was what is being done to strengthen the support. I didn’t ask for a list of what’s currently being done.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was addressed.

Question No. 8—Health

8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: What medicines has the Government recently secured access to that support New Zealanders against COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): While vaccinations and booster shots remain the best defence against COVID-19, having more medicines available is an important step in helping prevent vulnerable people from becoming unwell and needing further treatment. Today, I announced that New Zealand has added 60,000 courses of Paxlovid, an oral medicine for this year that will be available to New Zealanders with a valid prescription. We’ve also secured access to New Zealand’s first pre-exposure prophylactic treatment for COVID-19, Evusheld. This treatment provides an option for those who cannot have vaccines.

Paul Eagle: How do these medicines support New Zealanders against COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Paxlovid is a five-day course of tablets that needs to be taken within five days of first developing symptoms of COVID-19. Access to Paxlovid will be tight to make sure it gets to the people who need it most. It will be prescribed by doctors with factors such as age, disability, and being immunocompromised taken into account. On Evusheld, this is a pre-exposure prophylactic treatment, as I said, and that can actually stop people developing COVID-19. Evusheld allows antibodies that provide protection against COVID-19 to be given directly to a patient and does not require a patient’s immune system to create these antibodies. If approved by Medsafe, access criteria to Evusheld will be published by Pharmac.

Paul Eagle: When will these drugs be available amongst the broader range of COVID-19 therapeutics New Zealand has access to?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The first shipment of Paxlovid has arrived in New Zealand ahead of schedule and will start being offered to those most at risk, from next week. The benefit of this medicine is that by protecting people from getting seriously ill, it will prevent the health system also from being overwhelmed. Regarding Evusheld, this is currently going through Medsafe approval and we expect New Zealanders who meet the criteria for it could receive treatment with it from about the middle of this year.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Fair Pay Agreements help New Zealand businesses and workers to meet the challenges and opportunities presented in a rapidly changing world of work, and has he taken on board advice, if any, during the development of the Fair Pay Agreement framework?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member for the opportunity to speak about how the fair pay agreement system will help New Zealand workers to combat the challenges and embrace the opportunities presented in the rapidly changing world of work. I note that fair pay agreements were an important manifesto commitment of the Labour Party at the last election. We’ve worked since then on taking on board the advice of officials, noting that our view was always that we should follow through on the commitments that we make. In respect of the first part of the member’s question, I draw his attention to a very useful quote from the foreword of the Fair Pay Agreements Working Group from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, who said, “It is vitally important that New Zealand tackles significant issues which are likely to affect other people’s working lives in the coming years. I believe that a focus on lifting productivity and preparing New Zealanders with the skills to thrive in the future of work is vitally important if we are to succeed as a nation. Fair Pay Agreements could be a useful tool to address these important challenges.” That’s because fair pay agreements are about shifting the focus from competition based on low wages to competition based on the quality of products and services, innovation, research and development, and the other things that actually build prosperity and productivity. I would, however, draw the member’s attention to one other quote from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, who did note—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you have actually addressed the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How will fair pay agreements, which could impose mandatory nationwide terms and conditions on certain industries and occupations, make Kiwi businesses more agile?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that we do have mandatory conditions across the labour market at the moment. Those are things such as the minimum wage, such as minimum annual leave and minimum sick leave. They provide a basic floor for workers’ terms and conditions, and actually most decent employers believe that that’s a good thing. One of the important things about fair pay agreements is that in the establishment of a floor, they support decent employers who want to provide good pay and conditions from being undercut, and those employers can therefore compete on the basis of those things that will actually drive greater productivity. That’s what we’ve seen in many other jurisdictions overseas.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: With regard to the advice from officials on direct costs of fair pay agreements in the range of $160 million to $620 million a year, does he accept that some of those costs will be passed on to consumers, adding to the cost of living crisis that Kiwi families are facing every day?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There is a lot of similarity between the member’s question and a comment made by the EMA yesterday, which noted that the purpose of fair pay agreements is to increase the wages of workers. The only answer that I can give to that is yes. On this side of the House, we believe that’s a good thing. I’d ask the member to reflect on the fact that at a time in which his side of the House is talking a lot about the cost of living, they seem implacably opposed to any measure that actually improves the wages of our lowest paid workers.

Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen about other models like the fair pay agreement system around the world?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I have seen reports from a range of different sources about, for example, Australia’s modern awards system. Australia, of course, has had a higher rate of labour productivity than New Zealand in the period during which it has had a sector-based bargaining system similar to fair pay agreements, as has Singapore, and as has Germany, one of the most successful innovating export economies in the world.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did it worry him that Treasury advised, in relation to fair pay agreements, that “There has been minimal identification of empirical evidence for the problem or for the policy response”, and did he think the Treasury officials were essentially saying that his bill is driven by ideology rather than any evidence?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: From time to time, I have disagreed with the advice that has been provided by Treasury. What I do agree with is the advice and views that I receive, for example, from real Kiwi workers, people like the cleaners who come into our offices here at Parliament every night, who note that in order to try and live a decent life and pay the bills, they often have to string two to three different jobs together. That is a legacy of the deregulation of the labour market that occurred in the late 1990s. I know that they were halcyon days for the member and those people that he idolises, but on this side of the House and across most of New Zealand, we have moved on and we want a decent labour market to support those workers.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the only advice that he listened to the advice that he got from his union official friends and former union official workers?

Hon Members: Jim Bolger.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I’ve heard advice from a range of people—as we’ve just heard, from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the working group that was convened several years ago. I’ve also heard advice, for example, from the OECD, who note that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the developed world without a sector-based bargaining system, and that the most effective labour markets do tend to have a mix of individual, enterprise-based, and sector-based collective bargaining.

Kieran McAnulty: Has the Minister seen any other quotes from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, and if so, what did it say?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You need to make the question relevant to the primary question, not to the answer—which you did not. So do you want to have a—

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The answer to the previous question directly referred to statements by Jim Bolger.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you can’t just have endless supply of quotes. They have to be relevant to the—

Kieran McAnulty: Can I have a supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Supplementary.

Kieran McAnulty: Thank you. Has the Minister seen any other comments from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger in relation to fair pay agreements; if so, what did they say?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I’ve seen a range of comments that the Rt Hon Jim Bolger made. He did an excellent job in terms of leading that working group, which included representatives from unions and employers on it. He put forward in the foreword some of the arguments for a sector-based bargaining system. He did, however, also note that, unfortunately, there will always be some people “who always try to screw the worker”, Mr Goldsmith.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she seen regarding diversity in the New Zealand Police workforce?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’ve seen a report that shows diversity amongst front-line New Zealand Police staff is increasing at a rate never seen before. Since we’ve come to office in 2017, there has been a record number of graduates from Police College who have been women, Māori, and Pasifika. These reports show that in time nearly four out of every 10 graduates from Police College have been women, with Māori, Pasifika, and Asian recruits making up 37 percent of all new police since 2017. Police recognise the value that different perspectives and experiences bring to making our community safer. Our recent graduates bring with them an invaluable range of skills, backgrounds, and experiences that will serve our communities for decades to come.

Ginny Andersen: What do upcoming police graduation wings mean for growing diversity in police?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Tomorrow I am attending the graduation of wing 352 at the Royal New Zealand Police College, which is a significant milestone for police and for this Government as it marks the graduation of our 3,000th recruit since October 2017. Each individual police graduation has its own story to tell about the growing diversity in police, and wing 355, set to graduate later this year, is made up of 75 recruits, of which 31 are Māori and 23 are wāhine Māori. Since we began our drive to grow the police workforce, we have seen the number of wāhine Māori police officers grow by two-thirds. The graduation of this wāhine Māori wing will be a historic milestone for police and for New Zealand.

Ginny Andersen: What does the growing diversity of our police workforce mean for our regions?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Growing the diversity of our front-line police means that they are more likely to represent the communities in which they serve. Since 2017, we have grown the police footprint across the country. In Northland, 88 additional cops; in Waikato, 97 more cops; and in Canterbury, 99 more cops. This Government will continue to support our police to do their job while also growing the diversity of the workforce so that they can represent the people they protect.

Melissa Lee: Why is the Minister confident that the New Zealand Police workforce has acceptable diversity when the leading multicultural organisations in Nelson-Tasman wrote to the Police Commissioner protesting the absence of an ethnic liaison officer, and—and I quote—“funding for an ELO was evidently allocated but not utilised by the regional command”; where has the money gone?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While I can’t speak to the allocation of funding—that is a matter for the Police—what I can speak to is the increasing diversity, including Asian police officers in New Zealand. And if I just go back to the answer that I gave, we are increasing Māori, Pasifika, and Asian recruits up to 37 percent of all new police since 2017.

Melissa Lee: Point of order. I seek leave to table a status report from the Ministry for Ethnic Communities that I received via the Official Information Act detailing this particular issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

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

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Corrections: Is he satisfied New Zealanders are getting value for money from the prison system; if so, why?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, because the trajectory the former National Government had the prison system on would have seen New Zealand having to build multibillion-dollar American-style mega-prisons every couple of years—both a moral and a fiscal failure.

Simon O’Connor: How is it acceptable that total prisoner costs have increased by over $130 million since 2018, and yet the number of prisoners accessing rehabilitation has dropped sharply?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: First of all, the fixed costs of running a prison don’t change. But also—and this might take a bit of time—I’m going to run through some of the investment that Corrections has made in what they do. First of all, the High Impact Innovation Programme, that’s just under $15 million. Management of people of extreme risk, that’s over $6.5 million. The Māori Pathways, that’s $10 million.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think we need a whole list of—

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Speaker, just a final point, then, is that dividing the total cost by the lowest prison numbers since 2008 gives a higher average per prisoner. Now, that is simple year 8 maths. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Questions are asked in silence, thank you.

Simon O’Connor: Seeing the Minister’s keen to quote maths, if the cost remains the same to manage a prison, then, ipso facto, would not the same cost remain stable, rather than going up $130 million—you know, mathematics?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oh, Mr Speaker, can I please read through the whole list? Because there are hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, such as in Māori Pathways, such as in increasing access to mental health and addiction—over $125 million. The Waikeria Prison rebuild operating cost come to well over $200 million. This Government has invested in Corrections, and invested in keeping New Zealanders safe.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: A point of order. As the Minister appeared to be quoting verbatim from what sounded like an official document, may we have that document tabled please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister. Is that an official document that you’re quoting from?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order!

Simon O’Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Appreciating that long list of initiatives, how does he then respond to reports about those, which says there’s only been a “modest reduction”, because of them, in reimprisonment and resentencing rates—in fact, most results of these don’t even reach statistical significance?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The fact is that they are better than the results that the previous National Government was achieving.

