Thursday, 5 May 2022

THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2022

THURSDAY, 5 MAY 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. Amene.

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill; the second readings of the Plant Variety Rights Bill and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, the Retail Payment System Bill, and the Maritime Powers Bill. On the morning of Thursday, 12 May, there will be an extended sitting for special debates on the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill and New Zealand’s first emissions budget under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and further Government bills to be discussed through the Business Committee.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. I was wondering, in light of the fact that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is coming to the time at which it needs to be either extended or amended, if the Leader of the House could give the House an indication as to what the Government’s intention is with relation to the Act.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): As I’ve indicated to the member last time he asked this in the House, I do think a further extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is going to be required, because, at the moment, many of the aspects of the COVID response are still based on that legislation. The legislation does have a sunset provision within it, so it will ultimately expire, but, at the moment, it is still being used. So it is the Government’s current intention to bring a further motion to the House to extend the Act.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): I just wonder what progress the member would be able to talk about with regard to the Organic Products Bill, since we talk about that each week.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Heaps!

Petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

Petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

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

CLERK: Petition of Anna Hodgkinson requesting that the House inquire into whether those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines are being recognised and cared for appropriately by ACC and healthcare providers, and allow qualified health practitioners to grant medical exemptions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Housing

1. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: How many Kāinga Ora homes in new developments would not meet the requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards heating formula, as mentioned in a Cabinet paper released on 3 December 2021, and how much extra funding, if any, would it cost to bring these developments up to the standards required by the heating formula?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): All Kāinga Ora new builds will meet the healthy homes standards (HHS). Following the healthy homes standards regulations coming into force on 1 July 2019, issues with the sizing of heaters in apartment-style buildings in builds since 2008 were raised. Kāinga Ora, developers, and property investors raised the issue with officials—in particular, with how it affected new-build apartments. As a consequence of this, we have updated the regulations to make changes to the heating requirements to reflect the higher thermal performance of new homes built to the 2008 building code requirements for insulation and glazing and certain apartments. We consulted with a range of heating and ventilation industry experts, property owners, community housing providers, developers, tenancy advocates, and Kāinga Ora to test the proposed changes. Officials began working on these changes from March 2021. Policy decisions were made on 15 November 2021, and that is the Cabinet paper the member is referring to. The regulations were approved by Cabinet on 7 April of this year. The changes were made public on 14 April of this year, and the law comes into force on 12 May 2022. To assist landlords affected by the recent amendments to the HHS in respect to the heating requirement—i.e., those landlords with new homes built to the 2008 building code requirements for insulation and glazing and those who own certain apartments—they will have until 12 February 2023 to comply with the updated heating standard. In answer to the second part of the question: therefore, no additional funding was required.

Brooke van Velden: Can the Minister guarantee that the Government did not change the healthy homes standards heating formula because it was found that Kāinga Ora’s new developments would not meet the standard and that “The developments would have to be completely redesigned to allow for extra pipework to accommodate a heat pump rather than the wall-panel heaters the engineer recommended.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can confirm to the member is that we heard these concerns from a range of developers, a range of builders, a range of landlords, including Kāinga Ora but also community housing providers. I know, as a local constituent MP, I heard it from businesses within my electorate, some of whom are electrical engineers and were involved in the calculations around the capacity needed. So we heard those concerns from a range of areas. We asked Kāinga Ora as our Government development agency to give us some case studies for us to work into our policy making, but this is an example of the Government listening to concerns raised with it and making changes accordingly.

Brooke van Velden: How is it fair or acceptable that the private sector was forced to comply with poorly developed heating standards at great cost, when the Government can simply move the goalposts for Kāinga Ora’s own developments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I simply don’t accept the argument the member is making there. We made these changes in response to concerns that we heard from private developers; we made these changes in response to concerns that we heard from landlords. This is an example of our Government listening. Yes, it does include Kāinga Ora, but this is about helping all landlords and developers, not just ourselves.

Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister accept that the unnecessary cost that the incorrect heating formula imposed upon landlords will be passed on to tenants who are already struggling to make ends meet in this cost of living crisis?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In terms of the number of landlords that this would affect, it’s likely to be a very small number. It is homes that were built since 2008 and a subset of apartments; it’s not all buildings. Not all of those rentals would have complied with the standards, because it was not at the threshold of having to. We recognise that, now there are new standards, additional time has been given, and it’s why, in my primary answer, I talked about the time line now stretching out to 2023.

Brooke van Velden: What does she say to landlords who put in place huge heat pumps at large cost to themselves and their tenants, who will feel as though the Government has shifted the goalposts for their own developments and not for landlords who are trying to make a home affordable for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m not sure if the member realises that these changes also apply to private landlords; these changes are not just changes for Kāinga Ora. These are changes to the healthy homes standards that apply across the board.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to decarbonise Auckland’s harbour ferries?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Government recently announced a $27 million investment for two new fully electric ferries for commuters and sightseers to travel on. Auckland Transport will trial across various major inner- and mid-harbour services once they launch in 2024. The ferries will have a 200-person capacity, space for bikes, a top speed of 25 knots, and a range of 40 kilometres. Two electric fast ferries, and associated wharf infrastructure, will be built in Aotearoa New Zealand by EV Maritime and McMullen and Wing.

Helen White: What will be the impact of this project?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The current ferries operating in Auckland contribute about 20 percent of Auckland’s public transport emissions. These electric ferries are the beginning of dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with each ferry displacing approximately a thousand tonnes of carbon emissions annually. This project will also be a major boost to the rapidly developing maritime clean technology sector and further upskill those working in the sector—for example, propulsion control technologies from Wigram-based company HamiltonJet will allow the boats to operate at higher speeds while using less energy. This project is a boost for our climate goals and our economy, which is especially vital as we continue our economic recovery from COVID-19.

Helen White: How is the Government funding enabling this project?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Twenty-seven million dollars of grant funding was committed by central government. This funding will directly cover approximately 75 percent of the costs of constructing the two electric ferries. The remainder is covered by Auckland Transport, but without the Government’s cornerstone investment here, these ferries would not have been in service as quickly as intended.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree that incorporating the Fullers’ Waiheke route into the public transport operating model could help to accelerate decarbonisation efforts?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is not a question for the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is, of course, related to the fact that Auckland Transport in the Regional Land Transport Plan, the public transport operating model, currently excludes only two routes in the whole of the country that are aligned with regional land transport. It is very—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So what’s your point—what’s your point of order?

Chlöe Swarbrick: The point of order is that the Minister was involved in negotiating the way that this would be rolled out—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the answer is that the Minister isn’t responsible.

Chris Bishop: Was the Wellington Electric Boat Building Company, which has just built the Southern Hemisphere’s first electric ferry operating in Wellington, allowed to bid for the contract that the Minister has just announced last week has been awarded in Auckland?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ministers were not involved in questions of procurement or bidding, as should be the case.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. That doesn’t actually address the question. It just says the Minister’s not responsible for procurement. That’s true, but she is responsible to the House for the procurement decisions of her officials.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll get you to ask the question again, thank you.

Chris Bishop: Was the Wellington Electric Boat Building Company, which is operating the Southern Hemisphere’s first ever electric ferry right now across Wellington Harbour to Eastbourne, allowed to bid for the contract that the Minister has announced to the tune of $27 million for Auckland?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In so far as it relates to the primary question, the Minister may answer.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Ministers are not involved in procurement or bidding, I invite the member to put that question in writing and I’ll happily ask officials to finish the answer.

Question No. 3—Housing (Public Housing)

3. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): How many people are on the State housing waitlist now compared to September 2017, and has she received advice on when that number will return to the levels of September 2017?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): I am proud of this Government’s public housing build programme, the largest of any Government since the 1970s. Since 2017, more than 9,000 new places have been delivered across New Zealand, and 7,300 of these are new builds. The national housing crisis we inherited meant that there simply aren’t enough houses. While we are starting to see progress, we are dealing with the failure of the previous Government to build houses. Not only did the previous Government not build enough houses for the 5,844 people on the waiting-list; they ended up with 1,500 fewer public homes across both Housing New Zealand and the CHPs than they started with. The 2017 wait-list did not reflect the real need, and while it will take some time to repair the carnage wreaked by the previous National Government, we are committed to rolling out our record public housing build programme. If the previous Government had built at the same rate as we are building, there would be over—

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we’re now up to 45 seconds to a minute of the answer; we are yet to hear anything related to the actual question. It’s a very straight, non-political question, and the House is entitled to expect a concise answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s unusual for members to interrupt during the answer to a question, saying that it’s not being answered, when one should probably give the opportunity to hear the answer. But seeing as it’s been raised, I disagree with the member. There are aspects within what the Minister has said which do actually address the first part. It doesn’t completely address it so far, but I look forward to hearing the rest of it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. So just where we left off: it will take some time to repair the carnage wreaked by the previous National Government, but we are committed to rolling out our record public housing build programme. If the previous Government had built at the same rate as we are building, there would be over 22,000 more public houses in New Zealand today, accounting for over 80 percent—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I should have added—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —of the—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt, but I should have added that she should do that a bit quickly.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —OK, I’m just finishing—accounting for over 80 percent of the 26,868 on the current waiting list.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure that when you review the tapes later this evening—as I know that you do—looking at the answers given by the Minister, you’ll find that there were a number of assertions in that which are very wide of the Standing Orders. Now, if, in fact, your ruling today is that it stands and it’s OK and it’s fine, will that also stand in the mirror Standing Order, which is to do with asking questions, where the Opposition could make all range of those similar sorts of assertions, without any documented proof or otherwise, in a question to a Minister?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I do want to acknowledge what the Hon Gerry Brownlee is saying, and I should really have pulled up the Minister. I was listening very carefully for the answer and it took a while, so my advice to the Minister is to get there a lot more quicker, and to the member asking the question to wait for the answer. But I will have a look at it and I will come back and let you know what I think about it.

Chris Bishop: Why did Kāinga Ora build only one net additional State house in the first quarter of 2022?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If we have a look at the builds that Kāinga Ora has done across the 2021-22 financial year, there are 546. But because we are a Government that is committed to an ongoing building and redevelopment programme, we report these figures as net, so we also subtract off there the houses that we demolish to make way for even more public houses that we will be building.

Chris Bishop: Why did she say she was proud of Kāinga Ora’s progress on building, when, in the first quarter of this year, Kāinga Ora built just one net additional State house in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m proud of Kāinga Ora’s record on State house building. We have added over 7,000 new-build houses since we have been in Government. We are only beginning to repair some of the carnage wrecked by the previous National Government in the area of housing. But what the member will not understand, because his party fails to understand, is that in order to redevelop and build houses, you have to tear down the ones to redevelop the area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the question to Chris Bishop, the number and level of interjections are so much that I barely heard the answer. Interjections about mental health and other things not even related to the question are really out of order.

Matt Doocey: Oh, they’re all areas of failure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Doocey, you are lucky I was not on my feet.

Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did she agree with official advice at the time about the impact of removing interest deductibility on increasing the housing register, and would she accept that that advice has been proved right and she has been proved wrong?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is a topic that has been traversed many, many, many times in this House. The advice the member is referring to was advice that was given in December of 2020 for Ministers to consider over summer. We considered that advice over summer and, of course, we came back, and what we did is that we said interest deductibility should pertain to new builds. This is why we are seeing a continuation of the building consents that we are seeing. So as a Government, we took means to mitigate that advice.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister aware of any examples where Kāinga Ora, previously Housing New Zealand, demolished a whole lot of State houses and then didn’t build on the land where the houses had been demolished, and instead passed that on to private property developers, and under which Government did that happen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m afraid that if I went through the list of examples under the previous Government where that happened, the Speaker would sit me down. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. Can I continue?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. We’ll go on to the—

Chris Bishop: Supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you can both sit down. Look, if the member is asking a question and the noise is to the level that I can’t even hear the Minister’s response, then it’s an absolute waste of time even having the question answered.

Chris Bishop: Supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You want another supplementary?

Chris Bishop: Yes please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d advise members behind you to be quiet.

Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, thank you. I’ll just say we’re very excited to see you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, and so I just encourage—supplementary. So, in light of that answer to my previous supplementary, is it her position that the removal of interest deductibility does not have an impact on the State house register?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have gone over this many, many times in this House—that what we are seeing is a continuation of an increase of supply because as a Cabinet we listened to the advice that said that we needed to put in place mitigation around ensuring that we had continuation of supply come on board. My opinion of what contributes far more to the growth of the State house wait-list is that the previous Government ended up with 1,500 fewer public houses than they started with. That includes those held by CHPs and then Housing New Zealand. Not only did they flog them off but they did not build them—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough.

