Wednesday, 11 May 2022

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2022

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Danielle Petrie, requesting that the House change legislation so that all driving charges for youths under 18 years of age where death resulted from their driving are heard in the District Court

petition of Frances Clement, requesting that the House urge the Government to apply the same animal welfare standards to imported pork as are required by New Zealand pork producers.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of Annual Returns as at 31 January 2022. That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Joint report of the Environment Committee and the Governance and Administration Committee on the whole-of-Government direction to implement the Carbon Neutral Government Programme.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest Xero Small Business Index has shown that businesses have remained resilient despite Omicron affecting staffing. Sales grew 3.7 percent year on year while jobs grew 2.7 percent. Wage growth was above 4 percent in all regions. Overall, the index jumped 20 points, to 134, the highest level since the series began in 2017. This was largely driven by a significant fall in the time small businesses waited to be paid, to 21.3 days, which is the lowest result since the series started.

Barbara Edmonds: What announcements has he seen on alleviating skills shortages for the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, the Prime Minister announced changes to immigration settings to accelerate growth and help address long-term challenges. The rebalance will simplify our immigration systems, reduce the number of categories, make it more accessible online, and streamline application processes for businesses. The cornerstone of the rebalance is the new green list, which will provide a streamlined and prioritised pathway to residence, incentivising high-skilled healthcare, engineers, trade, and ICT workers to relocate to New Zealand long term. The list features 85 hard-to-fill roles including construction, engineering, trades, health workers, and tech. Through the accredited employer work visa, employers won’t need to provide as much information and can use their own recruitment processes to prove that no New Zealanders are available for work, and Immigration New Zealand will endeavour to have these visas processed within 40 days. This overall reset will help businesses access the skills they need while ensuring wages and working conditions are improved for everyone.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand yesterday reported that retail spending using debit and credit cards rose a higher than expected 7 percent in April compared with the previous month. Core retail sales saw a strong increase of 7.4 percent in April, with gains in spending, consumables, durables, hospitality, and apparel. Westpac’s economists said they expected further increases in spending over the next few months given the continued easing in health restrictions, including the opening of the international border, helping to support a recovery in the hospitality sector. However, we know that New Zealanders are doing it tough as global factors push up the cost of living, and we’re continuing to support low and middle income earners through reductions in their fuel bills and income increases.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Why have the number of back office staff at the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) more than doubled from just 345 in 2017 to over 800 last year; and does she believe that taxpayers have got good value for money from a doubling of back office staff?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, New Zealanders know that to deliver good quality, strong public services requires a range of different staff. Some of them work in front-facing roles, some of them work in back office roles—all of them are important to making sure New Zealanders get the services they deserve.

Christopher Luxon: Why has total spending on consultants by NZTA also more than doubled over the same period, from just $31 million in 2017 to over $75 million last year; and does she believe taxpayers have got a good return from spending twice as much on consultants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to the work of Waka Kotahi NZTA, it is important that they are able to draw on the best expertise around the country, and indeed around the world, to be able to put in place the transport policies of the Government.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the number of communications staff at NZTA earning more than $100,000 increased from just 6.6 FTEs in 2017 to almost 65 last year; and does she believe taxpayers are getting good value for money from a 10-fold increase in highlypaid comms staff?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all of the staff who work at Waka Kotahi NZTA play an important role in making sure that we achieve the transport outcomes that are here for New Zealand. I don’t have a specific answer to that question; the member might choose to put it down in writing. What I do know is it took a lot of effort to communicate just how much National stuffed up the public-private partnership on Transmission Gully.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Government’s investment in back office regulatory staff at Waka Kotahi, in response to the significant regulatory failure that was established in 2018, 2019 after years of under-investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, that was one of the issues that Waka Kotahi NZTA had to deal with—was the fact that through the warrant of fitness process there were significant shortcomings, partly, I’m sure, as a result of under-investment under the previous National Government.

Christopher Luxon: What benefits, if any, have taxpayers received from the $10,000 the Government spent on two giant red zeros for the transport Minister to stand next to in photo ops?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the transport Minister has already made clear his views to Waka Kotahi around that matter, and, as the member will be well aware, from time to time agencies do do things that don’t always meet the expectations of Ministers.

Christopher Luxon: What have taxpayers got from the $50 million her Government spent on the Auckland bike bridge, or the $600,000 it is spending to rent an empty—empty—waterfront office to manage the cancelled bike bridge project?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government continues to make sure that we’re investigating mode-shift options, that we’re investigating ways in which people can actually move around Auckland—that we’ll actually invest in transport. On this side of the House, we remain proud of our record in making sure that New Zealanders have transport options.

Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t this show that her Government has created a culture of wasteful spending in the public sector, and taxpayers deserve a Government focused on delivering outcomes, not spin?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, what it shows is the Government continues to invest in making sure that public services are what New Zealanders deserve and that we keep New Zealanders safe. For instance, that’s why we’ve invested in 940 more corrections officers, 735 Department of Work and Income case officers, 510 social workers, 520 education advisers for teachers in schools, 350 scientists working in biosecurity, customs office, special education teachers, and more. We know that it takes a lot of work to provide the public services we need, especially after significant under-investment in those areas.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to waste taxpayer money when, up and down the country, every day Kiwis are having to spend—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I’m going to invite the member to start his question again.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to waste taxpayer money?

SPEAKER: Right. The member—if he wants to use another supplementary he can. He’s had two shots and missed.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to spend taxpayer money when, up and down the country, every day Kiwis are having to make tough decisions about their own household spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is in fact the job of Government agencies to spend taxpayer money—that’s what it’s about. On this side of the House, we work very hard every day to make sure that New Zealanders are getting value for money. It’s interesting that the member hasn’t focused on the investment that the Government made in delivering things like the wage subsidy scheme, and making sure that New Zealanders are staying safe through more corrections officers, or indeed the funding of 1,800 more police. On this side of the House, we take seriously our responsibility to make sure New Zealanders have the public services they deserve, unlike the National Party who spent years in Government cutting those public services.

Question No. 3—Disability Issues

3. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made on New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): On Monday, I launched New Zealand Sign Language Week. As part of this, I was pleased to highlight that the new Ministry for Disabled People will be New Zealand’s first ministry with a New Zealand Sign Language name. This year’s theme, “New Zealand Sign Language is Essential”, recognises the prominence and importance of our second official language and draws a spotlight on essential workers who are deaf. I’m proud of the status we have given to New Zealand Sign Language both in Aotearoa New Zealand and on an international stage. We are recognised as a world leader for our commitment to maintaining and furthering the use of sign language.

Terisa Ngobi: Why is New Zealand Sign Language Week important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: New Zealand Sign Language is an official language but it is endangered. The maintenance and promotion of New Zealand Sign Language is vital to deaf New Zealanders’ community participation, inclusion, and access to services, wellbeing, and Deaf culture. It is about deaf New Zealanders including our tangata turi community having a good life in Aotearoa like all other New Zealanders. While this week is New Zealand Sign Language Week, every week we must take steps towards improving accessibility, raising awareness, and building inclusivity for the deaf community.

Terisa Ngobi: What progress has been made to support New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This year marks 16 years since New Zealand Sign Language became the second official language of New Zealand, championed by the former Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson. I’m pleased to continue the work of the former Minister and I’m pleased at the progress we’re making. We’ve increased funding to the New Zealand Sign Language Board. For the first time a practical guide has been developed to support Government agencies to implement the principles of the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006. During COVID-19, New Zealand Sign Language interpreters were provided for Government briefings. An all-of-Government accessible communications group was established to make COVID-19 information available in New Zealand Sign Language as well as other alternative formats. And we’ve invested in inclusive and accessible spaces for the deaf community through our Creatives in Schools programme, for example.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to transfer my question back to the Prime Minister, who made the statement in question and is the only one who has responsibility—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not a matter for which leave can be sought. That’s been ruled on many times, and can I make a suggestion: if the member’s considering doing something like that again in the future, she consults so she doesn’t make this mistake, which has been regarded as being disorderly by Speakers in the past.

4. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, “Absolutely—I wouldn’t dispute that for a moment” in response to Fairer Future, who said that “people on a benefit should be able to participate fully in society”, and what specific new initiatives, if any, have been agreed to reduce poverty amongst beneficiary w’ānau?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do, and that’s why we’ve increased support for low-income New Zealanders. Our winter energy payment, which kicked in on 1 May, helps over a million New Zealanders every year. Our main benefit increases have been the biggest in a generation, and our 1 April changes further improve support for families through minimum-wage increases, our family tax credit increases, and increasing access to childcare assistance. Under this Government, 66,500 children have been lifted out of poverty. We also know participation is more than just income. We have halved public transport costs, agreed to a new Ministry for Disabled People, and increased investment in Mana in Mahi and Māori trades training. As I’ve always said, there is still more to do.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is she concerned with reports that beneficiaries, including single mothers, are paying up to a quarter of their income to service Government debt that was incurred to cover basic needs, like food and bills, and, if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This was something that was raised through the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report and is an issue that we take seriously. The debt that beneficiaries have with regards to Government agencies usually lies with not only the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) but, often, also with the Ministry of Justice and, sometimes, with Inland Revenue as well. We currently have a work programme under way with respect to debt to Government and how we can manage that better across the system to ensure that Government debt is not further driving New Zealanders into hardship.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is your response to the proposal from the Fairer Future coalition to wipe out all debt owed to MSD, given that, during COVID, beneficiaries were forced $400 million further in debt to the Government itself and that, realistically, the debt is uncollectable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The legislation is really clear with regards to client debt, in that the ministry or a Government can’t just wipe someone’s debt unless the debt was incurred because of a mistake made by the Government agency and through no fault of the client. And so we have no intention to, at this stage, change the legislation, and therefore, it’s not an option that’s currently on the table.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she prioritise more support for beneficiaries, including through increasing their income, removing sanctions, and individualising benefits, in light of the reality described by Assistant Māori Commissioner for Children, Glenys Philip-Barbara, that “While some families are feeling the pinch, others are barely clinging on,”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have increased benefits—first in 2020 when the pandemic first set in, and then, again, last year post-2021 Budget—with the full extent of the benefit increases being realised on 1 April. We have addressed some of the most serious sanctions and gotten rid of them. Two, in particular, had huge consequences for children. There is still more to do with regards to our welfare overhaul, and we’re absolutely committed to doing that. What I will also add, though, is that addressing some of the needs of our most vulnerable New Zealanders is not just about addressing their needs through the welfare system; it’s important that we are equally putting a focus on and prioritising things like housing, our health system, our education system, and that’s what we as a Government are doing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What are the Government’s plans to reduce food costs for low-income w’ānau, including beneficiaries, given that vegetable prices increased 19 percent in the year to September 2021 and food book usage more than doubled, and will this include breaking up the supermarket duopoly?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This probably falls out of my delegation and really sits more with Minister Clark, who has been undertaking some work in this space. However, what we have done that I can respond to more fulsomely with regards to our Government’s responses, we have rolled out our Food in Schools programme. That’s ensuring that our tamariki are getting access to healthy kai on the daily. It’s also saving money for those whānau that have children in low-decile schools. We’ve also invested heavily with regards to the New Zealand Food Network with the intent of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister has answered the question some time ago.

Question No. 5—Finance

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: does he agree with Westpac Senior Economist Satish Ranchhod, who said this week that “over the coming year household spending levels will come under pressure from continued increases in the cost of living”; and if so, why won’t he provide New Zealanders with income tax relief to help them get through this cost of living crisis?

Hon Grant Robertson: A point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not the question on the sheet.

SPEAKER: OK, let’s have a go at the question on the sheet, shall we?

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac Senior Economist Satish Ranchhod, who said this week that “over the coming year household spending levels will come under pressure from continued increases in the cost of living”; if so, why won’t he provide New Zealanders with income tax relief?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I’ve acknowledged many times in this House and elsewhere that New Zealanders are doing it tough amid a global energy crisis and ongoing supply chain constraints that are increasing the cost of living pressures. That’s why the Government’s acted, moving quickly to reduce fuel excise and halve public transport fares, to help Kiwis facing the pain of higher pump prices partly due to the war in the Ukraine. We’re also supporting New Zealanders by delivering income increases for low and middle income earners, which kicked in from 1 April, and we also have the winter energy payment that has come in from 1 May. A strong health-led response has meant New Zealand does find itself in a strong position to respond further to support New Zealanders, and we will always continue to look at ways of improving resilience of New Zealanders to absorb these types of global shocks. As to the second part of the member’s question, while her party’s preference is for untargeted tax cuts that would give her and her leader thousands of dollars, while giving low and middle income earners just $2 a week, we will not be doing that. As the International Monetary Fund noted in its recent assessment of the New Zealand economy, now is not the time for major tax changes as we emerge from a one-in-100-year economic shock.