Simon O’Connor: Again, how can he actually say that, when the quote’s from his own annual report, again suggesting that there has only been modest reductions in reimprisonment, and the results that he has achieved basically are of statistical insignificance?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, again, they are better than the results that the previous National Government was achieving, where they actually went up.

Question No. 12—COVID-19 Response

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister for COVID-19 Response: How is the Government ensuring remote communities can readily access rapid antigen tests?

Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order. Sorry, sir. There was just something going on with the sound system and I didn’t quite catch—I just wonder whether the member could repeat the question?

Hon Member: It’s written on the yellow sheet.

Hon Dr David Clark: Oh, is it—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr David Clark: Did I—apologies. Mr Speaker, it’s probably fine. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister for COVID-19 Response): The Government has launched an additional targeted rural service of rapid antigen tests (RATs) for those who live in remote rural areas. Now that the purpose of testing has shifted away from finding every case, RATs provide intelligence on the spread and size of the outbreak, alert people to the support available to them, and help bring a sense of normality to people’s lives. More than 95 percent of New Zealanders are within a 20-minute drive of a RAT access point, but we need to make sure that the 250,000 who live remotely are also able to access testing easily.

Tangi Utikere: How will the new service work?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: DHBs already have initiatives under way to reach their rural communities. The service launched this week aims to improve connections between households and those initiatives, and if there’s no existing initiative in your area, we will courier RATs directly to your home. The service can be accessed via the assisted channel on 0800 222 478, or through the RAT requester website.

Tangi Utikere: What are some of those existing initiatives by DHBs?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The DHBs are using a number of unconventional methods to reach their communities. Whanganui DHB, for example, is distributing, on average, 12,000 tests per day. They are using jetboats, flying foxes, and they’re even exploring the option of delivering them via horseback to make sure that no one is left behind. The West Coast DHB’s COVID-19 vaccination team, who travel to remote areas, have a stock of RATs on board ready for distribution—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies, Mr Speaker. I actually can’t hear the answer. I would appreciate being able to hear it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must say it has been quite rowdy this afternoon, so—I mean, if Dr Verrall wishes to continue her answer?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The West Coast DHB’s COVID-19 vaccination team, who travel to remote areas, have a stock of rapid antigen tests on board ready for distribution, and South Canterbury has initiated proactive distribution of RATs to the high country stations in their region. I want to thank all the DHBs, Māori providers, and rapid antigen test distributors for their work assisting rural communities.

Bills

Incorporated Societies Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we are on call No. 2 and I believe it’s a National Party call.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, there were members blocking you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We in the National Party support most of this bill, but we think that there is a very important issue that the Minister has missed and I hope he will listen to this. We are deeply concerned about clauses 53 and 54 of the bill. These are modelled on sections 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, which require directors not to trade in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to creditors and not to agree to incur obligations if they do not have reasonable grounds to believe that the company will be able to honour them.

Now on the face of it that might sound perfectly fine until we consider that the incorporated societies that we’re talking about already have unlimited liability, so they’re not limited liability like companies, they’re unlimited. So this is an extra onus on the people who choose to take up—or are often basically strong-armed in many cases to take up—the obligations of being the president, the chair, the secretary of these incorporated societies, because let’s be really clear, these are people often at the, you know, Dunholme Tennis Club. This is what we’re talking about. This is not talking about businesses where directors are being paid for their time, their expertise—and in most cases nowadays directors require some form of directors insurance. So what we’re concerned about is that this bill is overdoing it. So there are some really good parts of it. But this particular one we’ve got real concerns with.

We support, as I said, most of the bill. I mean, the bill is trying to modernise what has become in some cases quite a cumbersome situation. But we do believe that these clauses 53 and 54, are designed for corporate structures and they’ve just been taken holus bolus into this bill, which is actually about these incorporated societies. So we really do think this is quite a serious issue.

We note also that there were plenty of submissions on the bill and particularly on this issue. In fact, the law firm Chapman Tripp has written separately to the Minister to warn him of the significance of including clauses 53 and 54 in this bill, and he has chosen not to take that advice. But that is a shame because we also have, of course, the situation of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, also from this Minister, and we were obviously concerned at that stage that something might go wrong. And gosh, it did—we’ve been straight back into Parliament to try and correct it as banks and lenders feel that they are obliged to check people’s coffee consumption before they decide whether or not they’re responsible enough to have a mortgage. This is another one of these where it might look OK, it might look good on paper, but I think we do need to really look at this.

So what we’re suggesting because we are now in the third reading is that it would be useful if this matter—and the Minister agreed—was brought back for a review to the select committee in say a year’s time to see if any of these unintended but possible consequences have actually occurred. I think that that would be a way through for the Minister and for Parliament to be able to do most of—as I say, most of this bill we’re perfectly happy with but it is, of course, that unintended consequence. I think, as we have seen, people do sign up to be the treasurer or the secretary because we have a culture of volunteerism in New Zealand. We’re very fortunate. We and other democratic countries tend to have that more than, say, those countries that were brought up under communism, for instance, where they don’t have volunteerism.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the member laughs about that and I think, you know, she’s quite right to have a giggle about it. But I’ve actually met with people who came out of that and they came to New Zealand and they found that they didn’t understand that people would actually go out and do things just to help others. They lived under a State that said you had to do it, and if you didn’t have to do it then you didn’t do it. So I think we do need to respect that when people join up to these incorporated societies—because we are sort of a joining sort of culture here in New Zealand; we like to join things, meet people and be part of things—we need to make sure that we don’t make it too difficult for them to do so or too expensive.

We have seen those sections in the Companies Act—sections 135 and 136—have quite severe consequences. I’m not saying whether or not those consequences are not deserved in certain cases, but it is pretty clear that we don’t want to see those same consequences visited upon the incorporated society that owns a tennis club. That is not the sort of thing that we’d be wanting to see—and understanding as well that companies are themselves limited liability companies. So the company of the shareholders is limited—and directors—but if you look at the incorporated society they don’t have that protection, so, actually, by just bringing those provisions across from the Companies Act into the Incorporated Societies Act, we’re actually going to be changing it and putting more burden on the incorporated societies.

I don’t think that’s what Parliament’s meaning to do, but I think there is a real danger there. And having read the two sections in both the two Acts, I can see it is basically a cut and paste and I think it’s a cut and paste that we do need to be very careful of, having brought this through into that third reading. I say, if we can have some response; if the Minister can confirm, for instance, that the select committee could review this in a year’s time, say, that might be a really good way through. The last thing we want to do is to have people saying, “I’m really frightened about these responsibilities. I’ve had my legal advice on it. Why would I put my home at risk for the tennis club?”

You know, it’s just really important that people take this seriously and right at the moment I think we need all the volunteers we possibly can, helping to build social cohesion after what we’ve all been going through with the pandemic, and it is really important that people don’t feel frightened. As we know, many of the people who come and take up those roles are in the—let’s say it—more twilight years of their lives and the last thing they want is risk. They certainly can’t afford, in most cases, to purchase insurance for it. They certainly don’t want to have that sort of hassle. So I think we just need to make sure that as a Parliament, we give that protection. The Minister has been nodding quite a lot, which is—sorry, the Minister in the chair, not that Minister, has been nodding quite a lot so I’m hoping he’s agreeing with me and whether or not the Minister, the Hon David Clark, can actually confirm that, that would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It’s a great privilege to be able to take a call on this, the third reading of the Incorporated Societies Bill. As I’ve explained to the House before, my connection to this legislation is not only that I’ve run a number of incorporated societies and have been an official of one over many years and many societies but when public submissions were called for a review of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, it turned out that I was the only member of the public who provided a submission. So I feel as if I bring some authority to this matter that no other citizen of New Zealand has been able to do!—apart from the member, the Hon Judith Collins, who has just resumed her seat. I know that that member’s background before she was in Parliament was as a lawyer. She ran her own very general sort of practice, and I don’t know this to be sure, but I’d be surprised if she wasn’t advising, even in pro bono capacity, some incorporated societies.

I do point out that the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 is a piece of legislation of 36 sections, and in order to legislate for effective incorporated societies frameworks, we now have a piece of legislation that will run to 261 sections. Now, that may well be a consequence of accumulated wisdom over many years of the Incorporated Societies Act in action and some litigation that goes with it, much of which, oddly enough, comes out of the racing industry, but I’ll go no further than that.

Just to respond to the point that the Hon Judith Collins made in relation to clauses 53 and 54—and I just make the point that I think it is important that our statutory framework does give a signal to members who take on the task and the role of being a committee member or an executive member of an incorporated society, even if it only has modest cash flows and modest assets, that nevertheless if the incorporated society is entering into contracts, taking on obligations, then it is important that those making those decisions do so with appropriate solemnity and take seriously the capacity of the incorporated society to bear those obligations. So I have no objection particularly to clause 53 and the requirement that an officer must not agree to activities that would put creditors at risk. I think that’s an appropriate signal to send and a reminder to those who sit on those committees that, actually, amidst all the fun of the tennis club or the racing club or the whatever, or the trade union—the part of—because that’s a lot of fun as we know, there are some serious obligations that go with it.

In relation to clause 54, my interpretation of that clause differs from the member who’s resumed her seat. When it says, “An officer must not agree to the society incurring an obligation unless the officer believes … on reasonable grounds that the society will be able to perform the obligation”, I relay to the House—and I’ll do it as anonymously as I can because I did know the person involved—that I witnessed a lived example of a member of a sport club who was on the committee and whose club was involved in a reasonably serious seasonal competition in their chosen code, and so frustrated were they after several summers—I give no hint of what the code is—of the performance of their lead team that this person, a committee member, went to the United Kingdom and spoke to a professional in this particular code and invited that professional to spend a summer or two in New Zealand, and clearly made some other promises, because what the committee later found, exercising its collective role in meeting, was that they are up for a range of obligations to support this professional person to do this. The person who, effectively, incurred those obligations had no authority to do so, and it seems to me that that is the mischief that clause 54 is trying to get to, and, again, I think that that is an appropriate signal to send in a modern incorporated society’s statutory framework.

If I could just speak more generally for a moment, I think it is great that this House has got to this point, with a great deal of consensus, in modernising our incorporated societies legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation to have because incorporated societies in New Zealand are very much the engine room of civil society in New Zealand. There are so many societies and I used to say that I can’t think of one aspect of human endeavour in New Zealand where you would not find a collection of people who have put together a society, and, as the Hon Judith Collins said, it is usually voluntarily, and usually supported by professionals who does so on a pro bono basis and makes an extraordinary contribution, whether it’s to their local community to a bigger city or indeed to the country as a whole. That’s one of the great things. It’s one of the great levellers, I think, in Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s what keeps us all engaged with each other, regardless of our backgrounds and what-have-you.