Chris Bishop: Isn’t it the case that this Government has now been in office for four and a half years, and it’s about time they stopped blaming the last National Government for the utter ineptitude they have shown on housing that means 4,000 kids are growing up in motels?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What it’s about time is for us to remind New Zealanders that we are a Government that has added over 9,000 public housing places in the time that we have been in Government. I will have put this against the 1,500 fewer than they started with of the previous National Government. Kids have ended up in motels because that party failed New Zealand in housing.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister blame the last Government for the doubling of the number of houses being built in Auckland under this Government, or is she willing to take credit for this Government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s out of order.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about Care in the Community?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Care in the Community model has served us well as we’ve responded to Omicron. Today, I announced a further $58.1 million in funding. This funding will support social service providers and community food organisations in the amazing work they’ve been doing to help people with essential needs. We’ve worked hard to slow the spread of Omicron, and our Government’s response is showing to have paid dividends with a drop in demand for support. Now with higher rates of vaccination coverage, we’re now able to pivot our response and support a broader range of circumstances for people who’ve been significantly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions and requirements.

Glen Bennett: What will today’s announcement provide?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today’s announcement will provide certainty for many organisations who are supporting our communities as we move through the pandemic. Specifically, we will fund support for ongoing and transitional Care in the Community support, including a pivot in work for Community Connectors, confidence and certainty for community food organisations in the Ministry of Social Development’s Food Secure Communities programme, and funding to support the wellbeing of disabled people.

Glen Bennett: What role will Community Connectors play in the transition plan?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As caseloads of self-isolating households reduce, Community Connectors will transition towards providing broader support to families impacted by COVID-19. With 500 Community Connectors hosted by 260 providers around the country, the Community Connection Service has been a vital link to support the needs of people self-isolating. The funding announced today will allow this mahi to continue while also enabling connectors to help people with broader COVID-related issues. This could include those with high and complex needs who may need support with employment or educational support. We’ll continue to keep an eye on the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 in our communities and be ready to pivot the Community Connection Service if required for a further Omicron wave or a new variant.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Louise Upston: Which statement is correct: “Yes, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has resumed the use of [work] obligations since June 2020.” or “We don’t just apply sanctions easily.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Both of those comments are correct. They are not mutually exclusive, at all.

Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain why sanctions for failing to attend a work appointment in March 2022 were 67 percent lower compared to March 2020?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Because now we have a Ministry of Social Development that has conversations with their clients. They build relationships with their clients. They ascertain what their situations are. It’s led to great results. We’ve seen the largest exits off benefit into employment since electronic records have been kept, and we certainly haven’t reached the peaks of benefit numbers that were originally forecast by Treasury. We stand by our record during the COVID pandemic and we continue to see good results with regards to exits off benefit into employment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister stand by her statement on the Breakfast show on 1 April that there are “still whānau living in hardship”; if so, does she think the Social Security Act’s purpose should aim to end hardship, not just alleviate it?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, I stand by the statement that I made on 1 April, and I will also add that some of the issues that we face, including hardships that whānau are faced with, were issues that we faced pre-pandemic and really have been exacerbated because of the pandemic. I certainly do think that we need to address parts of our welfare system to do things like improve income adequacy, but there are other ways in which we can address hardship and show a Government’s commitment towards reducing poverty. I think the best indication I can see of that was actually this Government making the decision to introduce child poverty reduction legislation in this House. That holds us accountable as a Government.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement yesterday, about reducing the number of long-term job seekers, when significant staff shortages exist, that “This takes time.”; if so, when will numbers on jobseeker benefit longer than a year return to the 2017 levels?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I watched the House yesterday to see what was asked here—some very good answers given on my behalf. But I will point out that the member who was asking the question was saying that there were 110,000 people on jobseeker who have been on long term. I need to remind that member that about 70,000 to 80,000 of those who are on jobseeker benefit actually have a health condition or disability of some sort. Absolutely there are jobs available at the moment—absolutely. MSD is working hard to get people into those jobs but we do need to recognise that there are a range of New Zealanders that have health conditions or disabilities that make it really hard for them to take up employment. I encourage the member to watch Sunday this coming week, when they interview three people with neurodiverse conditions and they get to talk about why it is so hard for them to be able to gain employment.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that “The last thing [we want] is people on benefits for ever and a day.”, when those on the jobseeker benefit long term has increased by 60—six zero—percent under her watch?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There have been increases in the number of people on benefit in general because of the fact that we have faced a pandemic and a range of things have happened during this time. That means in every category, there are groups of people who have actually gone up. One of the biggest challenges that I think we face—that has been overlooked in the past by previous Governments and not responded to well enough—is actually the issue of supporting people with health conditions and disabilities into employment. Need I remind that member that around 70,000 to 80,000 of those on benefits have a health condition or disability? It’s not necessarily that they don’t want to work; there are a range of barriers in place to them being able to take up employment. A responsible Government invests there and creates a strategy to actually support them to get into employment, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Government claim that Mana in Mahi is reducing benefit dependency, when just 14 percent of participants were on a benefit for longer than a year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve gone through the statistics. In fact, with regards to Mana in Mahi, we have outdone what our targets were in terms of the numbers that have been involved in the programme. I think, last time I checked, about 88 percent—I believe; between 86 and 88 percent—actually had either completed or were still on the programme, and a few had left but not gone back on benefit. Given the particular group of people that we are targeting, that’s an amazing outcome and it shows that it’s an effective programme.

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting answer, but it didn’t focus on—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not a point of order; that’s a comment.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I’m sure my colleague was going to point out to you that the Minister had not addressed the question, and you cut her off extremely quickly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: She did not; she made a comment. She was giving a commentary on the answer. That is not a point of order.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I’ll raise the point. The question was not addressed. It was about the number of people going into Mana in Mahi, not the number of people coming off it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And if that had have been asked at that time, I would have considered it at that time. I will consider it now and tell you that it was addressed.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with the assertion that a programme designed to stop people becoming long-term beneficiaries and keep them off benefits and in work is a failure if it succeeds in doing just that?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m not even quite sure what that Minister was asking. However, I think I agree. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Question No. 6—Māori Development

6. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Māori Development: What reports has he seen on education and employment outcomes for rangatahi Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. I’ve received an update on Pae Aronui, delivered through Te Puni Kōkiri. Pae Aronui trials innovative methods to grow the confidence, capability, and connectedness of rangatahi—of young people. They’re some of our most disconnected young people, who come from some incredibly tough backgrounds. In fact, I’ve had some of the Opposition members join me to see the success we’ve had on some of these courses. I’m pleased to share with the House that of the 275 young people in year two, 94 percent have successfully completed the programme. So far in year three, of the 200 young people engaged, 89 have already gained employment, and 47 have re-engaged with education. I’m incredibly proud of our young people and providers in our Pae Aronui programmes—a number of them Pākehā providers too, and I give a lot of credit to them in terms of putting their hands up and working with this really tough group of people.

Arena Williams: How is Pae Aronui different to other targeted youth programmes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pae Aronui providers often provide services for whānau as part of the response and have always focused on ongoing pastoral support for the rangatahi concerned. Providers incorporate tikanga Māori; te reo Māori, our Māori language; cultural identity; and mātauranga Māori within their Pae Aronui programmes. This reflects community needs and supports a by Māori, for Māori, tikanga design approach to the programme as a whole. I have seen gang members shift incredibly, believe it or not, after going through the programme—sometimes not long programmes—but so proud that they have got something to show and something to look forward—

Hon Member: How many, Willie?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —to after six to eight weeks. Ask the question and you’ll get the answer.

Arena Williams: How do programmes like Pae Aronui support rangatahi Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Iwi-based programmes and those taking a whānau-centred and kaupapa Māori approach is how they deliver the programme. They’re helping young people connect to their culture, which is helping to build resilience and confidence. Māori providers innately take a holistic approach, which is helping reach beyond young people to their peers and whānau members as well, who are seeing and wanting to emulate their success. Pākehā providers are working in tandem with a lot of Māori in the communities. I salute those Pākehā providers—because that’s what it’s all about, partnership and working together so that we can uplift some of our young people in some of our communities.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister advise what the Opposition might learn from Pae Aronui?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, sit down. That’s out of order. The Minister’s not responsible for that.

Question No. 7—Police

7. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “I reject the premise that gang tensions have increased under this Government’s watch”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I stand by the full context of my full statement, which was since the arrival of the 501s in 2015, the nature of gangs has fundamentally changed, making them much more overt and sophisticated. When this Government took office two years later, we got to work giving the police the tools they need to deal with these threats. We have more police than any other Government in this country’s history, we’ve banned assault weapons and introduced firearm protection orders, we’ve introduced legislation to hit organised criminals where it hurts—their pockets—so they don’t benefit from dirty money, and we’re running the resilience to organised crime programme to work with communities to address the harms and drivers of organised crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is Operation Cobalt an admission from the Government that gang violence is out of control?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No; it’s an admission from this Government that the extra resourcing that we put into policing allows us to make sure that we tackle gang issues.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has the Government waited so long to take enforcement action against gangs, and announced a task force similar to Strike Force Raptor, an idea the Government mocked three years ago?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I acknowledge the departure of the former member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, who was the original author of Strike Force Raptor. The Government didn’t, obviously, take up the offer from the Opposition to take up that. What we like to do is make sure we’re resourcing the police properly. That has been seen through the success of Operation Tauwhiro and also, as the member points out, the police action that will take place under Operation Cobalt. This Government has resourced the police properly, which has ensured that we’ve got 1,400 more police. Because of the parliamentary system, I’m able to be here as Minister of Police answering this question, and also to be at the Royal New Zealand Police College in the great city of Porirua, to welcome the graduates of Wing 353—71 more recruits for our front line.

Hon Mark Mitchell: If this Government has resourced the police properly, why are we seeing such a massive increase in gang violence?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I think the member should have listened to the answer to the first question around the issues that have come about since the gang 501s have arrived. I’d also point out that while this Government has increased police resourcing in the 4½ years that we’ve been in power, between 2013 and 2014 I believe that police numbers on the front line dropped 300. Our Government is committed to making sure we back the front line, as opposed to the previous National Government that talked a big game and let numbers go down.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Minister aware of any party in this House that voted against this Government’s legislation that legislated for greater penalties for gun crime?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I do—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is not responsible for how the parties vote.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have gang tensions increased or decreased under this Government?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think what is important is if communities do have concerns about gang tensions in their community, that the Government is making sure we are resourcing police to tackle it. We’ve talked about Operation Tauwhiro. I’d also like to—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear, short, and concise question and the—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And he hadn’t even answered it, so it’d be really helpful to hear the—

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Listen up.

Kieran McAnulty: Start again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I was saying, it would be really helpful to hear the whole answer and then I can make a judgment on that.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Before I was interrupted, I was just going to refer to Operation Weirton which took place earlier this year, which took 600 kilograms of meth off our streets; took $7 million dollars of assets, of which $1 million was in one single bank account; and undertook several arrests. Again, because we’ve got resourcing, we’re making sure we’re tackling organised crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask that question again, please? He hasn’t answered it. It was a very short and concise question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and it’s been addressed. If you have supplementaries to use, then absolutely you can ask it again.

Dr Duncan Webb: In respect of police resourcing of gangs, does the Minister think the 71 new officers graduating at 2 p.m. today will be of assistance there, and is he aware of any other graduates in the past period of this Government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In so far as it relates to the primary question, the Minister can answer.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, there are obviously 1,400 over the last 4½ years, which we’re extremely proud of, and, obviously, the Minister is representing the Government at the graduation today. We’d like to congratulate the 71 new members of the constabulary who will be joining the front line soon.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he remain committed to ensuring that the Government’s response to COVID-19 is informed by the best available scientific evidence; if so, what is his response to an open letter by more than 150 doctors and scientists calling for additional protections, particularly in schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes, this Government absolutely remains committed to a science- and evidence-based approach to dealing with COVID-19. As much as we’d all like it to be the case, the pandemic is not over and we cannot afford to take our foot off the pedal as we head into winter. That’s why the Government has implemented a protection and minimisation strategy, following the advice from Professor David Skegg and the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group. Our response has, and will continue to, focus on protecting those groups that are the most vulnerable and to stay agile and be ready to adjust to change as the outbreak continues to evolve as it will. This will mean a continued push for higher vaccination rates and the further promotion of public health measures that allow people to protect themselves and their loved ones. The hard work and sacrifices of New Zealanders have supported the Government’s strategy and delivered one of the lowest rates of cases in deaths in the OECD, and now is not the time to change that approach.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with these experts that “COVID-19 spreads predominantly by airborne transmission, therefore, to minimise infections public health policies must aim to provide clean air within indoor environments.”, and, if so, why isn’t this Government requiring higher standards of ventilation and air purification, including in schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the last part of the member’s question, we’ve looked very closely at ventilation within schools in terms of what is the most effective way of delivering good ventilation in schools. And artificial ventilation systems—so, air cleaners—don’t replenish the air as frequently as opening the windows even a small amount.