Nicola Willis: Why is he persisting with the biggest Budget spend-up in New Zealand history, when Kiwis desperately need income relief and when, in ANZ’s words, “[there are] significant limitations on how much additional government spending can achieve in real terms given the degree of capacity stretch in the economy right now”?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to let the Minister answer it, but I am going to warn that that supplementary was too long, and contained two assertions.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When we look at the Government’s spending as a percentage of GDP, which is the consistent measure that we use, the Government is spending just a little above what the former National Government did as New Zealand emerged from the global financial crisis (GFC). The member will also know, when she looks at the Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update numbers, that that percentage continues to come down, and obviously that number will be updated at the Budget next week.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he believe there are limitations on how much additional Government spending can achieve?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Good Government spending—targeted Government spending—will achieve good outcomes for New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we have adopted a balanced approach throughout all of the time that we’ve been in office. In every single Budget—including Budgets under the previous Government—Ministers come forward with more Budget bids than there is money available, and prioritisation decisions had to be made; difficult prioritisation decisions. I’d also note that it is the National Party’s policy to spend exactly the same amount as the Government would in this Budget.

Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for delaying the return to surplus, given the tax take is growing, and the assessment by BNZ that “all else equal, a fiscal surplus should have been coming into view earlier, not later”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed in the House last week, this Government will get us back into surplus five years after the beginning of this economic crisis, as compared with the National Party that took six years to get back into surplus after the GFC. I’m surprised the member is trashing Bill English’s legacy.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with BNZ’s assessment that the Government’s tax take from individual taxpayers is up 16 percent year on year, and why is the Minister still unable to balance the books, even while he’s taking more tax from Kiwis than ever before?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two parts to the question: the first is that, once again, the member is against more New Zealanders being in work, more New Zealanders getting higher wages, more New Zealand businesses making profits and, on this side of the House, we know that a balance in the Budget is important. We’ve kept net debt to some of the lowest levels in the world. We took it lower than where the National Party had it. The member will know, when she sees the Budget next week, that a careful balance has been struck to make sure we invest in public services, and keep a lid on debt.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with his Tax Working Group that “bracket creep reduces the progressivity of our tax system as average tax rates for low income households increase over time.”, and why won’t he just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we discussed in the House yesterday, bracket creep issues have confronted all Governments in the past. What the Government has to do is assess the balance in making sure that we invest properly in public services. We’re also coming out of a one-in-100-year economic shock. As the IMF indicated, now is not the time for major tax changes; now is the time to keep supporting New Zealanders, invest in public services, and look to the long term.

Nicola Willis: Why is the finance Minister taking more tax from Kiwis when they need that cash more than ever, and can he explain to this House why, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, he intends to bake in more future Government spending than at any time in New Zealand’s history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have discussed in this House, putting a Budget together requires prioritisation; it requires difficult choices. On this side of the House, we’ve prioritised supporting low and middle income New Zealanders through this crisis by making—

Nicola Willis: Your choice is a spend-up.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —sure that we lift benefits, by making sure that we increase the family tax credit, by making sure that we lifted student allowances. All of those initiatives to support people through a cost of living crisis have been opposed by the National Party. So the reality is, actually, we have got the balance right over here; the member and her party would rather see that those on the highest incomes receive thousands of dollars a year while they would give those on low and middle incomes $2 a week while opposing all of the initiatives to actually lift New Zealanders’ incomes.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Noa’ia ‘e mauri. What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s ongoing response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Noa’ia ‘e mauri. Yesterday, I announced new sanctions targeting Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks as part of the Government’s ongoing response to Ukraine. This latest round of sanctions targets eight individuals and entities that are an integral part of Putin’s campaign of disinformation and cyber-attacks in Ukraine. Included in the list is the Russian ministry of defence spokesperson, the notorious Internet Research Agency “troll farm”, and the Russian intelligence agencies responsible for cyber-attacks on Ukraine. Sanctions mean these individuals and entities will no longer be able to travel or do business in New Zealand, and New Zealanders will not be able to do business with them. Vladimir Putin is using the digital space as a weapon in his callous war against Ukraine. Ukrainians have been subject to relentless cyber-attacks by Russia, and Putin’s propaganda machine has been attempting to spread lies and false information to justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine. With these new sanctions, we’re showing our complete commitment to responding to Putin’s aggression across all fronts.

Ingrid Leary: Fạiȧkse‘ea. How many Russian entities and individuals are now covered by New Zealand’s sanctions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Since the Russia Sanctions Act was passed on 9 March, officials have worked at pace to introduce sanctions on this individuals and entities responsible for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. Five rounds of sanctions have been introduced, and over 700 Russian individuals and entities are now covered by the full suite of New Zealand’s economic and travel sanctions. This includes Vladimir Putin and the senior leadership of his security council; all 170 members of the Upper House of Russia’s Parliament; 36 oligarchs and close family with close ties and influence with the Russian Government; 19 financial institutions in total; and 24 entities, including weapons makers and Donbas militia groups. On top of this, New Zealand has put a 35 percent tariff on Russian imports across the board. The scale and pace of these sanctions is unprecedented for New Zealand. It shows our complete commitment to supporting the global effort to pressure Russia to end this illegal war.