It is good that we have stepped up and modernised this particular piece of legislation. I think this piece of legislation answers many of the problems that I think many societies and many members of societies and their officers have experienced over the years. So it’s good to see, with some specificity, what must be in the constitution of an incorporated society, and, once again, to reiterate that members cannot gain financially from being a member of the incorporated society or indeed an officer of it. There is clarity about the election of officers. There is now at least a signal towards some dispute resolution—it is possible to put into an incorporated society’s constitution and rules the ways to resolve disputes, including arbitration, providing it doesn’t cut across other statutory rights that people may have. That, I think, is very good.

It is very good to see too the confirmation of the significance of the constitution. It is, effectively, a contract between members and a contract between each member and the collective that is the society. That has always been the legal status, and so it’s important to members to see that when they sign up to the society and become a member, pay their dues or do whatever it is that qualifies them to be a member of the society, they are buying into a commitment, or obligations for want of a better term—not commercial obligations obviously—to one another in that incorporated society. That is clearly indicated in this legislation.

Another thing that I’m very pleased to see—which is certainly not in the current legislation—are the provisions in relation to amalgamation. This was certainly a bugbear of mine when I was a union secretary at a time when we were dealing with amalgamating with other unions who were also incorporated societies. There was actually no mechanism or provision for incorporated societies with comparable objects or comparable purposes and of a kindred nature to amalgamate very easily. They had to go through quite an extended process of resolutions to disestablish and then incorporate assets and then consider the tax liabilities of doing so. It was very convoluted and in terms of professional fees, a very expensive process to go through. So it is great to see that now, as part of the new statutory framework, there is a way for societies to amalgamate.

I think the reality is that the way things are going, as our communities grow, what often starts out as small disconnected groups with a common objective—might then want to come together because they have a common purpose and consolidate their membership, their assets, and the general intellectual wisdom that leads them, and bring them together into a single organisation, and it will now be much easier to do so.

There are now also provisions for members to make requests for information, and I know this was always a bugbear—not that when I was a union secretary and running an incorporated society we were ever averse to giving information to members that they wished to have, but there was always this thing about still observing the Privacy Act, and we still had to observe other legal obligations and requirements too. This new clause, clause 74, now lays out very clearly the right of members to get information relevant to them that’s held by the incorporated society but also the obligation on the incorporated society to observe the obligations of the Privacy Act and other things as well, and also the right of members to get information presented to an annual general meeting.

We know that’s one of the big bugbears for a lot of members, particularly when an incorporated society is going through a difficult time, because they want to get their financial information and they want to know what the future might look like for an organisation they might have been involved in. I’ve seen, not in organisations I’ve been involved with but in others, these tremendous disputes about getting just some basic financial information that every member must be entitled to. That is now made very clear in the bill.

I commend all members of the House for getting this bill to this state. I think it is in a very good state and it will build great confidence not just to members but for those charged with running incorporated societies. It gives confidence to them in discharging their duties and responsibilities and it will make for a better life for all New Zealanders in those little activities that we all do to keep our interest piqued and to keep life good.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Earlier, my learned colleague the Hon Judith Collins raised some concerns that we had. It’s not something that we feel that is enough to oppose the bill, but raising and bringing some light to the reason why we are having some concerns is the duty as members of the Opposition, as decent members of our society concerned that it might have likely impacts that, for example, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) has actually had on the ability for some people to get a bank loan, for example. What we’re saying is that officials and Parliament, and particularly a select committee, should actually pay attention to the impact that this legislation may have on incorporated societies and what that might actually mean.

Incorporated societies play a huge role in New Zealand. Many of us here, probably all of us, have been part of incorporated societies in our local communities. I personally have been involved with ethnic communities. I have run an ethnic film festival, particularly the Korean Film Festival, every two years, and fundraising is a major—trying to make sure that we do everything right and tick all of the boxes and do all of the financial returns and everything is a huge burden for a lot of people who also have very busy lives. And when a piece of legislation actually requires these people to have added responsibility, it might prevent some people who will be really good at these jobs, as chair or as treasurers or secretaries of these societies—they might think twice. That’s what my colleague Judith Collins actually laid out very, very clearly. So given the role that they actually play in New Zealand, I think it is really important to ensure that the rules governing them are fit for purpose and sensible and straightforward and easy to actually comply with.

I was listening to the Minister last night when he spoke in the beginning stages of this third reading, and he thanked the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, all of the members—because I think we worked really, really hard to actually get to this point, questioning the officials who have advised us. I remember distinctly the discussions that we actually had on the limitations that it might pose on those people who might have skills to actually join incorporated societies—will it not prevent them from actually volunteering? That was one of our biggest concerns.

The very fact that this Incorporated Societies Act 1908 really needed to be modernised is probably an understatement. It really needed to actually be modernised. I think when you look at more than 23,000 incorporated societies that currently exist on the incorporated society register, actually making it clear and simpler and putting their fiduciary duties clearly, I think, makes it easy for people to actually say, “Yes, I want to be involved.” or “No, I don’t want to be involved.”

I think the clarity where the—I can never pronounce this word—fiduciary duty is actually clarified, where people who are in those incorporated societies do make sure that their conflict of interest is managed, that they are actually not convicted criminals, for example, and that they actually see their duty as something that they might do, and actually bringing the responsibility up to where it is perhaps required if someone was managing a limited liability company—I understand the rationale for it. I understand that we need to train some of our members who volunteer for incorporated societies so that they do actually do their duty professionally and, I think, as members said, execute their duty well, and making sure that our incorporated societies are not a disservice as a result of their non-performance.

I think one of the things that I’m actually really quite proud of in the way that the select committee actually operated is in relation to looking after the smaller societies where the thresholds of their finances are much lower and where the additional requirements of external reporting—what standards might have actually put extreme pressure on their abilities, both financially and also expertise wise, and we actually raised the threshold to $50,000 operating payment and $50,000 current asset. So their reporting duties are actually much less than if it was a much bigger operation with people who actually have professional services that they could hire and pay for as well. I think it’s actually a good thing that the select committee has actually come to that, and it is reflected in the legislation.

Going to the comments of the Hon Andrew Little, who commented that he agrees with clauses 53 and 54 and he doesn’t actually agree with the Hon Judith Collins’ comment in our concern, I’d just like to sort of say that the bill already provides in clause 49 adequate protection as it requires officers to act in good faith and in the best interests of the incorporated society when exercising powers to performing duties as an officer. In relation to clauses 53 and 54, I just want to basically raise the issue that when—you know, I think the Hon Judith Collins actually made it quite clear that it seemed like a cut and paste job of section 135 and 136 of the Companies Act. What that particular Act had was a legal opinion and also a judge—I think it was Justice Goddard who actually said that in respect of sections 135 and 136, in respect of Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd in a liquidation case, that these clauses are not fit for purpose.

I think often when legislators make law, it is reliant on case law to see if it’s actually working or not, and I think when we’re looking at this legislation, we should reflect on sections 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, which has actually had case law, to see whether it is in fact going to work or not. We have today and in select committee raised the concerns, and, today, as I close my third reading speech, I just want to put on note that I agree completely with the Hon Judith Collins when she actually says we should look at this issue, make sure that we’re monitoring it, and if it’s not working, we need to actually fix the problem, and, hopefully, that won’t be in 10 years’ time. But hopefully we’ll look at it in one year so that we don’t have the same situation like we do with the CCCFA issue, where people cannot even get bank loans because they have far too many coffees or go to the nail shop or go to the hairdressers. I think we need proper laws and to make sure that we encourage more people to take part in incorporated societies, because volunteers are really, really hard to come by and we need to encourage them, not discourage them. I commend the bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Incorporated Societies Bill at the third reading, and I do so as a member of Parliament and also as the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Hon David Clark for his work on this bill, bringing this bill to the House. I’d like to thank all of those officials who have worked on this bill, both in the past 12 to 18 months but also earlier than that. As we’ve heard from other speakers, this bill has had quite a long life, going back to the previous Government. I know that when this bill was introduced, it was certainly the desire of the Minister to get this legislation right, to ensure that there’s an aspect around bipartisanship in this legislation, and to ensure that it is enduring. I do believe that, through the work of the select committee, which I’ll get on to in detail soon, the bill has reached a good place and strikes a good balance.

The last time this Act was updated was 1908, so it certainly has been a long time, and the function of incorporated societies has changed a lot over those past 120-odd years. If we look at some of those changes, the 1908 legislation talks about the birth and the death of incorporated societies primarily, whereas this legislation and the focus of this legislation is in terms of the living aspect of the society, so the day-to-day operating aspects of a healthy, positive incorporated society. Yes, there are also aspects around the birth and death, but it goes a lot broader than the 1908 bill. So certainly it was a bill that needed updating, and I’m very pleased to see it updated.

There’s a couple of aspects I really want to touch on, which is the thresholds and the dispute resolution. We have heard a little bit of this from other speakers, but just to give those members in the House and those who are listening at home a little bit of context, we heard from a number of submitters, and there was one particularly common theme that really struck me when we heard from the submitters, and that was around the thresholds for reporting, particularly for small incorporated societies. There was a concern there that, for example, we’d have a small incorporated society, earning around $10,000 per year, having to do quite extensive reporting. Then they would have to get an accountant—probably a couple of thousand dollars a year—and possibly a lawyer, but certainly an accountant in order to get that work done. Right there, that’s around a fifth of their income gone in terms of the reporting. So quite a few of the submitters believed the threshold needed to be raised.

The second aspect was around the assets. Now, you could have an incorporated society with a very small income, possibly even maybe around $5,000 per year, but they own a building worth around half a million dollars a year, and they would initially be captured in terms of that reporting. A lot of them said, “Well, look, we really don’t have the capacity to do this reporting.”

So there was a lot of discussion between us as MPs and the officials in terms of trying to find where the right balance is, because the reality is that it’s important for incorporated societies to do robust reporting, absolutely. As the Hon Andrew Little said before, when you’re on an incorporated society, it’s a role that has to be taken very seriously and with an aspect of soberness—balancing that with the capability and the cost for the reporting. So it was quite a process that we went through to find where the sweet spot is for that. People may know that we actually delayed reporting the bill back because we wanted more time to really get this right, and I believe that where we have landed is in a really good place.