Teanau Tuiono: What advice has he received, if any, on the role of masks in reducing school transmission, and does this suggest that the Government should be providing N19, N95, or equivalent masks to schools and mandating mask-use over winter?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It very much depends on the context of the school environment in question. Yes, masks still continue to play a useful role in schools. Schools determine their own approaches around mask-use depending on the particular risks that they are confronting and relevant to their particular circumstances. They have our full support where they decide that mask-use should still be required. And we are continuing, and we have, to provide to schools masks to make sure that cost is not a barrier.

Teanau Tuiono: What steps, if any, has he taken to increase COVID-19 vaccination among tamariki Māori, such as working alongside community providers or rolling out vaccinations at schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Increasing our tamariki vaccination rates remains a priority. We continue to work alongside local providers to make sure that vaccinations continue to roll out. We do have to acknowledge that vaccination rates amongst the youngest age cohort who are eligible—the five- to 11-year-olds—continues to be low. One of the reasons that we are hearing that second dosage, or the rates of second dosing, are lagging behind first doses is that a number of those children have subsequently had COVID-19 and therefore have to wait three months before they can get their second doses. There will be some who haven’t yet had a first dose for the same reason; although that seems to be less of a factor in the first doses. We all have a challenge to ensure that we get our first dose rates up amongst that age cohort. Ultimately, it’s a parent’s decision, and we should all be enforcing the positive messages around the value of vaccination to the parents so that they have confidence in taking up that option.

Question No. 9—Education

9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting regular attendance and engagement in education?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): On Sunday, the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and I made a pre-Budget announcement of $88 million of targeted funding for attendance and engagement programmes to ensure our tamariki are in education. Over the past two years, we have been investing in evidence-based attendance initiatives that are led by schools and communities who know their students best. This latest package is providing further funding for these initiatives, which, prior to 2017, had been under-invested in. Attendance rates need to improve across all ages, deciles, and regions. They have been declining since 2015 and COVID-19 has added more challenges. Budget 2022 provides system-level and targeted investment to make the education system a place where learners want to be and where they can get the targeted support they need, ensuring there are routes back into learning for those learners who are disengaged.

Marja Lubeck: What approach is the Government taking to support students to attend school regularly?

Hon JAN TINETTI: When changes were made to the attendance service in 2013, the work of engaging students in education was taken away from schools and communities who know their students best. The Government is redesigning the attendance service to bring that provision closer to schools. That work is happening now and has been rolled out in some regions already. We are also taking a prevention approach to students who are starting to show signs of poor attendance—for example, the Positive Behaviour for Learning suite is a proven programme, which has been in place since 2011, that fosters safe, inclusive environments, particularly for ākonga and whānau Māori. Now, the refresh programme is based on the latest research. It empowers schools with practical solutions to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I think the Minister’s definitely addressed the question.

Erica Stanford: Can she confirm that 8,000 children were not enrolled in any school in March 2022, twice as many as at the start of 2019, and, if so, why has she waited so long to do anything about it while we face a truancy crisis that has exploded under this Government?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’d really like to thank the member for that question, because it is important that they understand why we take an evidence-based approach and plan this so carefully, because it can go terribly wrong if you don’t. In 2013, when the previous National Government took a non - evidence-based approach and developed an attendance system that took it away from schools, we saw attendance falling dramatically. That is not the approach that this Government will take.

Marja Lubeck: What does this funding mean for schools, students, and families?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This funding is targeted for our most vulnerable, but will be of benefit to all schools. For students with learning support needs, we will have increased resourcing with the Incredible Years programme to support caregivers, whānau, and school and early childhood educators to improve communication skills and emotional regulation. Targeted funding has been carved out for our Māori ākonga and Pacific students at risk of disengaging and schools will be better supported to identify and support their students to attend school in engaging and learning.

Question No. 10—Education

10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What, if any, is the net financial deficit of Te Pūkenga forecast for 2022, and how much more or less is it than the actual Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics sector deficit in 2019 prior to the establishment of Te Pūkenga?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Before we commenced the reforms of vocational education that brought the 16 existing polytechs and institutes of technology together under the Te Pūkenga umbrella, a range of potential deficits for the sector without reform were projected. The highest of these was $156 million in 2022. I am advised that Te Pūkenga group is currently forecasting a deficit of $110 million for 2022, consistent with the mid-range of those earlier projections. Forecasts must, of course, however, be treated with caution. In 2021, last year, Te Pūkenga forecast a deficit of $46 million but actually delivered a small surplus. In 2019, the sector produced a deficit of $49 million.

Penny Simmonds: Does he consider that a deficit of $110 million—approximately $60 million more than prior to his mega merger, when the deficit was $48 million—means the sector is better or worse financially?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe it’s an acceptable level of deficit, and that’s the reason that we are reforming the sector, because the range of projections going into the reform programme could have been significantly worse if we had not undertaken reform.

Penny Simmonds: What concerns, if any, have the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) expressed to the Minister regarding Te Pūkenga not meeting the expectations he outlined to Te Pūkenga in July 2020 to “improve efficiency and effectiveness”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’d be fair to say the Tertiary Education Commission have been giving a range of quite frank advice on the Te Pūkenga change process. It is a work in progress. Based on the TEC advice, the board of Te Pūkenga commissioned some independent expertise as well, to review their change processes so far, that have made some quite robust recommendations about that. It is still a work in progress. There is still a lot more that needs to be done. I still have confidence in Te Pūkenga undertaking that change process, but it is a complex programme of change and it does have risk associated with it.

Penny Simmonds: What is his response to the report produced by the Auditor-General that notes “It is important that Te Pūkenga address the underlying problems with financial viability within its network. The lack of a detailed plan about how it will do this is concerning.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I agree with the Auditor-General, and similar concerns have been raised by the Tertiary Education Commission. Te Pūkenga has only been in existence for a relatively short period of time, and they have inherited a sector that was in a great deal of difficulty. So we do have to give them time and support to make sure they are getting to the bottom of the structural problems that they inherited from the 16 component organisations that make up Te Pūkenga to make sure we get the sector back into a viable state. I would note that they continue to deliver educational outcomes for their learners whilst they are undertaking this reform programme. In fact, there are some very good indicators there, including the fact that the number of people engaged in work-based learning, which now also comes under the Te Pūkenga umbrella, has been continuing to increase, including a 50 percent increase in the number of building and construction apprentices, for example.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think the public of New Zealand will consider the $120 million of taxpayer money spent on merging polytechnics into Te Pūkenga has been well spent when Te Pūkenga has made the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) sector less financially viable?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the premise of the member’s question, and, if she’d listened to my primary answer, she would know that the assertion in her own question is wrong. In fact, the deficits were being forecast before the reform programme was undertaken. There are transitional deficits as this reform programme is being undertaken, as were projected when the reform programme was announced and started. We do expect that we will see the delivery of a significantly better sector, but that is going to take some time. It is a complex programme.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister recall the number of times he went to the Minister of Finance when he first became the Minister responsible for the ITP sector to have to bail out polytechnics because they were going under?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in fact, I do. Over $90 million had to be put into the existing institutes of technology and polytechs within the first couple of years that we were in Government just to keep the lights on, and the forecasts were indicating that that would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars if a reform was not undertaken.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about supporting greater access to driver licence testing and training?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yesterday, I joined my colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, to announce support to help 64,000 New Zealanders access driver licence testing and training. Having a driver licence is a key requirement for up to 70 percent of jobs, yet a big portion of our community can’t access training or tests due to costs or other barriers such as location. Evidence shows that getting a driver’s licence is an important step in obtaining employment, staying out of the justice system, and staying safe on our roads. This $86.5 million investment from Budget 2022 will have tangible results for people progressing through the driver licensing system and broader social and economic benefits for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Greg O’Connor: How does this scheme make it easier for people to get drivers’ licences?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This investment will provide targeted support for people to progress through the drivers’ licensing system by providing access to high-quality lessons to ensure that drivers are ready for the road. We are improving access to testing through initiatives, such as partnering with communities and increasing driver testing officers’ capabilities and capacity to meet the needs of communities. Waka Kotahi will also provide mobile testing options for learner theory tests so that community members can access testing in locations such as community centres, marae, and schools in remote and rural communities.

Greg O’Connor: What, if any, are the flow-on benefits of ensuring people have access to drivers’ licences?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There are many. Drivers who remain engaged within the licensing system and progress to their full licence have been shown to have improved road safety outcomes. It stands to reason, therefore, that greater access and support for individuals learning to drive will result in lower rates of serious injuries and deaths on our roads—a key focus of our Government’s Road to Zero programme. Removing the barriers to driver licence training also helps to prevent fines, court, and the risk of criminal penalties, providing pathways to work for those that otherwise might face barriers, and, in doing so, unlocking social, economic, and productivity benefits right across our economy and society.

Simeon Brown: Is the Minister aware that the average wait time to sit a restricted driver’s licence test has doubled between 2018 and 2019, and doubled again between 2019 and 2022; if so, what is the Minister’s target for wait times to sit a restricted driver’s licence test?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think that the member and most reasonable people would understand that the experience of COVID over the past couple of years has resulted in an increase in waiting times. Those are starting to come down in regions where resource has been applied, and this Government is putting an additional $86.5 million through this package to make sure that people have access to these services and that waiting times are acceptable and reasonable to support communities. I would note that initiatives like this would not be possible with great swingeing tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders. We’re investing in New Zealanders and access to the services they need.

Simeon Brown: Is the Government still committed to five free driver’s licence lessons for young people at secondary school, or is this just another broken promise?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As per the announcement that the Minister for Social Development and Employment and I have made, we are providing, through this announcement—as we’re discussing in this question—targeted support for those drivers’ licensing candidates and communities who need the support within our system. That’s what this $86.5 million investment will make. It will help over 64,000 people who might otherwise not get their driver licence to get one. That’s a good outcome.

Kieran McAnulty: How will this scheme specifically benefit those in rural areas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I have received very active representation from Government MPs in rural electorates around this issue who do want to see there be better access to driver licence testing and training in their areas. This scheme will help by providing much more flexibility and resource for Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Social Development to work with providers in those areas and to do innovative things like set up theory testing in community halls, marae, and schools by setting up block booking in areas. We know, in many of these rural areas, the current model doesn’t necessarily meet the fiscal bottom line, but we don’t want to leave those communities in the lurch. So this additional resourcing will enable us to do things like setting up block booking for people in those areas so that service providers can come in, take bookings, and get those young people into licences. This is going to be very good for rural New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Is he confident in the performance of Corrections; if so, how does he explain a 29 percent increase in prisoner-on-staff assaults from November 2021 to February 2022, despite there being a decrease in sentenced prisoners?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, I support the work of Corrections. While no violence is acceptable, the demographic of the prison population has changed over the last few years, with higher proportions of gang members, higher proportions of people with convictions for violence, and increased numbers of people with mental health and drug and alcohol issues. This is having an impact on violence in prison. Corrections now encourage reporting of any inappropriate behaviour regardless of how minor, whereas previous Governments did not. It is important that even minor behaviour is no longer ignored. Reducing violence and aggression is a priority and I’ve told Corrections to undertake priority work to try and turn these numbers around.

Toni Severin: What would the Minister say to a Corrections Association of New Zealand spokesperson who said to me, “The Minister signed off on a five-point action plan on 12 May 2021. To date, it has had zero effect and we call it the five-point inaction plan.”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’d encourage that person to continue working with their unions and with Corrections to address the issues that we’re concerned about. As I said, no aggression and violence in prisons is acceptable.

Toni Severin: Why has the annual number of reconvictions for individuals serving electronic monitoring sentences for violence charges increased by over 33 percent between 2017 and 2021?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Speaker, can I just clarify. Is she talking about people in prison or not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you—

Toni Severin: It’s to do with—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’ll get you to ask the question again, and be very clear.

Toni Severin: Why has the annual number of reconvictions for individuals serving an electronic monitoring sentence for a violence charge increased by over 33 percent between 2017 and 2021?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I dispute those numbers. Rehabilitation and reimprisonment rates have actually gone down under this Government. It’s a bit unclear, really, where she was heading because there was so much to that question, but you can see in the annual report for Corrections that rehabilitation and reimprisonment rates have actually decreased.

Motions

Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022—Approval

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022, made under section 4 of that Act.