We have heard from two members of the Opposition, the Hon Judith Collins and Melissa Lee, but I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay. He was on the committee at the time, and Todd and I certainly worked quite closely together, as he did with other members of the Labour Party on that caucus, in terms of really thrashing this out with the officials. We asked the officials to come back to us with various charts to see how many incorporated societies would be captured at what income levels so that we could work our way through this.

Now, where we landed was that we proposed amending clause 96(2)(b) to increase both the operating payments and the asset thresholds to $50,000 each. As I’ve said before, this was based on quite a strong theme from submitters.

So, look, this was an example of the select committee process working well, where you have a piece of legislation come to the House at the first reading, you have a number of submitters make submissions, there’s a common theme through those submissions, and then the House takes note of that and makes some changes in the legislation, and that’s exactly what we’ve seen. I believe for that reason this legislation will be enduring, and that’s really important. The reality is that’s what we’re looking at for all legislation—it really is the holy grail of legislation—and I believe that this does fit that criteria for enduring legislation.

We also recommended clarifying that the asset threshold would require a society to have total current assets of less than $50,000 rather than total assets. Now, the difference here is, like I said before—you could have an incorporated society with a half a million dollar building, but a very small annual turnover, like I said, of maybe $5,000. Under the original legislation, at the first reading, they would have had to report, and a lot of them said, “Look, we just can’t do it. We just don’t have the capability to go through the External Reporting Board processes.” Whereas in the legislation now, it is total current assets, so basically that existing asset—the building, for example—would be excluded. We’re talking about current assets, which I think strikes the right balance there.

The other aspect I want to touch on as I bring my speech to a close is the aspect around clarifying dispute resolution provisions. Many of us, as MPs, I’m sure, have had examples of people coming to our office from incorporated societies where there have been various disputes arise within that society and they haven’t known how to deal with that. There hasn’t been a process that they could go to in order to deal with those disputes. So this legislation clearly gives that guidance and that support around those processes in terms of dealing with disputes. I think this is certainly important—a very practical step in terms of supporting our over 24,000 incorporated societies.

I believe that incorporated societies are the lifeblood of our community. Many members of the House will be members of incorporated societies. I am personally a member myself. When we go to those meetings, we look around the room and we see people who are so passionate about their community. We see the beating heart of New Zealanders there—people coming along and giving their time, giving their energy, unselfishly, for others. It’s a really wonderful thing to see that in all those 24,000 societies, and hopefully more societies spring up that will support our communities.

Just in closing, as a previous speaker said, I’m also very proud of the place that we’ve landed with this legislation, and I hope that it will serve New Zealanders well moving forward. Thank you.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) (remote): Kia ora. This is my first time speaking in the House from my home in the very beautiful but a little bedraggled Tai Rāwhiti. So, much love to our whanaunga up the coast who are suffering the impact of more flooding. Perhaps now that Transmission Gully is open the Government could invest in high quality roads and bridges in the East Coast that could withstand the weather events that keep coming at us.

So coming to the Incorporated Societies Bill, I’m here on behalf of the Green Party to take a short call on this kaupapa that is very close to my heart. As a long-time community organiser who started as the treasurer of the Māori Women’s Welfare League in Dunedin at the age of 15, I’ve gone from positions as secretary to treasurer to president of many, many organisations, from board member to board chair to local national and international roles that I still belong to, some of over 24,000 community organisations incorporated societies here in Aotearoa, and, as my colleague Jamie Strange just said, the lifeblood of this country, and they will be so much better off with this significant update—and, of course, anything that makes writing constitutions easier is going to be a good thing.

I acknowledge that today is also International Transgender Day of Visibility, so we acknowledge all those organisations who work to uplift the mana of our trans and non-binary whānau.

So the Greens support a modern legal framework and that incorporates all the case law that has built up over the whakapapa of this very ancient Act. We thank the Minister and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for bringing it to the House.

For the Greens, we envisage a strong and independent tangata whenua community and voluntary sector within Aotearoa that contributes in ecologically and socially sustainable ways to enhance our social, environmental, cultural, physical, spiritual, mental, and economic wellbeing. We need a law, and I think that this bill does it, that does not constrain us from doing that.

Like every incorporated society does at their AGM, and now many of us will need to update our constitutions because of this law, the Green Party is actually in the process right now of updating ours. One thing we really appreciate is that this bill allows us to add our tikanga section as an integral part of our constitution, not as an add-on but something that’s actually specified in the bill as important to what we do. And, as a party that specifies non-violence in our charter, we welcome the range of options now available for dispute resolution, that we can have mediation facilitation, tikanga-based practices, and that arbitration is no longer just the main option available to us.

Privacy is very important to the Greens, and we note the Privacy Commissioner, when they made their submission to the select committee—and I quote—“The bill appropriately balanced the public’s legitimate needs to have access to personal information about those involved with incorporated societies with the need to limit that access only for legitimate purposes, and to take account of personal safety and privacy.” The commission only made one recommendation to the bill, and it was the express reference in clause 225, to protection orders and other name suppression mechanisms as grounds for the registrar having to remove and omit personal information. We’re really pleased to see that the select committee took up and agreed to that recommendation.

As the previous speaker spoke about, thresholds for the small society—again, being the treasurer, being on small societies, we do a lot of work; usually don’t have much money. While we welcome the standardising of transparent and clearer financial reporting, this was an area that we were the most concerned about. That difference between the threshold of large and small societies is really important because it determines the level of compliance required from them, and it is a crippling thing to have to do your accounts and get them checked and audited when you’ve only got actually a tiny amount of money. So the original bill addressed that in part, but the issue of the fixed assets versus current assets was still an issue. So I’m very thankful for the submitters to the bill and the efforts of the select committee that that it is being well resolved.

We were really concerned for marae with million dollar wharenui, the sports club with flash, you know, rugby fields, netball courts, but only a few thousand in the bank. This bill distinguishes between fixed assets such as land and building and current assets such as cash and liquid assets. That means the criteria for a small society and therefore less compliance is that they can have current assets of less than $50,000, even, of course, if their valuable fixed assets are well in excess of that.

Thank you for the opportunity for this short call. But that change alone will help around 60 percent of all incorporated societies. On their behalf, certainly on behalf of the ones that I’m involved in, we all look forward to this bill coming into effect, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): The opportunity to provide a modern framework for the legal governance of incorporated societies is a great thing, having been involved with them. Sitting with jugs of beer and peanuts to nut out what happens over a year is the basic reality for a lot of the smaller entities that are out there, but I guess it’s different if you are a bigger organisation.

The ACT Party supports the bill, but it also supports the position of the Hon Judith Collins in terms of the most cumbersome aspect, which is the burden that’s placed on the officers of these societies. So I think, and I hope, that the Minister would also take that into consideration as being something that the future must assess.

There will be rationalisation of organisations now with this. We feel that the balance has been struck between the accounting aspects of a big organisation versus a smaller organisation, which is extremely encouraging, because that’s where most of the arguments actually lie when decisions are made.

Also, in terms of the pandemic and inflation, a lot of the societies are experiencing stress. It’s led to closure hours and that probably has dropped income, but I think it’s also led to potentially less participation, so there’s a whole educational strategy to actually reboot that.

One of the other things that one of the submitters came and talked about was that they’d be very disappointed if this policy change meant that the Government got involved with the day-to-day aspects of an incorporated society. That’s not the intention.

Incorporated societies are allowed to place their own value systems and schedules around what it is they do, but governance of the society must not become a Government issue, and the obligations of the officers around conflicts of interest and the ability of societies even to amalgamate is a stark reality in this time. They need to be able to look to the future and build organisations that are, effectively, promoted to the public, but have confidence that they’ll be around. They’ve got a group of members, they can govern themselves, and the bill actually allows these officers to get forward.

Also we all know that, independently, accountants and lawyers do sit as non-executive members, especially around AGM time, to facilitate what can be quite a tumultuous day for the members to meet. So it’s clear that there are mechanisms to cope with that.

So the framework, we believe, is acceptable. I think there will be some fallout over the next sort of two to three years on what it means in terms of how they operate on a day-to-day basis. My only concern is that it allows certain individuals inside these organisations to dominate and to control the entity, but as long as the constitution is very clear about elector representation, we should be OK.

The bill closes certain gaps in the old Act, and I think the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has done a fantastic job to bring this to the House. It does look like War and Peace in terms of where we’re going for simple societies, but, as all the members have shown, there are some larger organisations like the Green Party or political parties or sports organisations of significance who operate nationally to use this mechanism more effectively, and I think it will be very positive. So we look forward to the bill coming in, and we’d like to thank the committee for its work.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity on a Thursday afternoon to speak to the final reading, the third reading, of the Incorporated Societies Bill. It was a privilege to sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider, to debate, to listen, to learn, and to, hopefully, create a bill that’s fit for the 21st and, let’s say, 22nd century. Because, if you think about it, 1908, back in the good old 20th century, was when this legislation was first in the House, and 114 years later, it’s back here. And, think, 114 years into the future, in 2136–something like that; I’m sure I would have retired from this place by then, I hope–and it’ll hopefully be fit for purpose into the future. That’s part of it, right–that in 1908 there were things that weren’t foreseen, or weren’t planned for, because societies move on and change, as does technology and as does our world. I’m not sure if it’ll be fit for purpose in 2136, but I hope so. But I’m sure technology will slow down shortly and we can just kind of carry on life as usual.

Anyway, one of the officials early on—and I’ve referred to this several times, and I’m probably stealing other people’s thunder this afternoon; I’ve heard it already—but 1908 was about the birth and the death of a society, whereas this creates the life force within the middle as well; so it’s the birth, the life, and the death of a society. The other one I think we need to consider is that, you know, absolutely, it’s very much about those small little organisations. It’s about those craft groups, those arts groups, those musical groups, those religious and cultural groups, sports, education, and marae, but there are also some big entities that are incorporated societies, who are dealing in millions and millions and millions of dollars a year. So that’s why there has been work done to obviously ensure that it is fit for purpose, that there are robust measures in place, to make sure that these societies, that these organisations, operate as they should.

Now, in my own electorate—so the list keeps going up, the more I think about it—I think I’m a member of three incorporated societies at the moment. But I was reflecting on what we have in New Plymouth, or in Taranaki, in my electorate. We’ve got the Taranaki Master Painters, our good friends the Taranaki Federated Farmers, the Taranaki Tennis Association, the Taranaki community education trust, we’ve got Ngāti Te Whiti hapū society, we’ve got Te Rūnanga o Taranaki iwi. I see Minister Carmel Sepuloni here—we do have the Waitara multisport society, who are doing a wonderful job in terms of building collaboration within the Waitara community and our sports community, which is so important and is creating great impacts bringing a whole lot of different sporting groups together. There’s also the New Plymouth BMX club. And then an example of a large one is, of course, the New Zealand Rugby Union, which is an incorporated society, who I’m sure it’s not just volunteers who are involved, but many others are. Of course, being a member of the New Zealand Labour Party, I am part of an incorporated society there, and the New Plymouth Club which I actually had a drink at last Thursday night—absolutely wonderful.

So the great thing about this is that we did work together, and I heard that from my colleague across the room Melissa Lee. I felt like we had good constructive and robust conversations, and we pushed back on each other. I think we landed mostly together, in terms of where we got to. I’m also grateful to the Hon Todd McClay, who was constructive and engaged well in the process, along with my colleagues Naisi Chen and of course our fabulous chair, Jamie Strange.

I just want to touch on—because for me, I think, some language changed, and in 1908 we couldn’t have even imagined this. Well, I would love us to have imagined this, but at that time things in this House, and in New Zealand, were a bit different. But there was one in around clause 3(d)(iii) which reinforced for societies, in their self-governing, “in accordance with their … own tikanga, kawa, culture, and practice[s]”—and the fact that we bring tikanga, we bring kawa into the mix, and that can be part of a society and the development of their framework.

I also really appreciated in clause 118A, which ensures that societies can have all of their correspondence, all of their documents, in te reo Māori. It’s simple—for many people it probably doesn’t seem like a big deal, but I think having these kind of things in current and modern legislation is an awesome thing.

So I am grateful to be here, as a community member who’s been on many different societies, who has volunteered many hours and will continue to do so, as well as to those bigger organisations. I’m grateful that we’ve got to this place, and I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, I was distracted by other important matters. I stand today too in support of the Incorporated Societies Bill in its third reading. As we’ve heard from many speakers today, there is general consensus around the support for this bill. Anything that is 114 years old deserves a bit of an overhaul, and this bill certainly does. There are some main issues that we do have concerns with, which I will touch on a little later, but I thought I would lay the foundation in my contribution about the bill itself and what the main provisions of the bill are.

Bringing incorporated societies into the modern world and with other good practice in terms of law: some of the provisions in this bill mean that incorporated societies will need to now provide a process for dealing with disputes and conflicts of interests, and also small societies have been singled out in this bill so that they don’t have the same stringent reporting requirements as larger entities. I do note that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee dealt with this, but when the bill was first drafted it recommended that that benchmark be $30,000. And I note that the National members felt that this was probably too cumbersome and that it would capture too many very small organisations that perhaps didn’t have the expertise or the capability or even the will to have to comply with a lot of those reporting requirements. So the select committee reached an amicable agreement to lift that requirement to $50,000.

So a small society falls into the following criteria: that one around having $50,000 of payments for two consecutive reporting years and also the assets of that society for the two previous reporting years are also now set at $50,000. A small society is also one that is not an entity with a donee status, which means that anyone that contributes or makes a donation to that organisation cannot claim a tax credit for donations over $5.

But this bill also, because it has been so long—it’s well over 100 years old—it has relied over time on case law to fill in some of the gaps in the original legislation of that original Act, which is not a good way, and it has become quite messy. So having a rewrite and introducing this bill into the House does make good sense. It makes it now modern law, and it gives guidance to New Zealanders who do volunteer to run our not-for-profit organisations. As my colleague Melissa Lee said, there’s about 23,000 or 24,000 of those organisations in this country that it will impact on.

One of the main issues that the National Party has concerns with is around the clauses 53 and 54, and the cut and paste job that was done out of the Companies Act, where it’s lifted sections 135 and 136 out of the Companies Act and dumped them into this bill. But unfortunately, when it comes out of the Companies Act and goes into this Act, it’s not just targeting companies, it’s actually targeting very small organisations and volunteer groups. It’s a classic example of creating blanket law, which will eventually deliver unintended consequences. So clauses 53 and 54 now are designed for corporate structures, but those corporate structures also have limited liability status. What we’ve got now is that the same types of rules are now dropped into the Incorporated Societies Bill. We’ve had a quote from Justice Goddard which I think summarised it very nicely, but there is big concern about this. I sincerely hope that the Minister will commit to a review in one year, and also make sure that incorporated societies are well informed about the changes that are in this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to talk on this third reading of the Incorporated Societies Bill. Now, as we’ve heard from many of the other speakers, this bill replaces the 1908 Act. I think it’s important to acknowledge the importance of that 1908 Act in giving legal personhood to entities, these incorporated societies, so that they can continue on even when the membership of them changes. We’ve seen, and many other speeches have talked about, all the different incorporated societies within New Zealand. We’ve embraced the concept of incorporated societies, with about 24,000 of them. They cover a wide spectrum of things from arts groups, sports, charities, unions, marae—and even political parties we heard from Glen Bennett. So they’re very important.

What I want to talk about, in this short contribution, is the good process that this bill has been through to modernise the important 1908 Act. So we know that it was a request to go through the Law Commission, the Law Commission reported back, there were exposure drafts—it’s been a long time coming and here it is. We’ve heard, as well, from a number of the speakers, that one of the issues with the 1908 Act is that it really just deals with the birth and the death of the society, that legal person, and that this bill, in its modernisation, is to really add the framework for the life of that society.

So the provisions include exciting provisions about constitutions—and we heard the Hon Andrew Little speaking on the significance of these provisions—and about officers and membership. We heard also from the Hon Andrew Little and also Elizabeth Kerekere, in her contribution, about the importance of the clarity on information for members and the privacy requirements; registration; annual general meetings—they’ll be exciting, I’m sure everyone in this House has attended a few of those—how voting happens; and, of course, accounting records. And then there’s these new provisions for dispute resolution that we’ve heard Jamie Strange, the Minister, and Dr Elizabeth Kerekere talk to.

Now, this new bill is presented in the plain English that we expect of our Parliamentary Counsel Office drafters, and it will be much easier for the people that make up these committees in the incorporated societies to follow. I note one of the submissions was from the Queenstown Tennis Club and noted that their—

Joseph Mooney: Great tennis club.

RACHEL BROOKING: I see the member opposite me looking up—membership of the committee included a driving instructor, a vet, a Department of Conservation ranger, a teacher, a civil engineer, and a film production worker. I’m sure they will be relieved, as are many committees around the country, to have a much clearer framework to be working through.

We’ve heard, also, about the good process in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. That was in the report back from the select committee about changing the threshold for what is a small incorporated society—that there was extensive bipartisan discussions to reach a consensus. I do pause to note the difference of opinion about clauses 53 and 54.

It would be remiss of me, in my remaining short amount of time, to not note that the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and the select committee considered what the Regulations Review Committee said, and that was about how a whole lot of societies are governed by their own private Act. So these can convert to come under this new piece of legislation and there’ll be regulations to do this. But the Regulations Review Committee said that that should be clearer and “that the Minister should only make a recommendation when the conversion was appropriate where having regard to the purposes of the Incorporated Societies Act.”—and that recommendation was taken up.

So I would like to commend this bill to the House. It’s an important part of New Zealand’s fabric. And well done to the Minister and the select committee for ushering it through. Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this beautiful afternoon in Whangārei, speaking to you in Wellington. Not far from where you sit now, Madam Speaker, is the Star Boating Club, and it was at the turn of the last century that members of the Star Boating Club approached members of this House with a request that measures for governing their group be made easier, because the options in those days were trusts—and pretty much only trusts. They requested some way to organise the legalities of their enterprise, which of course, has done us so proud over the years with so many international stars arising out of it. They requested a mechanism to make things easier for them to do what they did best. And so this House obliged with the Incorporated Societies Act. It’s a great pleasure now, 114 years later, to rise to support the modernisation of that Act. Just as I can now speak to you on a hybrid Parliament, just as the Star Boating Club continues to do great work and produce wonderful stars, including such people as my brother-in-law, Nick Cousins, who represented New Zealand at one point, so too this Act needs modernisation so it can continue its work.

I was aware of the work of incorporated societies, but I don’t think I’ve ever been aware of the extent of their work around New Zealand. When I had a look at Whangārei, I found out that there are over 100 incorporated societies just with the name Whangārei in it, and they do vital work around my town. If it’s issues that are more of the philanthropic variety, we have the Women’s Refuge Tryphina House, we have Multicultural Whangārei, we have the old dyslexia association, SPELD—all incorporated societies. They cover every kind of sporting code, whether you’re a bowler or a tennis player; they cover every code of music, whether you’re into choral or country and western: there is an incorporated society of Whangārei for you.

And when you have so many passionate volunteers, there is always room for things to potentially go wrong, and a lack of clarity in the rule-making and a lack of clarity in the law governing incorporated societies is a recipe for disaster. Like many of those here, I have seen occasions, in my professional life previous to this House as a lawyer, where things did go wrong and confusions have arisen.

We also have the situation that we need to attract volunteers. We need to attract volunteers to societies in a time when volunteering has become difficult for many people. In an era where we work longer and harder, where women are out of the house doing things that they wish to do—such as being members of Parliament—and we have fewer volunteer hours, we need to make it easier for our volunteers to participate.

When I looked through the incorporated societies in which Whangārei is so rich, I was struck by how many of the volunteers I know in my own Labour Party here in Whangārei do double, triple, quadruple duty across many incorporated societies. The astronomical society of Whangārei is a hotbed of Labour Party activity, and many is the Citizens Advice Bureau meeting that we have had to work around in order to meet as a Labour Party. We have a number of people doing hard work as volunteers over numerous societies. We need to attract new blood, but it’s hard to attract people who are already busy, unless they are pretty clear on what it is they signing up for, and this bill does precisely that. It gives us a new constitution, which will be clearer, and new constitutional requirements, which will make it clearer to would-be members as to what they are signing up for. It also, vitally, lays out the duties of the directors, and this is something that previously was left up to case law. As much as I love to read a good case, it’s not the easiest or most straightforward way to figure out what is meant by your duties as a director in a society—or as a member, indeed. As I mentioned, things can go spectacularly wrong when there is a lack of clarity in any group of people who are passionate about what they’re doing, whether it is country and western music or the Whangārei astronomical society.

It is important now that there will be a dispute resolution mechanism written into constitutions to make it easier for people. On that line, I do want to echo what the Hon Andrew Little said earlier: the provisions to make it clear as to what information members can get and that they can require financial information to be presented are really important in enabling societies to operate cleanly and transparently and keep members without it becoming a source of disquiet or concern. I’m also very pleased to see the lessening of the burden on our smaller societies, who would otherwise face a disproportionate financial and time burden on them when really there’s not an awful lot to them in a monetary sense.