This is a reasonably technical motion that, with the approval of Parliament, allows then the order to be promulgated and for drugs listed in the order to then appear in the appropriate schedule in the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is a measure designed to provide protection from harm in the face of a growing presence or risk of presence of the drugs listed so that our communities and our people are kept safe from them.

The nature of the Misuse of Drugs Act does attract some commentary from some quarters as, amongst other things, it is about making sure that certain substances are appropriately classified and, with the appropriate level of classification reflecting the level of harm that they pose, then there are measures available if those drugs are abused or improperly used.

These orders providing for the classification of drugs in these circumstances are on the basis of advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, and their judgment is that, of the drugs listed in the order, the current controls and restrictions on them do not adequately reflect the potential harms and risks that they pose. Approving this order means that we not only provide greater safety in relation to the presence of these particular drugs in our community but meet our international obligations under a variety of international instruments: the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

Some of these drugs are ones that are already present in New Zealand but now pose a level of risk that they need to be reclassified. Some are drugs that we know from intelligence are abroad and there is a much higher potential or risk that they will make their way into New Zealand. These are measures to make sure that, with the appropriate classification, it affords proper protection to New Zealanders who might otherwise be subject to their use or abuse. On that note, I commend the motion to the House.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This motion came to the Health Committee. It is very administrative, and what it looks to do is to classify or reclassify 49 substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act. These are very serious substances. They include alpha-PVP, which is a controlled drug analogue; amides and carbamates, which are precursors to methamphetamine; specified fentanyl analogues, and we know that overseas that fentanyl has become one of the pre-eminent drug concerns; and specified synthetic opioids, and these are psychoactive substances when used for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. The order also talks to prescription medicines, controlled drug analogues, and a range of chemicals that don’t fit into any one particular category.

It was explained to the Health Committee that these were all recommended by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and that classifying substances in this order is not about criminalising people, but it’s more about people who use harmful drugs—how we can give authorities the tools to better deal with people, and, particularly, to have better tools for those who manufacture and supply harmful drugs. They said to us that doing this will provide better investigative powers for the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Police to disrupt supply.

We asked about some of the implications on particular service areas, particularly midwives and their prescribing of fentanyl in a legitimate way. The ministry said that in consultation with the midwifery groups, the drug regulations had been amended to allow fentanyl and tramadol to be added to the list that midwives can prescribe.

Can I point out Penny Simmonds’ member’s bill in a similar area, which looks to reclassify the term “medical practitioner” to authorise prescribers as it relates particularly to nurse practitioners, who might also be excluded from obtaining section 29 drugs. This is a similar process that’s happened to midwives here so that they’ve been allowed to prescribe fentanyl.

These are very serious medicines or precursors with the ability to create great harm. The select committee unanimously supported the progress of the order, including our Green colleagues on that select committee, and so we had unanimous support for this order to come to the House. The National Party supports this order through to its conclusion. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I seek leave of the House for an extra five minutes on this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Well, I’ll be as fast as I can then. The Greens are opposing this Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order—

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I seek leave of the House for Chlöe Swarbrick to have an extra two minutes for her speech in this debate.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. A member is not able to seek leave on behalf of another member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s not dramatically different from the previous leave sought.

Brooke van Velden: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Another point of order, Brooke van Velden?

Brooke van Velden: I seek leave for the Green Party to have the ACT Party’s extra five minutes in this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s in the same context. That would be asking me to overrule a determination of the Business Committee. [Interruption] Oh, I stand corrected. Normally, that would be done out—but that’s fine. If you’re doing that, we’ll do a 10-minute speech.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Brilliant. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the ACT Party. So I’m contributing to this debate today—and thank you, as well, to the member opposite, Chris Bishop. I’m standing on behalf of the Greens today to oppose the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022. I think it’s really important to be given this time to unpack exactly why that is, and we do this because we fundamentally oppose the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and there are so few opportunities in this House to discuss or debate this Frankenstein law, of which this Order in Council only served to continue to pump with metaphorical steroids.

For those who are listening and uninitiated, I think it is really important to unpack this mechanism that we are grappling with today in the form of an Order in Council. This isn’t quite a law that we are passing but an Order in Council, which needs parliamentary approval. This is important to point out because the mechanisms that exist within the enabling legislation—that is, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—mean that if you want to classify or reclassify a substance that is, in practice, effectively introducing or increasing criminal penalties associated to a substance, you only need an Order in Council like this. That has a turn-around of about a month. That is a very different process to one that exists if you were seeking to declassify or to reduce the criminal penalties associated to any given substance as listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That is a really important point to make because, effectively, we have baked into that law a ratcheting-up that makes it incredibly difficult to change or to reverse, especially when new evidence comes forward.

I’ll unpack further those issues with regard to the very narrow remit that the expert advisory committee has. So if you were seeking to try and declassify or to reduce the criminal penalties associated to a substance because new evidence came out about where it sits in relation to harm for other substances, you can’t do this passage of an Order in Council, which takes a matter of a few weeks; it’s required for you to pass an amendment bill to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. And as the Greens, in particular, have experienced over the past several years and definitely in the last two decades, in attempting to make those amendments to declassify or reduce criminal penalties as associated to certain substances and the massive months’ worth, if not years’ worth, of process to go through that first reading, second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading stage—let alone the months’ worth of opportunity to scrutinise something at a select committee—it is quite frankly unfathomably unfair that we have a situation where you can see penalties increased through a process as swift as this one in Order in Council. So, once again, I want to thank my colleagues—particularly Brooke van Velden—for enabling me to unpack this in this debate today.

This is, again, as I’ve already alluded to, yet another example baked into the fundamental problem of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which biases and, arguably, actually incentivises criminal punishment whilst making any alternative approach, actually, incredibly difficult to achieve. The same has to be said of the establishment of the expert advisory committee in the early 2000s by virtue of amendment. Now, the expert advisory committee was established, importantly, to try and provide some expert basis with regard to how substances were being classified in relation to each other with regard to harm. However, the remit of the expert advisory committee is such that they can only recommend where substances should be classified—that is, how much of a criminal penalty they should get—as opposed to being able to recommend any alternative approach, such as evidence-based approaches, to actually reduce drug harm in our communities. Literally, all the expert advisory committee can, therefore, do is make recommendations around ratcheting up or increasing or introducing new criminal penalties associated to substances as listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. They cannot make recommendations that are evidence based such as Te Ara Oranga, the fascinating and fantastic programme rolled out in collaboration between DHB and police in Northland, which—interestingly, it appears as though we have consensus in this House—is a phenomenal programme that is in need of expansion. Just for those who are uninitiated, Te Ara Oranga is a programme that seeks to reduce methamphetamine demand by targeting those who are currently caught up in the supply chain. It has seen a 34 percent reduction in harm and criminal offending, and for every dollar invested is returning between $3 and $7.

I do need to note, with regard to particularly this classification and presumption of supply Order in Council that we’re considering today, that it’s quite the opposite kind of approach and, again, one that is disabled fundamentally by the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that it basically seeks to decriminalise those who are experiencing addiction problems and in turn supports them with drug harm minimisation.

While the drugs classified in this Order in Council are dangerous, as I have always said, and as the Greens have always maintained, when you consider that a substance in and of itself can be harmful, the next question has to be, how do you go about reducing that harm? We know that ratcheting up criminal penalties won’t reduce drug harm. In fact, the only thing that criminal prohibition with regard to substances has ever achieved is in fact more drugs available on the market, evidenced by the fact that we have had numbers of these Orders in Council over the past two decades, which have continued to classify more and more substances, in turn requiring the classification of more and more substances, because it turns out that when you criminally prohibit something, those who are baking up illicit substances in their kitchens or otherwise will become those home chemists and create even more substances, which in turn creates more drug harm, more people in the prison system, more families torn apart, and more lives ruined.

It’s also really worth, I think, pointing out another one of the fundamental problems with regards to the presumption of supply, which, of course, this Order in Council goes to the heart of and others have alluded to in their contributions. This is one of the very rare areas of law where the burden of proof is reversed. To unpack that, if you are somebody who was accused of a crime by the police and by the State, you are put into the courts where, typically, the usual presumption is that of innocent until proven guilty. It is the case with the Misuse of Drugs Act that when you have a threshold above what is noted in the Misuse of Drugs Act classification—which, again, this Order in Council is seeking to amend for a schedule of 49 different substances—you are then in that court experiencing a reversal of that burden of proof. In layman’s terms, that means that instead of the State having to prove you guilty, you yourself are being presumed guilty and having to prove your innocence.

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a motion on a schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, not a lecture on burden of proof, in respect of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ms Swarbrick’s wandering all over the place without any real reference other than the odd gratuitous one to the schedule.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve been listening very carefully to the member’s speech and I do agree to a point what the member has raised. However, I have given the member a wide scope and there have been times within her speech which have been relevant, and I have to have a judgment of the overall relevance to the motion on the table. It is, in my opinion, not beyond the ability of the member to bring everything that she has said into order, and I would ask the member in the last two minutes to do that.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Because, of course, today we are debating a motion regarding the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022, which makes amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, particularly with regard to classification and presumption of supply. That is why I am referring to the reversal of the burden of proof as laid out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, when it is presumed that you are supplying a substance because you are found to have over a certain threshold. Of course, this Order in Council seeks to classify or reclassify 49 substances. I therefore think, for those following at home, but also for sake of Hansard, that it is incredibly important that we contextualise what this Order in Council actually does in practice.

So, summarising then, this reversal of the burden of proof has been found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Supreme Court. Also, former Attorneys-General have found it to be so. Therefore, it is the case that the Greens must oppose this notice of motion regarding the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022, because what it does is simply further entrench a Frankenstein law which biases criminal prohibition and the punishment of those who, simply and frankly, need an evidence-based approach. Drugs, it seems, are winning the war on drugs, and I believe that it’s time that this House gave evidence a chance.

A party vote was called for on the question, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022, made under section 4 of that Act.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Order approved.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, sir. I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the Fisheries Amendment Bill and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 12 September 2022.

This bill is needed to strengthen and modernise New Zealand’s fisheries management system to create a more sustainable, higher-value operating model for fisheries and to better incentivise good commercial fishing practices. The fisheries management system overall has served New Zealand well. However, it is a product of its time and it reflects the science and technology that was available when it was developed in the 1980s and 1990s, and because of some of those constraints within the system, there are disincentives for better fishing practice, which can reduce the catch of unwanted fish. Current rules contribute to commercial fishers catching too much and then discarding too much, both in terms of less-valuable species and different-sized fish. This of course has an effect on the fishery, which has an effect on the economics as well as the sustainability of the resource.

Perhaps one of the most serious aspects of the current regime is the illegal discarding of unwanted fish. This was shown under the last National Government when Operations Achilles and Hippocamp came to light, and, as a consequence, the then Minister, the Hon Nathan Guy, kicked off some of the measures that are ending up in this in respect of the likes of cameras on boats.

When we get better rules, we can also start to improve some of the offence provisions that are in the existing Act. Historically, because fisheries offending has been so hard to detect, when it is detected, normally far out at sea, far from the public eye, the penalties for these hard to detect breaches have been very severe so as to disincentivise them, and now that we’ve got new technologies such as on-board cameras, we’ve got the opportunity for improved monitoring and verification and for consequential changes to offence provisions.

The bill seeks to address the issues of both legal and illegal discards by simplifying and strengthening the current rules around what fish and aquatic life can be landed and what can be returned to sea. In response to these new rules, the bill proposes to introduce new graduated offences, rules to improve the effectiveness of on-board cameras, and related cost-recovery arrangements, and it also makes some changes to enable quicker decision-making in respect of fishing, perhaps within a fishing year, in a way that will be good for the industry as well as the environment. The bill also proposes to introduce a new defence to allow commercial fishers to lawfully return catch to the sea when necessary to save protected species. Strangely, that’s currently illegal.

These changes sit within the reform agenda that we’ve got going, which includes the introduction of electronic catch and position reporting, and on-board cameras being rolled out across most of the inshore fleet. By simultaneously improving the level of monitoring and verification of catch with on-board cameras, reducing the ability of fishers to illegally return unwanted catch to the sea, and providing for proportionate offences and penalties, we will incentivise better fishing practices.

With respect to new landings and discard rules, the bill amends the Fisheries Act and associated regulations to clarify that all quota management fish caught by commercial fishers must be landed and accounted for within the fisheries management system unless they fall within an exception that has been issued by the Minister. The bill proposes to establish three criteria for the Minister to consider when issuing exceptions for returning catch to the sea. These are, firstly, whether the stock or species has an acceptable likelihood of survival; secondly, whether retention will have a negative economic value—by that they mean whether it’s going to spoil other catch in the hold; for example, ammoniating catch species if, in the hold, it will ruin the other fish—and also to consider whether in some cases mandatory returns are needed for biological, fishing management, or ecosystem purposes.

Some current exceptions of stocks and species will meet the new criteria and will continue in place. Most stocks and species will be transitioned into the new system over a four-year period. This will start with the most significant species by catch volume or by proportion of total landings. I expect that within the first two years, exceptions covering 75 percent of the catches of fish below the minimum legal size and 97 percent of live releases under Schedule 6 will be reviewed.

As part of the transition, there will also be amendments to fishing regulations to reflect the new system and these amendments will be in place before the end of the transition period—i.e., 30 September 2026. The transition period is also needed to allow fishers some time to adjust their operations and to develop ways of creating value from currently unwanted fish.

The bill enables through regulations new ways that fishers can dispose of unwanted catch on land. Under current settings, they’ve got to deliver their fish to a licensed fish receiver or through wharf sales, with some limited exceptions, but there’s no obligation on the likes of the licensed fish receiver to accept all catch. So new regulations will give fishers access to other legal ways to dispose of their catch on land where it is appropriate, which will be in very limited circumstances.

As I’ve said, the bill alters the penalties regime. The maximum penalty for the most serious offending will be retained, but an infringement and demerit point system will be developed through regulation to address lower-level repeat offending.

Changes are also needed to support the effective use of on-board cameras. The bill clarifies that all commercial fishing - related activities can be effectively observed by equipment such as on-board cameras. The bill also clarifies that tools such as on-board cameras that are used to develop a service that is cost-recoverable can be cost-recovered.

There are also changes being made through the opportunity this bill presents to enable faster rule changes at times within a season. Things are pretty sticky at the moment and sensible changes are prevented, so we’re trying to update this. For example, there could be a pre-agreed range of catch enabled in advance and triggered within a season so that they can be used for the benefit of the industry or, if we’re approaching a sustainability limit, for the benefit of the environment. The bill also proposes similar changes to amateur fishing regulations by empowering the Minister to specify recreational management controls in a regulatory instrument.

In respect of the protected species defence, currently no defence is available for returning catch to the sea for the purpose of saving or releasing protected species like sharks and rays. The bill proposes a new defence provision that will allow commercial fishers to return those to ensure their survival—not just protected race and shark species but also marine mammals.

There has already been extensive consultation on these proposals over the years, and, indeed, some of these changes have been long called for, but really couldn’t be made until we had funded cameras on boats. So that consultation has included another round between February and March 2019 and has shaped the policy proposals in the bill. Continued engagement after the bill passes will be integral to successful implementation.

This is going to the Primary Production Committee. It is an important process. I look forward to receiving the select committee report at the completion of their deliberations, and I encourage people to submit. I commend the bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, along with my colleagues, look forward to sharing the National Party’s thoughts on this bill, and, as the Minister has said over the last 10 minutes, this has had a pretty long gestation. It’s been the thick end of a decade where issues relating to the quota management system and, particularly, the sustainable use of New Zealand fisheries—that it’s not operating as effectively as it could be and that the incentive regime around reducing unwanted catch is not optimally set up. We had the 2015 review, we had the 2016 Heron report—which the Minister referenced—under Nathan Guy’s time, and there’s been subsequent Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) compliance projects as well.

But, as the regulatory impact statement notes pretty clearly, whilst there’s broad support for the need for reform, there’s still limited alignment, in our view, on what to do. One thing that keeps coming back consistently is there is a lack of trust that exists within the sector for reasons that can’t be traversed in these 10 minutes, but it remains a challenge to ensure that we get the right outcome with this bill.

As the Minister has said, the four main provisions: amending rules for what fish must be landed and what must be returned to the sea, enabling graduated offences and penalties, streamlining the decision-making process for setting catch limits, and some technical management changes to the Act to assist with the roll-out of cameras. At its core, it removes the Schedule 6 exemptions that are currently in place, with a far narrower band of opportunity for fishers to release to the sea, and, of course, that is supported with the planned significant roll-out of on board cameras. So, in a nutshell, this bill imagines significantly less fish will be discarded, cameras and observers in increasing numbers to check compliance, graduated penalties, and streamlined decision-making. At first brush, it all sounds reasonable, but then when you dig into the detail there’s some genuine complaints that we have real concerns with, and we expect the select committee to be able to have, as the Minister said, some focused deliberation on it.

Fishers are likely to exceed their annual catch entitlement—which is called ACE—and will have to pay deemed value because they’ll be returning more fish landed than was hitherto the case. There is a limited market currently for that unwanted smaller fish, and so there is likely to be more fish dumped to waste, but the penalty regime was, in our view, an improvement over the quarter of a million dollars—a $10,000 fine for one or two fish that are accidentally caught in a net when it gets dropped again seems excessive, and the risk is that these rule changes are not as flexible as what the sector actually needs. You can have a theory which sounds fine in Wellington, but it must actually pass the sniff test of being workable in a boat out in the ocean.

There is going to be significant commercial impact. Your own regulatory impact statement makes it very clear—and I quote—“We expect significant fleet rationalisation will occur over the medium term.”—that means less people involved in fishing vessels in our local inshore fisheries. That is an outcome of this, and we need to be very mindful of that as we progress through this.

Your regulatory impact statement also says that even with cameras—and this is actually, I think, a critical issue—and observers, it is very difficult to determine the size of the fish, the species of the fish, and the likelihood of survival of the fish, and is very challenging and difficult for both observers and cameras. So cameras are not a panacea. They clearly help, but the idea that these rules are going to be comfortably overseen by a plethora of cameras needs some testing. Indeed, in the conversations that I’ve had in recent weeks with fishing operators themselves, they have talked—with conversations that they’ve had with MPI, they have talked of up to 30 cameras per vessel. I mean, the cost is prohibitive. You really get a sense there that whoever that was in MPI who was making that assessment of how to manage the issue had lost all sense of reality.

So we need to have clarity from the Government around how these cameras will be rolled out. The technical amendments make sense, but we’ve got to be assured that this is going to be a practical application of this technology, and the privacy concerns that have been raised with me over recent times absolutely have to be clarified. We have raised specific questions of the ministry with respect to the privacy issues relating to the footage from the cameras, and, to date, have not been given a satisfactory response.

So a number of significant concerns that we raise from the National Party side of the House. One of the key ones for me based on my, I guess, primary industries history is that when you look through this regulatory impact statement designed by your officials, Government members, there’s not a single mention of the word “pragmatic”—not a single word. Ultimately, as the Minister has said, if you’re going to land something here—excuse the pun—that is actually going to be workable from an industry and stakeholder perspective, pragmatism needs to infuse the final conversations over the next two or three years.

But, in the spirit of fairness, there are elements here that deserve support. There is value in simplifying the decision-making framework so it is more nimble and fleet-footed. This is an ongoing expectation of consumers globally, that you have a line of sight over the sustainable fishing practices for your fisheries and that you can demonstrate that with transparent reporting and data. Our competitors are moving into this space, particularly our European friends. They are moving their fleet into the same type of regulatory regime and, as we know here, as an export-orientated country, you must keep a very keen eye on what your consumers are expecting of you and ensure that your own business practices are meeting that and, if necessary, have that backed up by a regulatory regime.

There is, in short, an issue to improve here. The real question that we need to ask ourselves over the next three months is: is what the Minister has provided in this suggested bill exactly the best to progress it? We would argue there is much improvement needed before it finally gets passed in the House.

The reason, ultimately, that the National Party is supporting this bill through the first reading is those points of principle, if you like, in terms of what’s happening globally that I’ve outlined but also the Minister made it very clear that he has been, I think, quite realistic in terms of the transitional arrangements. They’re to be in place until 2026. That does give the sector some time to respond but, above all, they must be able to respond to final regulations that pass the sniff test of practicality. I have seen it before over the years that the Wellington idea just simply fails when asked to operate in an industry context and, in this case, a marine context many miles from the New Zealand shore.

We’ve got to get the balance right here. We’ve got a fantastic industry with fantastic people, a product that is world-renowned and the demand for it is growing. We’ve got to ensure that a regulatory framework that we finally come back from select committee with is fit for purpose to ensure that they remain successful in the future. The National Party supports, with some reservation, this bill.

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

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge Mr Muller, who has just resumed his seat, for their support for this bill.

This is a really important piece of legislation. It has had a long gestation under the previous Government and now through Minister Parker, our oceans and fisheries Minister, who is leading this work and has actually brought it through to this point.

This Government has a vision. We want to ensure the long-term health and resilience of our ocean and coastal ecosystems, including the role of fisheries. With that vision to the fore, we have a very busy work programme of a range of measures that are coming through, such as the implementation of cameras on boats, and now also through fisheries systems reform through this bill.

So this is a lot of work. I want to acknowledge all of the officials that have been involved, and likewise the stakeholders, who are a very important part of our industry, because let’s not forget that fishing plays a very important role in New Zealand, in our economy, and in our society.

Commercial, recreational, and customary interests all form our fisheries regime, and let’s not forget that commercial fishing employs 13,300 people. It contributes $4.2 billion per year in total economic activity. It included $1.35 billion in export revenues just through to the year June 2021. In addition, recreational fishing is also a very popular activity in New Zealand. About 700,000 people each year enjoy recreational fishing, and they spend almost $1 billion on recreational fishing and related activities.

We mustn’t forget of central importance is the role of tangata whenua in fisheries—the customary fishing rights that have been affirmed through the Treaty of Waitangi, through settlements that we have with the introduction that came of the quota management system. So there are a lot of stakeholders up right across the country who have a very keen interest in this legislation.

This is a great piece of legislation because it updates a range of measures. Ultimately, we want to improve the behaviour and we want to improve the productivity of our industry but also we want to look after the resource, because we can have all the rules in the world and we can have all of the measures in place, but if we don’t look after the resource, we don’t look after what’s in the ocean, then what do we have?

So I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. Landings and discards—we want to really update these rules.

I want to commend the Primary Production Committee. I know they will be giving a rigorous examination of this bill and will be hearing from submitters from up and down the length of the country.

But, ultimately, these are measures, which need to be put in place, have long been called for. I want to acknowledge once again the role that this Government is playing, led by our Minister, to ensure that we continue to drive this work programme forward and to deliver on that vision. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Tim van de Molen. It is good to see you. Welcome back to the House of Parliament.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to be back here in person rather than just on these beautiful screens that we have here now.

Look, I’m happy to rise and take a call on this and I’m looking forward to being a member of the select committee, the Primary Production Committee, that will consider this more closely as we progress through the legislative process. We absolutely agree there are some sensible aspects of this bill that we support, but, as my colleague Mr Muller has mentioned, there are some areas that we are concerned about as well.

Now, I just want to touch on some of the comments we’ve just heard as well in terms of the Labour Party vision for fisheries. I think most Kiwis would agree that a sustainable ocean environment is something that we should all aspire to have. It’s an important part of what it is to be Kiwi, and given that we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone, it’s critical that we manage that appropriately.

I would just note though that we haven’t seen much action in terms of marine reserves, so I certainly encourage the Government to step up the pace there. Actually, the five years under this Government is the longest time since the 1980s in which we’ve not had a new marine reserve established. There were 11 under the nine years of the National Party, so I’d encourage the Labour Party to step up and enact some of that vision we just heard around protecting our fisheries.

Indeed, the other comment I would just pick up on was around the recreational fishing aspect. That is very much a part of what Kiwis do as well, and enjoy. I enjoy going out and dropping a line in the water—not so much the catching part but dropping the line is more my area of expertise. But, again, we’ve seen some terrible behaviour over the last year or 18 months ago, when there was a story that came out of horrendous overfishing of pink maomao up the Coromandel Peninsula, which was actually a loophole that was allowed, and that overfishing of some thousands of fish caught recreationally was an area that really needed to be jumped on. So I know there has been some work done now, finally, from the Minister to try and address that, but it just highlights for me the fact that in the fisheries area overall there is still work to be done.

Again, I would just note that we need to ensure we are progressing our action quickly on this. I did write to the Minister shortly after that event aired publicly around a proposal that I put forward to put in a stopgap measure—a temporary limit on the recreational finfish catch—to ensure that that sort of behaviour couldn’t be repeated. But the Minister turned it down at that time and it has taken until only just the last few months, I believe, for his proposal to come out to try and address that issue. So I hope that one does get solved.

In terms of what we are looking at here, the main provisions: as we’ve heard already, there’s some good stuff in there, and we support the graduated offences and penalties aspects that are being considered and we’ll be looking at whether they are appropriate, but also the technical management changes—those things all make sense and there’s not a massive issue with that. The other two aspects, though, that I do want to expand on a bit are around amending the rules for what fish must be landed and what must be returned. That’s an area that has been reasonably controversial from both the commercial fishers’ perspective and, obviously, recreational fishers in instances where they have seen some of these discarded fish washing up on beaches and there are the concerns they have around the sustainability of the commercial sector off the back of that.