So I want to thank the chair, Jamie Strange, the committee, and I want to thank the Minister for his hard work and that of the officials. It was clearly a committee that worked well and have come up with something which, as the chair said, strikes the right balance. The chair said, and my colleague Rachel Brooking has also referred to this as moving from an Act that used to be something that controlled the birth and death of a committee into something that is now going to help govern and guide the life of a society, while still maintaining its independence.

It seems to me that it is peculiarly appropriate on this day when the Labour Party and Labour Government has made a series of announcements about the greater support we will be giving to our community that we are also enacting—I hope—this bill, which takes something that was cradle and grave and turns it into something that is cradle to grave, in this very important area to help those who do such important work around our community. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this, the Incorporated Societies Bill, at its third reading. Other members have used such rhetorical flourishes as the “lifeblood of society”, “engine room of civil society”, and the “fabric of society”, which I think is quite neat, actually, in terms of the way that we view these very important entities and organisations in our communities.

I want to acknowledge that my discussion of the bill leans on the analysis by Andrew Bayly, our National Party spokesperson in that regard. He’s made clear, I think, in various discussions and at previous stages, as have other speakers on this side of the House—for example, the Hon Judith Collins, leading the charge for us on this—that National does support the bill. We’ve decided that its benefits outweigh its costs, but I did want to place on record, as others have on this side of the House, the fact that there are a couple of areas in which we are wishing to express concern, which we’ll be watching carefully. So I’ll emphasise those in my contribution, not to dwell on the negative for any reason other than to provide, for the record, the fact that we’ll be watching closely to check that there aren’t unintended consequences of the legislation passing.

So, first of all, as others have mentioned, this is an update to legislation. Some 114 years on following the 1908 Act, we have its replacement. Of course, there have been amendments along the way, and the fact that it’s an old Act doesn’t necessarily mean in itself that it’s not worthwhile. Of course, if it were a new Act, that wouldn’t also necessarily mean that it’s worthwhile. So we should judge these things on the quality, not the age, and to do otherwise would be bone-headed, in the words of an item about this very piece of legislation by one Liam Hehir. For those transcribing in Hansard, that’s H-e-h-i-r, pronounced “hare”.

Reflecting on the fact that it is an update, and a considerable update, there are positive aspects that go along with that. Rachel Brooking has mentioned the plain language that’s now been employed within the legislation, and that’s a positive thing, of course, as far as it goes. Interestingly, we don’t need the Plain Language Act, as it will no doubt soon be, unbelievably, in order to be able to make legislation with plain language in it, but nevertheless that’s a positive thing to be celebrated. The example of updated language and even the currency, with shilling being—I think I’m right in saying—somewhere in the old Act as an amount payable, of course is outdated and outmoded, so it’s appropriate to update that. But more substantively, of course, we think about the desire to make these entities, these coming together of individuals within a community, worthwhile and attractive to them, and, of course, not deter them as volunteers who would give their time; their money, oftentimes; and certainly their energy, expertise, and other resources to the community.

Various members have used the example of a tennis club. The Hon Judith Collins spoke of tennis clubs. Rachel Brooking spoke of a specific tennis club in the electorate of my friend and colleague Joseph Mooney. I think it’s a good analogy or good example to use, because, of course, we don’t want people who sign up to the tennis club to end up in the wrong kind of court, and others have spoken about the potential for legal liability. I hoped you’d enjoy that one, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m laughing on the inside.

CHRIS PENK: You’re laughing on the inside. The mask is hiding it very well. But, of course, we hope that there will be net benefits rather than net costs, and—you’ll forgive me one more—of course, we don’t want the service of the legal variety but more the tennis nature to result from people’s involvement in tennis clubs. For those reasons we’ve talked about the fact that we don’t want legal liability to attract in a way that would be inappropriate for, essentially, volunteers to these kinds of organisations and entities.

Others have talked rightly about the fact that there are reasons that we want to protect those who would be bound by obligations entered into or purportedly entered into by officers of an incorporated society. Actually, we had from Andrew Little discussion of a particular society in which he was involved or at least had knowledge—and he didn’t say it was a tennis club but he did say it was involved in a summer sport, so that may be a further example along those lines. But he talked about the need for decision making with a certain amount of solemnity, and, of course, he’s right to make that point.

As others on this side of the House have said, though, of course, the good-faith obligation that exists within, I think, clause 49, no doubt it’s already existing in a particular equivalent section in the current legislation. Of course, the need to act in the best interest of the incorporated society already does apply. So we just place on record the fact that some manner of obligation already does exist, notwithstanding, of course, an intention that we would all agree with that solemn decision-making, good-faith decision-making, decision making consistent with the duties of a fiduciary in some cases is appropriate.

But, of course, what we don’t want to have, on the other hand, is either a situation where would-be members of a society and would-be officers of a society are deterred from involvement because they think they might be legally liable if it’s found that they haven’t acted to that standard—of course, the equivalent situation, but if it were to be the case that a person was needing to defend such a claim, such litigation that they would be found wanting in a way that would unfairly reflect the responsibilities that they’ve taken on in good faith for all the right reasons, and so on.

I think the idea of a social contract, as others have sort of hinted at—I’m not sure that they use that language exactly, but I think the idea that interconnected obligations are owed is a good one. Of course, these are consciously entered into, contrary to discussions oftentimes around a social contract, which ignore the fact that a contract by definition is an obligation that’s entered into knowingly. But, of course, in this case, people do join clubs and societies—incorporated societies, technically—in a knowing and willing fashion. They do the things that are required to entail membership. They might seek election as an officer on the governing body of the society, and so on.

So having placed on record those concerns, we do say, of course, that there are many good things in the bill that are worth supporting. I think it’s only fair to nod at least to those, lest it should seem that my contribution is unduly emphasising the negative aspects.

One positive feature, I think, always worthwhile noting for new law that we’re making if it is adding to the statute book legal understandings that haven’t maybe necessarily been crystallised in the form of case law, or noting that, of course, some people don’t have access to read judgments—possibly they can’t get hold of them. They don’t know to look for them. They might find them difficult to understand or navigate. Even those involved in the practice and administration of law would have some sympathy with that. So I think it’s helpful that the Government has been progressing and the select committee has considered and so forth the undertaking such that the law will fill in some gaps, so to speak—fill in some legal gaps in terms of our understanding, and therefore adding certainty to those who put their hand up to serve the community in this way.

Others have referred to the lifting of thresholds so that more societies will qualify as small. The significance of that is that they will then benefit from an exemption, which makes the financial reporting requirements less onerous—so, for example, being able to avoid the cost of hiring an accountant. I should actually acknowledge, in saying that, of course, that oftentimes an accountant or a lawyer or other professional person will render their services for free in a pro bono fashion, and I think that that’s a really positive feature. Again, I think it was Andrew Little who noted that that’s commonly the case, and long may it be so in our society that those who would serve either directly in the administration of, for example, a tennis club, or those who would support the efforts of those doing so, perhaps to establish or administer or advise, do so on a volunteer basis. Of course, that’s part of the magic of these kind of organisations and these societies and the things that we do together in this country, be it sports or other community activities.

So I think we’ve, between us all, given the issue a pretty good go over. I think we’ve agreed as a House, and the record will reflect shortly in a majority passing this legislation, that there are many good things that it achieves. On the National side of the House, we have nevertheless stated that we’ll be watching carefully to check that these unintended consequences do not flow through, and, of course, if they do, we shall be ready to legislate or to offer our assistance to legislate accordingly. We commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be back in the House and to be speaking on this third reading of the Incorporated Societies Bill. So it’s a special honour, I think, to be the last speaker in the third reading of a bill, especially one that has taken such a long time to come to this stage, and also one which is replacing an Act which has served New Zealand and New Zealanders so well for such a long time. So I won’t take too long, but I do want to go over some of the important points of this bill and, along with the majority of the House, support this bill today.

The Incorporated Societies Act 1908 governs around 24,000 incorporated societies. People may not hear those words that much unless they’re involved in them. But we often hear about clubs, associations, federations, some marae, unions, and organisations that some of us in this House will be familiar with: political parties. So this bill would replace the existing Act and put in place a modern Act, which we think on this side of the House—and most in this House, I would think, would agree—retains the best of the previous Act but also modernises this legislation.

But before we move forward to passing this bill into law, I thought it would be interesting to look back at just how much times have changed since 1908. So in 1908 it was a high point for the temperance movement in New Zealand, and I understand that 12 districts in New Zealand voted to go dry that year. How times have changed. Another thing that happened in 1908 was there was quite a strong lobby for women to take up smoking in moderation, which is another sign of how the times have changed. A thing that’s relevant to the side of the House was 1908 was the year that the Blackball miners’ strike took place and this preceded the formation of the Labour Party some eight years later. And I think this was mentioned in Andrew Little’s first reading speech on this bill. He’s particularly passionate about this bill, as you would have heard, and the changes that it will implement.

One last thing that happened in 1908 that I was able to find was Ernest Shackleton, a hero of our Prime Minister, set sail from New Zealand to Antarctica. And we’ve all seen the state of the boat of Ernest Shackleton and how that’s aged. That will just give us a bit of an indication of how long this particular Act that we we’re replacing has been in place. I think actually that was one of his newer boats as well; the 1908 boat was an earlier version. So the Incorporated Societies Act must change too, just like the rest of New Zealand. It’s lived a life longer than most members of this House. But in agreeing with my colleague on the other side of the House, it should not be replaced because of its age only. It should only be replaced because what we’re doing is replacing it with something which is more fit for purpose, modern, and will serve New Zealanders better, and those who are volunteering in these important incorporated societies will be able to utilise this legislation more easily.

It is relevant to a lot of people. It may not be something that you hear about as much as some of the other legislation that we have passed, and it’s not—I have to say the majority of the emails I get are not about this Act, but I did receive one about two weeks ago asking me about the progress of this legislation. So I just want to say, “Tony, we are going to be putting this into law soon.”, and I know that there will be many, many people in the voluntary sector who will be looking for the passage of this bill, especially after it’s been moving through this House and the process has taken such a long time.

So a further reflection, really, on the process to get to where we are today is: obviously, we have an Act which is of some substantial age and in 2010 the Law Commission was charged with reviewing the 1908 Act, and it delivered its report recommending principles to change the Act. These principles, as I understand, although I wasn’t on the select committee or in Parliament at this time, were taken and then incorporated into the bill that we are looking at today. And I just wanted to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins, who I understand was the Minister at the time that the report was delivered in 2013. So I just wanted to acknowledge her contribution to this bill, and it really does emphasise how it does have support and involvement from both sides of the House.