We’ve heard about those commercial parts being addressed, but the one I would really like to delve into a bit more is around what’s a pretty unique aspect, I suppose, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research vessels like the Tangoroa, which, as part of their research, catch fish. In some instances, they catch quite large volumes of fish, and those fish can be discarded because they simply don’t have the capacity on that vessel to process the volumes of fish that they are catching. I think that’s an area that we really need to look at quite closely, and I’d hope it could, potentially, come under this bill, because I think it’s not a good example to see a Government research vessel discarding fish simply because they don’t have sufficient processing capacity on board. I accept they’re a research vessel, but, actually, I think it’s sending the wrong signal to be discarding fish. So I’d be interested to see whether those aspects would come under this bill as well.

The other key point around streamlining the decision-making process for the setting of catch limits is an area that I’m really keen to see improve, because we have seen that the Minister’s actions over a number of years in terms of adjusting those limits has been a very significant change for a lot of those individual fisheries. When we think about the 642-odd fisheries that there are in terms of fish stocks around the country, making significant adjustments in some cases—in some cases, well over 100 percent changes of significant magnitude to those commercial catch limits—it makes it quite challenging for those commercial operators to be able to adapt their systems to either cope for a significant reduction in commercial catch, total allowable commercial catch (TACC), or a significant increase, which might give them opportunity.

So I would really like to see a tightening of the process—and I hope that will come under this bill—to really enable a more streamlined process, perhaps, of the scientific assessments to ensure that we are better monitoring those limits, because if we’re only doing assessments of these fish stocks on a sporadic basis and that then shows there has been either a significant increase or decrease in that particular fish stock over the period of that time, the Minister’s subsequent action is to adjust the total allowable catch (TAC) accordingly, but that can have massive implications. So I’d really like to see this tightened up so that we don’t see those sorts of massive swings upwards or downwards in the TAC, because that has a big impact for the TACC for our commercial operators, in particular, who are trying to run a business in this space.

We saw, I think, that it was 2019 that was the most recent assessment. Only 290 fish stocks, I think, out of our 642 were assessed, so we’re only talking about 49-odd percent of fish stocks being assessed and, at that point, 20 percent of those stocks that were assessed were considered to be overfished—right? So of the fish stocks we assessed, and we certainly didn’t do all of them—granted it was 70- or 80-odd percent by volume of fish caught. But of those we assessed, one in five was overfished.

So that, to me, says that we have some real issues around how we’re managing these fish stock assessments, and we need to be a lot better at projecting those fluctuations and assessing movements in those. I accept that there’s a cost alongside that, of course, but that’s something that I really hope will be considered in some depth through the Fisheries Amendment Bill to ensure that in the first instance, we retain a very sustainable fishery—that’s something we should be putting first and foremost. It’s very important for New Zealand anchor brand, but it’s what everyone, I think, would want as well. But, alongside that, it gives more certainty then to those commercial operators, as I said, to have a more streamlined business operation, where they’re not having to suddenly adjust for significant changes in their total allowable commercial catch limits.

So, on that basis, I’m happy to commend this bill. I look forward to, as I said, being a part of the select committee process. I am a little concerned, though, that we are seeing a shortened report back on this bill.

Again, we’ve seen this in a number of instances from this Government where they have put forward a reduced or shortened report-back time on a piece of legislation for no particular reason, it appears, other than perhaps it was late getting to the first reading stage and they’ve been wanting to rush it through. The issue that raises is it potentially takes away the ability of everyone who might wish to have their voice heard to do so, given that shortened window. Granted, it’s not excessively short like we’ve seen on some of the other pieces of legislation, but my question would be why do we need to cut that back at all. Why can we not allow a fulsome process to occur on this bill, given, as Mr Muller mentioned, it has taken quite some time to get to this point? Why are we now rushing it and cutting down those few months for submitters to make their case heard when I believe it is absolutely critical that those submitters are heard?

We’re talking about making significant changes here for an important industry within New Zealand. We must hear their views on it. We have heard some views in the past, and Mr Muller, I know, and myself have had a number of conversations with some of these commercial operators, who have expressed concern around the practicality of implementation of some of these proposals around cameras, for example, and the costs alongside that. So I’m very keen to ensure they have an appropriate window to give their views on this to make sure that we are coming up with practical legislation that can be implemented for the sake of the industry.

So, on that basis, I do support it and I look forward to being able to make some positive changes to, hopefully, get this to a point where it can pass with support from all parties across the House. Thank you very much.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill as the chair of the Primary Production Committee, the committee that will be considering this piece of legislation. Can I acknowledge and thank the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries for bringing this piece of legislation to the House and to us. I know that my fellow select committee members will be looking forward to hearing from submitters, and there will no doubt be quite a lot of interest in this piece of legislation.

We are an island nation and, as Tim van de Molen, the member who’s just taken his seat, mentioned, we have many recreational fishers around New Zealand who quite enjoy getting out in the weekends and doing a dabble at fishing. Perhaps not catching, as the member mentioned, but they still have the enjoyment of being able to get out there and have a go.

We’ve also heard that this has a huge economic impact for our country as well, but, most importantly, I think what this bill works to do is to create a more sustainable fisheries model, and that is of utmost importance, because we have seen overfishing throughout the years and it just can’t continue. It does also bring the fisheries management in line with the practices of the 2020s.

The member opposite raised a concern around what he believes is a truncated process. This is going to have a shortened time frame, and I just wanted to mention to the member that the reason for that is it is quite likely that 1 October is when the fishing year begins, and so we do need to have this piece of legislation back into the House and moving forward for that time.

We have heard that this bill will bring in graduated offences that will be proportionate to the offending that occurs. We’re going to be covering off new rules and regulations around the landing and discarding of fish, which members already have gone into quite some depth around, and so I won’t relitigate all of that.

This is a good piece of legislation, and I appreciate members opposite supporting it at first reading. We do look forward to the select committee process, where there’ll be the opportunity for everyone to have input and bring this piece of legislation to fruition. I commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting the bill to select committee in order to hear public views.

This bill wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for the work of Dr Glenn Simmons and the Auckland University business school and their exposure of the scale of dumping and high-grading in New Zealand fisheries. Their work, released in May 2016, really brought to public attention the fact that fish of low economic value were routinely being dumped overboard by fishers as they sought to target species of a higher value, higher grade, or avoid having to pay the deemed value penalty for catching quota fish species which they didn’t have annual catch entitlement—or ACE—for. Dr Simmons showed that there was really gross under-reporting of what fishers were catching over many decades. Some 25 million tonnes of fish between 1950 and 2016 hadn’t been reported by New Zealand to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.

So it has been a fundamental rule of the Fisheries Act for a very long time—since 1986—that when commercial fishers catch quota species of a legal size, they must land and report those catches. It’s always been illegal to dump fish, but the system had relied on honest reporting. What the Simmons report and Operation Hippocamp and Operation Achilles showed—which enforcement staff in the Ministry of Fisheries undertook because of the ministry’s recognition of this ongoing problem of under-reporting and misreporting—was that there was a lot of dishonesty in the industry.

The problem with Operation Hippocamp and Operation Achilles was you had very effective enforcement staff, but senior management and the Ministry for Primary Industries made a decision not to follow through on their enforcement work and not to prosecute, and, as the Heron Report concluded, that process and decision making was flawed. So there’s a whole issue of a lack of public confidence and trust in the fishing industry, and I think that while farmers throughout Aotearoa have recognised that they need to change their management practice and their farming techniques to earn that public trust and confidence and to maintain their social licence, the same thing hasn’t happened in the fishing industry.

So we’ve got this bill, which is requiring that all fish be landed if they’re in the quota system, and just in terms of terms, quota is a right to take fish from a stock. That generates an annual catch entitlement at the start of each fishing year—in October—which is the annual catching right, and of course that can be traded. Commercial fishers purchase an ACE to match the fish that they aim to catch.

So it’s really disappointing that it’s taken over eight years for the Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries New Zealand to actually develop this legislation, but it is good that it is here, because this requirement that all quota species which are caught have to be brought back and landed should—the hope is—encourage more innovation and should encourage better utilisation of fish that are caught. Here we really need to learn from international best practice, from countries like Iceland: 80 percent of the fish that are caught in Iceland are used, whether it’s taking calcium out of the fish frames to make calcium supplements, or whether it’s using fish skins of cod to make high-end handbags. But in Aotearoa and elsewhere, a lot of the fish, once the fillets have been taken, are discarded, ground up into fishmeal, or, worse still, go to landfill. This requirement to land and to report, and the graduated system of penalties should help improve enforcement in this space, so we are supporting that.

But there are some criteria which provide some exceptions to the rule of landing all fish, and one of those is that retaining it would have a negative economic value. Now, the Minister referred to species which let off—some of the shark species—a high level of ammonia and taint the rest of the catch, but we have some concern around this criterion and, potentially, efforts of the industry seeking to widen that definition of “negative economic value” and what exceptions can be provided to enable them to discard more fish at sea. So we’ll be particularly interested in the submissions on that point.

We’d like to take up a point that Todd Muller raised in terms of the division within the sector. It was something that the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor commented on as well: the very high level of distrust amongst stakeholders of the data that’s used to set the total allowable catch and within the sector generally. I really encourage all of those making submissions to think about the sustainability of fisheries, the collapse of a number of fish stocks that we’re seeing, and the impact of climate change on our oceans, and to think of the bigger picture and the outcome for environmental management and good fisheries management, rather than just the interests of the commercial fishing sector, because we need to move beyond that division and we need to have a much more sensible and focused fisheries management system.

That’s where the Green Party is disappointed in this bill—that it’s not moving to ecosystem-based fisheries management. It’s not even seeking to give priority to the sustainability principles in the Fisheries Act. It’s not using input controls. They were considered and then rejected—input controls like closing more areas, having more controls and restrictions on the type of gear that can be used. We have a big problem with bycatch: the thousands of seabirds that are caught, the dozens of dolphins, the hundreds of fur seals that are caught each year in fisheries like the hoki fishery and the squid fishery. That bycatch issue isn’t being adequately addressed by the industry and the bill doesn’t really deal with it.

Certainly, there is a defence to release marine mammal species if they are caught. That is good, but there needs to be a stronger regulatory regime and much greater emphasis on sustainability, not only to ensure an ongoing fishery, but to recognise, as others have noted, that consumers are increasingly looking for real proof that wild fish are caught sustainably, and in Aotearoa New Zealand, we cannot establish that for all of the species, particularly because of the very limited data.

When you only have $22 million being spent, on average, in the years between 2017 and 2020 on fisheries research, that’s a puny amount, and that contributes to the lack of data. Again, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor highlighted that that leads to decisions based on uncertain data and information, and it has left big gaps in fisheries management. In Budget 2022, we need to see a much-greater investment in fisheries science and research in order to underpin a much more sustainable regime.

Certainly, there are provisions in the bill to ensure that cameras can be used to observe the processing and any discarding that happens on board once fish are landed, but, again, there needs to be a much more rapid roll-out of cameras on boats. It’s not good enough just to prioritise the Māui dolphin fishery because of the concerns about the impact of trawling on Māui; they need to be used and rolled out much more quickly.

So we too in the Greens are concerned about the truncated select committee report-back period. We recognise that the Minister wants the bill in place for this fishing season, but then there’s a four-year transition allowed, so it seems a bit at odds with doing it quickly and then allowing four years’ transition. It would be better to ensure that the legislation is right, because there will be quite a lot of contested submissions on the bill. But we do encourage the Government to really focus on some of the more fundamentals and to move away from the ethos that we’ve got at the moment, which focuses on maximum exploitation of fisheries—fishing stocks down to the level at which it’s assumed that they will maintain themselves. That is not the basis of ecosystem-based management or sustainable fishing.

So the bill makes some small improvements. We’ll be particularly interested in submissions, but at this stage we’re only supporting it to select committee.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party, and we oppose this bill. We find that it’s an unnecessary and costly solution that appears to be looking for a problem.

We note that the Ministry for Primary Industries’ regulatory impact statement talked of extensive consultation over a long period of time about fisheries. They held public meetings, they had hui, they had one-on-one meetings with key Treaty partners, which includes the Iwi Fisheries Forum and Te Ohu Kaimoana. What they represent are the interests of Māori commercial fishing businesses, and they give advice to 58 mandated iwi organisations. That is indeed a large proportion of tangata whenua stakeholders. Other stakeholders who were also consulted, including those with interests in commercial and recreational fishing arenas, were small and large operators, those with quotas, individual fishers, and companies who fish using quotas: those with total allowable catches, and those with TACCs as well—the total allowable commercial catch.

What I found interesting was the feedback that was received by an independent technical advisory group conducting the consultation, who actually found that all groups—whether they’re Māori, recreational, commercial—stated that the fisheries management system was sound. Yes, they said there was room for improvement, but every law has room for improvement. What this bill actually achieves, though, is not necessarily improvement but over-involvement with rules that have no proper cost-benefit analysis.

We keep being told how we need to do better, and large sweeping changes occur off the back of these statements. ACT would like to point out just how good we actually are on the global scale, just for a nice change.

Multiple international studies have ranked New Zealand’s quota management system and its management of particular fish stocks against a range of global indicators. Our rankings in all of these studies have consistently been at the higher end compared to other countries. New Zealand scored amongst the highest of 53 countries that were analysed in an evaluation of compliance with article 7 of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and this covered six fields of fisheries management. We have ranked among the highest in the world in terms of prospects of fishing sustainability and the overall effectiveness of management.

With all these good international outcomes for our current management system, I then sought to find substantial data on the impacts of this legislation, and do you know what I found? It was actually not much, because there’s very little analysis on the impact.

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) noted in their regulatory impact statement that they have data limitations. Further to that consultation that was held in February and in March in 2019, they left MPI determining that they had little insight on the marginal impact on the operational costs or any one-off costs that may be required. MPI has acknowledged that the operational and administrative costs that fishers incur from catching and processing fish is not accessible to them and that there are varying complexities with each fishing operation. However, what MPI do state is that the majority of the cost for implementing this regime is, effectively, expected to fall directly on to the commercial operators, of which many are smaller, independent operators, and they will be hit the hardest.

The proposed changes to landings and discard rules are going to have the greatest impact on our commercial operators. All licensed fish receivers, quota holders, and annual catch entitlement holders will be incurring extra and additional costs: added costs to an industry that does employ 13,300 people and contributes $4.2 billion per annum to our total economic activity; added costs to a system that has no need for such fundamental change, based on the consultation feedback to these proposals.

Something else that I read in the MPI regulatory impact statement has led me to have some concern. It’s about how far the cameras on boats mandate is eventually going to go under this Government, and I wonder if this piece of legislation is a precursor to more invasive legislation that is yet to come. You see, MPI spoke of the need for cameras on boats to ensure that there’s verification and monitoring of catches that can take place but that the landing and returning of fish to the sea can be checked—that they can observe fishing. This is why they want to have their cameras on boats.

But what caught my eye was the repeated use of the added phrase which is including transportation in capturing of the electronic equipment. I see that both the MPI document and now the bill also refers to provisions to install electronic and other equipment to observe fishing-related activities, and this includes “the return, abandonment, processing, or sorting of fish, transportation connected with fishing,”. MPI wanted to amend the definition of fishing to broaden the power relating to the installation of cameras on boats in order to observe wider fishing-related activities such as fish processing. Their definition of the processing of fish includes land-based activities related to fishing, such as the filleting of fish in fish factories and also at market. This Government makes a fine job of telling New Zealand businesses that while globally we’re being hailed as one of the best in the world at management systems and sustainability, “We don’t trust you to get it right and we want the ability to film everything that you do, just in case, and just because we can.”

We all have an interest in ensuring that we have a sustainable fisheries regime and that we protect the species we harvest so our future generations also have a harvest supply, none more so than the fisheries sector. If they deplete our source at source and if they don’t continue their world-wide recognition of the great job that they actually do in New Zealand waters, they won’t have an industry. Like farmers, they have the greatest respect for their resource, and sustainability of the product is paramount to the success of the business. It’s not rocket science.

One last point I’d like to make: making changes without understanding the cost implications and making statements that the commercial sector will have to pay for these rules means that the commercial sector is going to have to offset these costs. Added costs to the purchase of kai moana during a cost of living crisis with no cost-benefit analysis, imposed on groups who believe that management is actually sound, is absolutely nuts. It’s telling our communities that the reason your seafood has gone up in price is because the Government wants to watch how you got that fish.

No doubt there’s a fair bit of work to work through in this bill, but at this stage of the process, ACT is opposing it. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as a member of the Primary Production Committee, who will be taking on this bill, and—

Chris Bishop: Oh, you’re on that too?

ANNA LORCK: —yes—as a member of the Primary Production Committee, it’s important to look at how much aquaculture does for our economy. The fishing seafood industry is worth $4.2 billion to our New Zealand economy and it employs over 13,000 people—2,500 of those are in the commercial fishing and aquaculture sector—and New Zealand export earnings for seafood are $2 billion and are expected to rise from there, exporting over 267,901 tonnes, from a report I have read.

When I looked at the legislative statement and worked through some of these objectives, I noted from one of the members that he talks about pragmatism. I can say that we are a very pragmatic select committee, and so this bill coming to our select committee will get a very good hearing. We make such good use of all members in the select committee. We’re quite collegial a lot of the time because we work in the interests of the primary sector. That is why I am so looking forward to doing the hard work that’s required of us as we bring this legislation through all stages. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I stand to take a call in the first reading for the National Party on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I don’t come from a level of experience in terms of this highly specialised interest area, but the experience that I do come from is in terms of relationships. In the Chamber this afternoon is the former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. I acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene in terms of the leadership that was there when Treaty settlement bills came before us on the Māori Affairs Committee, and there were some significant components that were addressing these fisheries issues.

The Fisheries Amendment Bill, as has been well traversed in debates before the House, and it’s been an interesting debate because people stand and rise and speak from various perspectives and contexts. So the purpose of this bill is to amend the Fisheries Act 1996 with an aim to strengthen the effectiveness of New Zealand’s fisheries management system.

The context that I address the House in also is as spokesperson for Māori development. Māori development from my lens and perspective is very much about our people, positioned in different places at different times. People, place, and the kaupapa—what the purpose of this bill is. In my Māori development spokesperson role, part of that is about the Māori economy, which is a significant contribution not just to Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy—it’s some $70 billion and exponentially growing—but the international economy, and Māori have a vested interest in fisheries—a 50 percent vested interest—in terms of the New Zealand fishing quota. So that’s the context that I address the House in relation to this bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

I don’t sit on the Primary Production Committee, which this bill, after the first reading, will go to, before the members of that committee, for prudent and responsible scrutiny around the particular elements and aspects, the detail, and the content to the letter of the proposed law. The context that I talked about also significantly—the detail in terms of this bill has been spoken about, but my mind turns to 18 years ago today, and this is the correlation in terms of people and place over the expanse of time.

On 5 May—today—18 years ago, in 2004, there was a gathering of some 20,000-plus people who arrived on the Parliament grounds in protest to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. That was the origin and the beginnings, the seedling stage, of the Māori Party, when Dame Tariana Turia crossed the floor, left the Labour Party, came to the other side, and formed the Māori Party.

What does this have to do with this bill? Ultimately, it came down to the interests that Māori have, not only customary interests but the interests. In the Fisheries Amendment Bill, at my cursory glance and my eye coming over this, talks about the allocation of total allowable catch between Māori customary fishers, recreational fishers, and commercial fishers.

So in the one minute and 20 seconds that I have left in terms of canvassing this bill, that will be left to the scrutiny of the members of the select committee. But I pick up a note, again, from my Māori development lens, in my spokesperson role that I have, and it is that I invite the select committee, in the same way that we did in the Māori Affairs Committee, to be cognisant of the 50 percent quota management that’s vested in the interests of Māori fisheries per se. The general policy statement in the explanatory note of this Fisheries Amendment Bill notes, “Recreational fishing is a popular activity for both New Zealanders and tourists—about 700,000 people fish each year and spend almost $1 billion [on that aspect of the fishing]. Tangata whenua have a central role in the sustainable use of New Zealand’s fisheries resources, as … kaitiaki (guardians) and users of customary fisheries, and as recreational and commercial fishers.” On that note—and finishing—“Commercial fishing employs approximately 13,300 people and contributes $4.2 billion” to the economy, and on that note, with the remaining three seconds, the National Party commends this bill through to select committee with reservations. Kia ora.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): This is a great bill. It makes sense. We’re looking forward to getting it to select committee. I don’t see any need to delay it any further. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Chris Bishop: Seven seconds—well done.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. In the words of the great James K Baxter:

The little ships

From the harbour sail

Bang in the teeth

Of a southerly gale

And they carry home to you and me

Snapper and groper and tarakihi.

Except, of course, they won’t unless we do more to make our fisheries sustainable. It is an important industry. This, however, is an important bill that recognises, as my colleague across the House on the ACT benches did not, that, in fact, there is extensive evidence of routing of the system and the illegal disposal of catch. This bill will make it possible to have a more accurate taking of information and more accurate penalties that won’t just be a big hammer on the occasional catch, but a constant series of graduated penalties, which will enable us to sort this system out. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That was a very short speech from the Labour members, who are supposed to be here supporting New Zealand primary industry and also supporting environmental awareness in this country. It’s a strange day when we see the Labour members trying to rush through legislation without actually giving it a full discussion.

Now, we had a very good speech from my colleague Todd Muller, and also from Tim van de Molen, which actually went through some of the really big issues that will arise from this legislation. As the National Party has said, we will be supporting this legislation in its first instance. We just want to make sure that it is done appropriately and in the right way and achieves the purposes that have been set out. That is the balance, I guess, that we need to see in this legislation.

We all value our fisheries, and they are an important part of an island nation that has a huge economic zone. It’s a very important part of our economy, and it’s also a very big part of our culture and heritage. The maintenance of strong fisheries is something that I think is universal within this Parliament through all political parties, but we need to make sure also that any rules that are put in place are practical and realistic, and this Government has a history of not doing that.

Our caution around this bill is to make sure that in the select committee process we actually do have rules that businesses that operate in the commercial fishing realm can actually live with. One of the most horrifying, you could say, points that Todd Muller—well, it wasn’t horrifying, but it raised the fact that there potentially would be a loss of fishing capability as a result of the impact of this legislation. That seems like a direct approach by the Government to reduce another primary industry, and that is something that we don’t need to see happen.

We need a robust fishing industry. We need it strong. We need to make sure that it is capable of maintaining its catch in the future. But we don’t need to shut it off just because of some ideological view of how much fishing there should be or how little fishing there should be. So I would be worried when I heard that in your speech, that that is what the regulatory impact statement had indicated.

Angie Warren-Clark: Read it. There’s more than that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: More than that? So it could be even worse—that’s what the Labour members are saying. So we will need to work that through in the select committee.

It’s really important that we don’t lose our capability of a fishing sector, an industry that has had a history of some of the strongest companies in New Zealand and also had a very strong history for iwi. We’ve got many in this room who have connections with iwi and fishing and who would value and want to maintain that sector for iwi going forward. So I think it’s really important that we don’t lose the capability we have there.

Another issue that we need to be very careful around is privacy. The issue of putting cameras on boats sounds great and it is something that’s been talked about in this House for about a decade, and the reality of it is that it didn’t come in under this Government when they had promised to do so and work had already been started in the previous Government. There is the fear that the big hand of Government could take that role and use that information and that data to its own purposes rather than for the success of the sector, so I think there’d be valid concerns that the sector would have. In select committee I think it’s important that that’s thrashed out and that we have a bit of comfort there for everybody going forward.

With the bycatches and things like that, it’s very difficult to see how some of that could actually work out in reality. What’s the use of that fish that has to be kept now, and Tim van de Molen raised the point around research vessels. So some of those issues need to be worked through as well to make sure that we have a fair policy in that area as well.

So, in essence, we support anything that’s going to be for the best interests of the New Zealand fishing sector and New Zealand fisheries to make sure that we have a strong fishery going forward. This bill does have some good points in there that will lead to some modernisation, you could say, of the rules around the fishing sector. However, we’re very much aware that that can also go the other way, and a Government can take it too far and it could be very detrimental to the sector. So we’re trying to protect the sector as well as getting those goals that everybody in the House wants to see of having a strong fishery that’s there for future generations. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a mad keen fisho, I’d just like to stand and take a brief call. I absolutely love this bill. A shout-out to Harry Hudson, my tutor, who taught me everything I know about fishing. I know he’s watching at home, as are many, many fishos out there.

This bill is a really useful piece of legislation. It supports a holistic, integrated approach to managing oceans and fisheries. The fisheries management system needs to be strengthened to ensure commercial fishing is sustainable, productive, and inclusive. Let’s face it: when we can take and count everything that is landed, including what is killed as it is landed, we will know a better story about our fishing catch. We can better manage, we can then also use that data to identify markets, and we can also make some decisions about who we choose to buy our fish from.