So some of the—quickly—principles that they wanted to include in this bill were principles really at the heart of what incorporated societies are in New Zealand. So incorporated societies are run by their members and they have primary responsibility for holding societies to account, and if you don’t have members, then really it’s not the type of incorporation for you. They also thought it was an important point that society should not distribute profits or financial benefits to their members, and we’ve heard some of the changes that will be implemented as a result of this particular principle, but also how the select committee made some additional changes to make sure that important things like scholarships or hardship grants were still able to be utilised by incorporated societies, as I understand they are at the moment. Also, societies are private bodies, and it was thought by the Law Society that they should be able to act without State interference and independently. So those are all principles that were carried forward into the drafting of this bill.

This bill will, as I’ve said, replace the 1908 bill with a modern bill, and it will make incorporated societies more robust, improve governance, provide constructive options for dispute resolution while retaining the best of the tried and tested 1908 Act and codifying the case law into the Act, which, as we all know, makes it more accessible for people and easier to understand. And that’s something that we should be endeavouring to do with all of our legislation.

I think we’ve covered most of the changes of the bill. It’s surprisingly a bill that I could talk about for much longer, but I think it’s time to make this bill a law. And so after 114 years, this is a bill that’s time has come and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

MAori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to reiterate my thanks indeed on behalf of the Minister the Hon David Parker to the Māori Affairs Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage and all submitters for their time and contribution to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill 2021 is an important bill that seeks to improve the allocation and transfer of process of aquaculture settlement sites. It does this by providing to Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Māori trustee, with limited discretionary power to make determinations on aquaculture settlement allocation entitlements. This provides practical steps to enable assets already allocated to iwi to be transferred to those iwi aquaculture organisations who wish to receive them. It also ensures assets will be preserved for those who do not wish to receive them at this time and seeks to prevent future delays for iwi receiving benefits from the aquaculture settlement.

Māori have a significant presence in the aquaculture industry and the Government’s aquaculture strategy and the growth of New Zealand’s aquaculture industry and economy. Aquaculture is an industry in which many iwi already lead within their rohe and are invested in growing for the benefit of their iwi, hapū, whānau, and community. This will increase over time as iwi acquire and develop their interests in the industry and realise their aquaculture settlement assets. It’s important that the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill enables iwi to access their settlement assets within an appropriate time frame so that iwi can realise their aquaculture aspirations. This bill will offer immediate benefit for those iwi facing delays in receiving their assets. Once Royal assent is given, the bill’s limited discretionary powers could be used immediately to resolve allocation issues currently faced in the Northland and Bay of Plenty regions. This would offer benefits to those iwi who have waited years to receive their aquaculture assets and prevent this from occurring in future as iwi acquire and develop their interest in the industry.

There is broad support amongst iwi in the Bay of Plenty and Northland, members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and members of the House to progress this bill. This bill will provide long-term benefits for iwi to acquire and use their settlement assets to maximise aquaculture opportunities for Māori and, in doing so, that will be good not only for those iwi and for Māori but actually for all of Aotearoa New Zealand together. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this third reading debate. This bill represents sensible, pragmatic policy to resolve issues that have been outstanding for far too long. In my part of the country, there are significant issues that have meant that in the Bay of Plenty in particular, iwi have not been able to have access to their due rights, actually, and that’s been a real problem, because it’s holding them back from economic enterprise that can actually be very beneficial. And, actually, that was at the very core of this settlement process—was to try and make a breakthrough that would help restore some of the economic opportunity that had been lost over, literally, 100 years or more. And so to have iwi not able to conclude and use the Treaty settlement opportunities that have been provided to them is enormously frustrating—it’s very challenging and very difficult.

And so this bill seeks to provide, as I said earlier, a pragmatic solution which would allow the Māori Fisheries Trust—which was actually first established back in 2004 by the Maori Fisheries Act, and that Act was specifically designed at the time that the very early Treaty settlements were taking place—to assist iwi to fulfil the opportunity that access to aquacultural opportunity may provide them. And for there still to be roadblocks due to a lack of consensus or agreement, that is holding back significant economic opportunity and development, is something that this bill seeks to fix. It’s frustrating that it has to happen this way, but I’m confident that the trust will be able to use the limited powers that this legislation provides to provide a breakthrough to resolve those issues.

Now, not everybody’s going to be pleased. Not everybody’s going to be happy with the decisions made, but a decision will be made. At the risk of mixing metaphors, there’s an old Chinese proverb that says, “When you get to a fork in the road, take it.” And that’s the problem: iwi have got to the fork in the road and they haven’t been able to take it. And so there will be discussion, ongoing, about what should be the right method and which fork they should take, but, actually, just doing nothing and being stuck at the fork of the road is hopeless. It’s a hopeless situation for everybody.

So in commending this bill to the House, I am encouraged by the pragmatic approach that’s being taken here. The powers are limited but they will enable iwi who currently find themselves stuck at the fork of the road to take a fork in the road and move forward. I commend the bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’d like to also just acknowledge the heavy work that’s been put in to get us to this point. This is an incredibly significant bill. It shouldn’t have taken this long for iwi to be able to recognise their aquaculture aspirations. All of the data says that the sales at the moment—if we look at the aquaculture industry, they’re bringing in about $600 million based on growth, based on sales, based on the potential for innovation. This is an industry that as a country, we’ve set us up for goal and said, “Can we do $3 billion out of aquaculture products by 2035?” That’s where the aquaculture strategy is currently heading towards, and this bill will help to enable that.

As the previous member said, this has been too long, in fact. There have been plenty of iwi that have been waiting, waiting, waiting for everybody to be ready. But, unfortunately, as we all know, sometimes everybody is not ready at the same time. Sometimes, we have to make sure that we’re running with the people who are at the front of the pack, who are ready to go. Right here in the geothermal paradise of New Zealand, right here in Rotorua, we’ve got an iwi: Te Arawa Fisheries. That’s our aquaculture industry, our aquaculture organisation. They have been champing at the bit to be able to help realise their aspirations.

And I want to thank Chris Insley from Te Arawa Fisheries, who put in a submission, alongside some of our other iwi here in the Bay of Plenty—iwi such as Te Whakatōhea, iwi such as Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. They have been incredibly supportive of this process, wanting to get under way, wanting to realise their aspirations in this space, and I’ve been alongside them the whole way. When Chris talks, he gives you a really positive vibe for the future in this space. They’re talking about things like offshore and onshore opportunities, too. Offshore things like rainbow trout, things like kingfish for high-value tables, things like seaweed, things like scallops—and we know that the scallop industry needs a bit of help at the moment; it’s not doing as well as it could be—and also our very famous New Zealand, Kiwi-owned and Kiwi-loved green-lipped mussels, which actually can be turned into nutraceuticals as well. And we’ve already started seeing that roll out around the country, and there is huge opportunity in this space. It will only be done with innovation, though. Because a lot of our iwi organisations haven’t done this before, they’re coming to this table with a really innovative approach. They want to do some new and exciting things, they want to be able to realise their aspirations, and it’s really pleasing that around the House today, they’re going to get their third reading and they’re going to be able to realise their aspirations. So, Madam Speaker, I absolutely, wholeheartedly, commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise as National’s Treaty of Waitangi negotiations spokesperson and the member of Parliament for Southland to take a call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. The National Party supports this bill.

The objective of this bill is to improve the allocation and transfer process provided for in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 to better enable the allocation and transfer of aquaculture settlement assets to iwi. According to the bill’s general policy statement, currently iwi in some regions are facing indefinite delays in receiving their aquaculture assets from the trustee, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. This is due to the inability of iwi in those regions at times to reach agreement in accordance with the provisions of the settlement Act about how regional aquaculture settlement assets should be allocated amongst them.

The dispute resolution process provided in the settlement Act has been unable to address these issues, and there’s a risk that similar situations will arise in future regional settlement processes. If no changes are made, settlement assets for iwi in those regions will remain held in trust by Te Ohu Kai Moana indefinitely, causing further frustration for those iwi who will be unable to realise their aquaculture aspirations and contribute to the broader aquaculture industry.

The New Zealand aquaculture industry contributes significantly to regional development and the national economy, generating, in 2008, $600 million in revenue and employing 3,000 people, largely based in the regions. Māori have a significant presence in the aquaculture industry and have significant aspirations to increase that. This bill will ensure that iwi can access their aquaculture assets within an appropriate time frame. It will improve the delivery of the Crown’s aquaculture settlement obligations, it will protect the interests of iwi who do not wish to claim their aquaculture settlement assets at this time, and it will support iwi aquaculture aspirations as well as further support the growth of the aquaculture industry.

Southland has a long-established fishing industry and is particularly well-known for the famous delicacy, the Bluff oyster. Southland’s coastline covers approximately 3,150 kilometres. The deep, cool southern waters of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone contain a wide variety of species, including blue cod and crayfish, or the spiny rock lobster, which is Southland’s most common commercial fishing species, as well as Southland’s pāua, or abalone, fishery, which is the second-largest in New Zealand. The main fishing methods in Southland are crayfishing and cod-potting, oyster-dredging, trawling, set-netting, hand lines, and diving. Seafood exports account for around 90 percent of the seafood industry revenue, and it consistently ranks as the country’s fourth- or fifth-largest export earner, so it’s very significant.

I am pleased to note that Ngāi Tahu, the largest iwi in Southland, and, in fact, in the South Island, signed an aquaculture settlement with the Crown last year. This is a positive development for Southland and the Māori economy. Representatives of the Hokonui, Waihopai, Awarua, and Ōraka-Aparima Papatipu Rūnaka signed the agreement, which provides Ngāi Tahu marine space to develop their aquaculture industry. This will help get te Murihiku kaimoana to the world and help their aspirations so as to diversify the Southland economy, leading to new jobs and new opportunities.

Southland, I’m proud to say, is growing into a centre for aquacultural excellence. In fact, the CRA8 fishery is the largest Mainland rock lobster fishery geographically. The region extends from Long Point south to Stewart Island and it goes up to the coastline of Foveaux Strait, and then northwards along the Fiordland coastline—much of which is in my electorate—to Bruce Bay. While the area is large, almost all of the fishing occurs within 8 kilometres of the shore. And it’s a significant fishery that we don’t hear a lot about, but a lot of brave men and women spend their time off the sometimes wild waters of Fiordland catching crayfish and sending them to the world.