This is a really important piece of legislation—could talk for hours on it; won’t. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Instruction to the Primary Production Committee

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for Food Safety) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 12 September 2022.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 May.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we last considered this bill, we were up to call No. 10, which, of course, is the Labour Party.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of this bill, which I think provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the health sector. And I’d like to start by thanking all of those who submitted on the bill, because a lot of their suggestions led to some really useful changes. I think a lot of those have already been canvassed in previous speeches.

What I’d like to focus on is strategic planning, which is a core part of the bill, because what the bill does is it establishes a whole suite of key strategic documents. Within those four strategies—a New Zealand health strategy, a Māori, a Pacific, and a disability health strategy—basically, what we have is a lot of submitters that then suggested that we added other strategies to that, focusing on children, the rainbow community, Asian people, refugees, rural communities, rare disorders, mental health and addictions, women, and medicines. I think one of the challenges the Pae Ora Legislation Committee had is thinking about how you could actually achieve overall consistency if you ended up with a whole lot of different strategies, which each pulled a particular issue off into its own separate strategy, and then how you would consider the strategic direction as a whole, because there was a real concern that you may end up with fragmentation.

So what we also looked at is whether, in some of the existing suite of policy documents within that, you could include the health needs of those particular groups and, in particular, for example, the new Government policy statement (GPS) on health. What that does is it sets out the Government’s overall priorities and objectives for the health sector over three years. In addition to Māori and Pacific and disabled people within that, which are already included in the strategies, it also states that the GPS must include the Government’s priorities for improving health outcomes for women, rural communities, and other populations. So there are some of those aspects already touched on in the overall GPS. Then, also in locality planning, the requirement was that Health New Zealand had to consult with those within the localities, not only those in the community in terms of service users but also their service providers, and their input, too, could be included in terms of particularly thinking about strategic approaches to rural communities. We were also advised that there wouldn’t be anything precluding other strategies being included in future.

So we were happy that the strategic policy documents with the addition of a women’s health strategy would cover the areas we need, and I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for my first opportunity to take a call on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. And while I would commend, as the National Party spokesperson for women, the inclusion of a women’s health strategy, and acknowledging the Minister for Women in the Chamber this afternoon, please, please, don’t let this opportunity pass you by, because I would say, of the rest of the bill, what a missed opportunity. What has been touted as a generational reform, a once-in-20-years reform, this bill is the Government’s so-called answer to the recommendations made in Heather Simpson’s report released a couple of years ago, which sought to actually improve the delivery of healthcare across the country. Unfortunately, what we see in this bill will most certainly not achieve that.

All I can tell from this bill is that it is going to rip the guts out of community healthcare providers. It disestablishes district health boards; their services will instead be run by locality commissioners, locality coordinators, and up to 80 locality networks, which will add layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy between patients, providers, and the Minister. In the entirety of this document, a $500 million reform, there is not one target for a single improved outcome. I would have thought half a billion dollars on a sector-wide reform would demand some improved outcomes at an absolute minimum.

Labour seems to think that you can achieve better health outcomes by putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats. As a rural Cantabrian, let me tell you this is not the case. If it is passed as it is written, this bill will simply make the system less responsive to the health needs of Kiwis, especially those who live rurally, and that is where I’d like to focus my comments this afternoon. Heather Simpson’s report mentioned “rural” at least 30 times—I think 34, to be exact. This bill mentions it once—once. This is an extraordinary indictment of the Government’s view on 750,000 New Zealanders, 15 percent of the population, who contribute 50 percent of our national GDP. In a stroke of irony, on the Primary Production Committee today, we have had the Office of Rural Communities in front of us. Their role is to pass a rural lens over legislation like this, which passes through the House.

Chris Bishop: How’s that going?

NICOLA GRIGG: Now, well, that’s the point, Chris Bishop. How is it going? I asked them that. I said, “What tangible outcomes, what results, what changes have you as an office been able to make on bills like Pae Ora, like three waters, like fresh water reform?” Answer: “We don’t measure them. We haven’t really had much impactful change.”, which says to me, once again, that a Government who thinks it can run everything from Wellington is a recipe for worse health outcomes in underserviced communities, not better.

I would love to hear this Government face up in Leeston to the Friends of Ellesmere Hospital. This is, to be fair, a 95-year-old building that’s been running in this community all that time, servicing the needs of aged care and those convalescing post-surgery. There are just 10 beds in it. It is the beating heart of this community. It was shut during the pandemic to try and centralise all services into Christchurch. Thirty minutes’ drive away in Darfield, at the other end of my electorate—talk to me about the trustees of the Darfield Hospital and all the time and effort they put in to service their local community; also shut. Now, here’s the clincher: when I go and speak to the DHB about whether or not there are plans to continue the provision of these services in these rural communities post-pandemic, they all say—they throw their hands in the air, they look at me and ask us, and they all say, “We don’t know. We cease to exist from 30 July.”

I would also recommend that the Government take it from the experts that appeared during the select committee process. There were a number of rural health groups that highlighted their concern, as well as those who are actually operating in the field in rural New Zealand. The Rural Health Alliance said that they were “very concerned with the lack of focus on rural communities” and that “it is well documented that rural communities have poorer health outcomes than urban communities.” The Rural General Practice Network said that “rural New Zealanders need to be added to the list of priority populations. Health inequities will remain and might well worsen if focus shifts elsewhere.” Both these organisations that have spoken at the Pae Ora Legislation Committee on this bill want to see rural communities added as a priority group in the legislation. This priority group would therefore mean a targeted rural health strategy and specific rural health outcome measurements. The report—the one written by Heather Simpson—said that “rural services should be specifically planned for, recognising the unique challenges of [those that live rurally]”.

So, to put it simply, my challenge to the Government: it has one more opportunity—when this bill gets to the committee of the whole House stage, it has one more opportunity—to prioritise rural people, to enshrine their needs in the legislation so that there are targets, there are outcomes. Fifteen percent of this population—750,000 New Zealanders—should not be forgotten by this piece of legislation and by this Government. Please, my plea to the Government, do not forget these people. Take this opportunity to enshrine it in law, otherwise this is a massive—massive—missed opportunity.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E kore e taea e te whenu kotahi. Ki te raranga i te whāriki. Kia mōhio tātou ki a tātou. Mā te mahi tahi o ngā whenu, mā te mahi tahi o ngā kairaranga, ka oti tēnei whāriki. I te otinga me titiro tātou ki nga mea pai ka puta mai, ā tōna wā me titiro hoki ki ngā raranga i makere nā te mea he kore anō kei reira.

[The tapestry of understanding cannot be woven by one strand alone. Only by the working together of strands, and the working together of weavers, will such a tapestry be completed. When completed, we should look at the beauty of the work, and sometimes we also need to look at the dropped stitches as there may be errors there.]

It’s right to begin my speech with a whakataukī o pōua Kū Tirikatene, an advocate for the health of Māori and wellbeing of our people, and a thoughtful leader, and a proud Cantabrian. The whakataukī is salient when we consider the change case for our health system.

Stitches have been dropped over many years, which have resulted in poor outcomes for many people, most starkly Māori and Pacific communities. Improving the equity of health outcomes achieved in New Zealand requires first that we acknowledge the current inequities are not acceptable, and that we see those stitches that have been dropped and understand their message. The old health system was not set up to understand the needs of individuals, whānau, and communities, and so the system could not design and deliver services to address those identified needs.

There’s a lot I’d like to say on this bill, but I want to acknowledge some of the comments of my colleague Dr Shane Reti which I was disappointed by, and I want to thank the members of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, its advisors in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and its clerk, Anna Platten, and her team. Those comments that Dr Reti made about the disrespectful and deceitful start to the committee were a disappointment to me—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m on my feet; you have to sit down. No, you cannot say that another member is deceitful. All members are honourable, so you must withdraw and apologise.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr Speaker. May I clarify?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw and apologise.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I withdraw and apologise. What I intended to say was that that member said that there was a disrespectful and deceitful start to the committee that was the Pae Ora Legislation Committee. I wish to bring a perspective: that those specialised committees have an important role in generating the kind of debate which is consensus building in this House, and engaging on technical points of law. I thank the committee, the clerks, the submitters, for rising to the challenge of this new mechanism that we have.

Nā reira he mihi tēnei ki Te Whare e tū nei.

[Therefore, I acknowledge this House that stands here.]

It’s always a privilege to serve in this place with you all, and a delight when we’re making a project like this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Pae Ora Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 12 April.

Jo Luxton: Mr Speaker?

CLERK: The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill interrupted debate on third reading.

Jo Luxton: Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the House last considered this bill, we had completed call No. 7 and we’d come to call No. 8. I call Jo Luxton. [Members cheer]

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you can see, I am extremely pleased to stand and take a call on this piece of legislation. I have been waiting for my turn to speak on this so many times already.

This piece of legislation is a fantastic piece of legislation. It replaces the current law, which is now 20 years old, does not work as well as it should, people don’t know how to use the Act, and they don’t feel safe using it. The biggest hurdles we hear about are with people reporting disclosures, because they don’t know companies’ policies for reporting it and they fear retaliation. I feel that this is extremely true when it comes to, perhaps, women in workplaces—there’s a lot of power play that can happen. Migrants are exploited and they’re not confident that the report will go to somebody that will actually do something about it. These are real barriers—real barriers—to the ability of people to be able to report disclosures.

I think that this piece of legislation is absolutely crucial to ensure that people feel safe, they know they can report disclosures, they understand the process, and they know that there will be no chance of retaliation. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to—I wasn’t perhaps as keen as the member opposite, Jo Luxton, to get up and take my call ahead of time, but I can at least do so now that I have the opportunity, in the fading of the light of the House sitting week. The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill, as the previous contributor has noted, is one that has almost been concluded, in terms of this reading, a number of times now that the House has sat, so it’s a pleasure to be able to help bring it home, so to speak, even before we head home.

The discussion in previous stages of the bill, in, obviously, its various readings—and also, I recall, quite an interesting, I think, and helpful, if I may say, committee of the whole House stage. I do so with all due modesty, as I think I recall that I was one of those who was willing and able to make a few contributions. I do acknowledge that the Minister at the time was engaging seriously in that discussion, and so I think that having followed a parliamentary process where, of course, all the usual boxes are ticked, we did also, I think, do ourselves a service as a committee of the whole House, and now the House proper, of giving it some pretty thorough scrutiny. That’s important, and it’s in an area, of course, for all legislation, but particularly so where there’s an opportunity for people to exercise rights and responsibilities in the face of possible wrongdoing.

I note, of course, that the regime is intended to provide protection of whistleblowers, as, indeed, the name of the bill suggests in that part of the description in brackets, which is so helpful to have a general kind of understanding of it, and, of course, as a learned member made the point at a previous stage—it may have been me—it’s not only the whistleblowers who are being protected, important as such protection for such people may be, but it is also, of course, the protection of the systems of which they are a part. It’s the protection of the rule of law to some extent, but it’s also a protection of members of the public who would otherwise suffer harm or potential harm at the hands of the individual or organisation on whom the whistle is being blown.

So it is that the bill has a number of mechanisms to promote that kind of accountability to provide that further protection, and it does so by clarifying the threshold at which such whistleblowing can take place and, more importantly, the protections that are then unlocked or provided when the whistle is blown. We have some specific reference to serious risk to the health or safety of an individual, and I think it’s pretty clear from that that Parliament intends that there’s a threshold that is not trivial but that there is something serious—to use that word again—that is at play, such that we would want to say as a society that we’re going to enable someone to blow the whistle and to cause, potentially, distress and harm to the reputation of others.

Of course, we do that because we say that there’s an overall benefit in having such a regime. We say that the interests of society at large, and the whistleblower in particular, in such cases outweigh the rights of those who might be accused of wrongdoing, and, of course, the reason that we need such laws is because it’s not always the case that, when whistleblowing takes place, the wrongdoing is able, actually, to be proved. So other aspects of the legal system, whether it be contractual, perhaps in an employment context particularly; or it might be in relation to individual reputation so that defamation laws, potentially, are engaged; or privacy laws, of course—all these complex issues can interact such that we have need for someone who, in good faith and not using whistleblowing as a means to cast aspersions unfairly or in bad faith, uses these provisions to highlight what they consider to be wrongdoing in the service of preventing serious risk to the health or safety of an individual.

So I do want to say, in my remaining time, that I think that the bill has had a good canvassing at its various stages. National has been clear that we do support it. We commend the Government for continuing this work. We acknowledge that some further work may be needed, and the Greens have made that point. We look forward to, potentially, continuing that further discussion, but, of course, after this bill has passed, as it will surely soon be in the next sitting week.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 2022. Mauri ora.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.