The value of aquaculture in Southland extends beyond the contribution it makes to the local and national economies. A 2015 study on the social effects of aquaculture in Southland found that aquaculture had a highly positive impact on the Bluff and Stewart Island communities. The creation of employment as well as the contribution the companies and the employees are making means that Stewart Island and Bluff are significantly socially richer due to the presence of aquaculture. Something that’s probably not well known is that the town of Te Ānau in my electorate is also the base of possibly the biggest crayfishing operation in New Zealand, and one of the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere. They have their international headquarters, so to speak, in the town of Te Ānau, providing great local employment, and it’s a fantastic story for regional New Zealand and for my electorate. And I see opposite me a local who knows well the value that this adds to the Te Ānau community.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: And a lover of the produce too.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Yes. A fantastic local company.

Although it’s a little dated, a 2014 Colmar Brunton survey of the public perceptions of aquaculture in New Zealand showed that Southlanders had a very positive attitude towards the aquaculture industry: 91 percent of Southlanders agreed that New Zealand should look for opportunities to sustainably grow the aquaculture industry, 84 percent of Southlanders had positive views of the industry, and 74 percent of Southlanders said that aquaculture has not had an impact on their personal use of New Zealand’s coastline. And I know, having spoken to players in the industry, that there’s been really careful work over many years to balance the interests of commercial fisheries with those who like to go fishing for personal use. They are very carefully managing the stocks in the wild fisheries, but this move towards aquaculture will help to sustainably grow our seafood industry in New Zealand and sustainably grow our economy.

National supports this legislation because it helps to unleash Māori potential and Māori prosperity in the Māori economy. And I note that in 2018, a study noted that the Māori economy at that time was already worth $68 billion, which is an incredible story of aspiration and success that I don’t think we hear enough about, and it shows the genuine efforts and the incredible things that are happening in the Māori economy, and is a story that I think New Zealand could do well to tell more of.

Most Māori fisheries are based out of regions that are crying out for new opportunities, jobs, and a reason for Māori to return to their whenua and papakāinga. This reform has the potential to help make a real difference to the Māori fishing industry and to the future prosperity of rural iwi. Under the current law, when there is disagreement between regional iwi groups over how aquaculture assets from a Treaty settlement can be shared, it can mean iwi are left unable to receive their assets and to use them indefinitely. The intent of this amendment bill is to better facilitate the timely distribution of iwi aquacultural settlement assets where disputes arise regarding the proposed allocation. Submitters have stated that aquaculture presents significant opportunities for iwi and Māori. For example, in the Bay of Plenty there has been significant investments in aquaculture to support regional development, creating jobs for hapū, whānau, and iwi. Many other regions are keen to take advantage of this opportunity when settlements are released.

So this bill solves an important issue which the primary legislation cannot. It has a potential to make a real difference to the Māori fishing industry and, as I said, to the future prosperity of rural iwi and the growth of new opportunities that we do not yet have. I’m proud to be the member of Parliament for Southland and have an opportunity to speak about Southland’s world-leading aquaculture sector, the exciting growth that is happening there, and I look forward to seeing the growth of this sector, particularly the contributions of iwi and Māori to that growth. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) (remote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. It’s a pleasure to speak in the third reading of this bill. This is a really historic bill that I always have pleasure in supporting, and I’d like to acknowledge our Minister David Parker for leading this bill through the House. This is about returning assets to iwi. It’s about honouring—well, providing a mechanism whereby the settlement assets that iwi do receive by virtue of their aquaculture settlement rights are actually able to be distributed.

Mr Simpson spoke about the fork in the road or this matter being stuck, and that’s exactly what happened. Because of the wording of the actual bill, as it stands at the moment, where there was a disagreement in a particular region, even if it just involved one iwi and they had no other issue with everyone else, that whole region’s assets were held up. It was unintended, but it’s something that came to light, and I want to acknowledge Te Ohu Kaimoana, who have responsibilities under the statute in terms of working with iwi in the allocation of these settlements in fisheries and in aquaculture. I want to acknowledge Te Ohu for their work in raising this issue and working with the Minister and with officials to ensure that we can come to an approach—and also, obviously, with the iwi stakeholders to ensure that we had a workable way forward. And that’s what this bill does: it provides a limited discretion for Te Ohu Kaimoana where there is a disagreement and there’s no other way through, through dispute resolution mechanisms—it provides a way for Te Ohu Kaimoana to be able to release those assets where there is no issue so those other iwi are able to receive those assets and pursue their aspirations in aquaculture.

As we’ve heard, this bill is really focused on two areas: Te Moana-a-toi, or the Bay of Plenty region, and also up in Ngā Iwi o Tai Tokerau, up in the Far North. And I just am really pleased that we are able, as a Parliament, to work with Te Ohu and work with iwi to ensure that there is a way that we can get through this, because aquaculture is a dynamic industry. It’s a really important industry to regional New Zealand. I know Mr Mooney was talking about how he has quite a lot of aquaculture interests down there in Southland. I don’t mean to boast, but I can confidently say that I have the most aquaculture assets and industry within Te Waiponamu and also potentially in future over at Wharekauri as well. And if we want to add in the head of the fish up in Pōneke, we can add that too. So aquaculture is really important. We see it—anyone can see it in Marlborough. They can see it in the Banks Peninsula. They can see it down in Stewart Island and down in Southland, and also up in the Far North and in the Bay of Plenty. And so this is a real welcome piece of legislation.

I want to particularly acknowledge the iwi who have been so patient in waiting for this bill to be passed into law, in particular the iwi of the Bay of Plenty and also in Te Tai Tokerau. Rest assured, I know that Te Ohu Kaimoana, once this bill has been passed into law, will work through its processes to exercise its new discretionary power to ensure that those assets can be released. I’m excited at the future of aquaculture for Aotearoa, and in particular I want to acknowledge the member in Waiariki, my colleague Tāmati Coffey, because it is a dynamic region for aquaculture and has huge potential for aquaculture. They will be direct beneficiaries from the passage of this bill.

If we look at the wonderful operations that are happening—whether it’s Whakatōhea with their processing of mussels; whether we look to Te Whānau-ā-Apanui now, who have been receiving some funding support for their Te Huata mussels spat hatchery, which is a project that we certainly hope and we are supporting to come to fruition; or whether it’s Te Arawa Fisheries as well and the world-famous manuka-smoked flavoured mussels that Chris Karamea Insley is such a great marketing spokesman for, and the wonderful results that they’ve achieved this past year—iwi are at the forefront of the aquaculture industry. They have to be because they have significant interests in it, and I guess just the examples that I’ve outlined in the Bay of Plenty alone demonstrate how the future is going to be so dynamic for that region. And we want to do our bit as Government to be able to support, to honour our obligations under these Treaty settlements, and to ensure that the iwi can achieve their aspirations not only in the Bay of Plenty, but all the way around the motu.

I’m unsure of my time, but I’ll keep going until I get a bell or something. But I just want to support and commend the Minister and Te Ohu Kaimoana and the iwi. It takes a while, but we have worked through the various processes to ensure that we can effect a simple change—but will make a huge difference to the iwi concerned. I know that all the other iwi around the country are looking towards the main aquaculture regions and taking the lead from them. I know, whether it’s down in Te Waipounamu or up in the North Island, it’s inspiring iwi. I’ve just had a recent meeting with Aquaculture New Zealand, the industry heads, in support of Minister Parker. It is an important industry and definitely very welcoming of the Māori participation in the industry, as evidenced by the representation around the table from iwi interests.

So with that, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I wish the iwi all the very best and Te Ohu Kaimoana and thank them for all their patience throughout. Nō reira, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. I speak on behalf of the Green Party to support the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill on its third reading. Many thanks to the Minister—tēnā koe te Rangatira—and the Māori Affairs Committee for bringing this to the House.

Long before Te Tiriti o Waitangi guaranteed iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga over our lands, forests, and fisheries, long before European settlement and the subsequent colonisation of those lands, and long before Captain Cook claimed to have found us when we were in fact not lost, whānau and hapū have exercised their fishing practices, and our ancestors practised local forms of stock translocation for pāua, for toheroa, for tio, and other shellfish.

As Takutai Trust, the Māori Commercial Agriculture Settlement Trust identified—and I quote—“As descendants of Tangaroa [God of the Sea], Iwi Māori have the obligation and responsibility to tiaki—to care for Tangaroa so that Tangaroa may continue to care and provide for Iwi. Ka ora ki tai, ka hu ki uta.” So events have certainly overtaken us since then, and while the obligation and responsibility may remain, the authority is a little less so.

So the original bill provided for the full and final settlement of Māori commercial agricultural claims since September 1992, but it was never one settlement. It was always multiple regional settlements. Those assets were transferred to Te Ohu Kaimoana to facilitate agreement between what they called “IAOs”—iwi aquaculture organisations—and settle with them. There’s so much wrong with that system. We think it’s a different version of large natural groupings that have been used in Treaty settlements that the Greens have consistently and adamantly spoken against. In this case it breaks iwi and aquaculture interests into regional council boundaries. However, our iwi leadership is visionary and nothing if not pragmatic, so they make it work. Extensive consultation was undertaken with iwi prior to this bill being introduced, and the positive submissions certainly attest to that.

So iwi see that the powers given to Te Ohu Kaimoana to allocate and transfer assets to iwi advance their interests and the opportunities, but more importantly, it enables iwi to uphold their tino rangatiratanga over their own moana and fisheries. That works really well when the iwi within the respective IAOs agree, but what this amendment bill does, as others have identified, is enable Te Ohu Kaimoana to make a decision when they don’t agree. That is a big deal, and I think it’s going to be quite a good incentive to come to consensus.

A priority for the Greens is that iwi, hapū, and whānau have a say in the issues that affect them. So we agree with submitters such as Te Whānau-a-Haunui Ahuwhenua Trust and others who suggested that hapū should be directly represented, and we’re disappointed that this is outside the scope of the bill. However, as Minister Little, Tāmati Coffey, and others in the House have identified, the select committee heard that iwi were just impatient to get on with things, to access the assets after years of waiting. Again, as my colleague Tāmati Coffey specified, Te Arawa Fisheries was one of them. They raised in their submissions that approximately half of all those IAOs that should have received their assets by now have faced indefinite delays because of the current constrict of the Act, which has not allowed the Bay of Plenty or Northland to settle. They’re hoping that as soon as this bill gains Royal assent, Te Ohu Kaimoana will use that new limited discretionary power to resolve allocation issues in the Bay of Plenty and Northland areas to stop any further delays and enable iwi to just get on with their work with the aquaculture assets that, let us remember, were already theirs. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. With thanks to everybody who works within and around this Chamber, including the sound guys and Chamber staff and clerks—everybody—including members. The House stands joined until 2 p.m., Tuesday, 5 April.

The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.