Ingrid Leary: What is New Zealand doing to hold Russia to account for war crimes in Ukraine?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We have all been sickened by the atrocities committed by Russian troops against innocent civilians in Ukraine, especially the shocking images from the town of Bucha. New Zealand is actively supporting international efforts to investigate these crimes and ensure those responsible are held to account. We were one of 41 countries to refer Russia’s aggression against Ukraine to the International Criminal Court for investigation. We’ve followed that up by being one of the first countries to make a financial contribution to support those investigations. Furthermore, the Government has recently provided $1 million to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to support ongoing monitoring and accountability for human rights inside Ukraine. The Government is committed to holding Russia and its leadership to account for its crimes. To this end, we’ve earmarked a further $500,000 to support legal accountability in Ukraine, including through the work of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Question No. 7—Education (School Operations)

7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by the press release issued by her predecessor in February 2020 titled “School attendance has to improve”; if so, is she satisfied with her Government’s progress in tackling truancy so far?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Yes. I stand by the statement made by my predecessor the Hon Tracey Martin that school attendance has to improve, and I agree with her. That is why the Government is taking targeted action to re-engage students who aren’t attending regularly and investing in evidence-based initiatives that prevent disengagement early.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that she addressed the second part of the question: if she’s satisfied.

SPEAKER: Well, I think she said “yes” right at the beginning.

Erica Stanford: If she is satisfied with her Government’s actions, why is it that we have seen a doubling of chronically truant students, with 60,000 children, under this Government’s watch?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said before in this House, attendance started to decline in 2015. That was shortly after the Attendance Service was taken away into a more bureaucratic system from schools by the then National Government. I would admit that the two years of battling a global pandemic has had a major impact—and rightly so. Post-lockdown, some parents have been worried about sending their kids back to the classroom for learning, but this Government introduced a range of evidence-based practices to address that. Only today, I had principal from a decile 1 school contact me to say that they are incredibly excited that the ability that that has given them, that today they have 94 percent attendance back in their decile 1 school.

Erica Stanford: Why is it, when a year ago she received a comprehensive aide-mémoire from the director of policy at the Ministry of Education outlining actions to tackle truancy, that in a reply to my written question on what actions have implemented she replied, “I will announce the details of this work shortly.” and how is this in line with being proactive, as the report advises?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member opposite will be aware that at the same time, there has been an inquiry that has been happening through the Education and Workforce Committee—of which she sits on. It is really important that we take all of the evidence into account. But I will say that over that time, we have not sat on our hands and done nothing. Over that time, Budget 2021 had $67 million focusing on preventing children and young people from disengaging from their learning. Just recently, I announced with my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, Budget 2022 had $88 million for targeted intervention. Over that time, we have delivered free counselling services, free health lunches, free period products. We’ve delivered enhanced learning support for our most vulnerable. We’ve delivered a—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The question was answered some time ago. We don’t need the additional material.

Erica Stanford: In relation to the answer she just gave, if her Government have done all that, why has chronic—

SPEAKER: I’ll just get the member to start again. “In response to the answer the Minister gave”, I think, is a much politer way of saying it.

Erica Stanford: Sorry. Why is it that—given the Minister’s answer just now, why is it that 60,000 children are chronically truant, are doubling under her Government’s watch?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I do actually caution the member about her use of statistics, and her ability to interpret them is something, because we do need to look at the causes—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, this is one of the National Party’s front-bencher’s questions. If we’re going to continue with this question line, I want to be able to hear the answer, and because of the very loud noise from my left, led by Mr Bayly, which is quite unusual—“B” is a common factor to the noisy ones, but it’s not normally him.

Hon JAN TINETTI: We do need to look at the complete causal factors. The young people that the member is talking about are the most chronically absent. Often, there are out-of-school factors that are part and present of those young people’s lives. That’s why we need to make a whole-of-Government approach to those young people. We do want to see every young person and child participating and progressing in their learning.

Melissa Lee: What’s she done about it?

SPEAKER: Order! Look, was that Nicola Willis?

Melissa Lee: It was me, sir.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, seeing the member hasn’t been warned today, I won’t make her withdraw and apologise. But she’s not a new member and she knows what’s out of order.

Erica Stanford: What does she say to the 8,000 students who were unenrolled from the school system in March—the highest figure in three years—who are waiting patiently for her evidence-based approach to be announced, and does she think that she should be moving with a bit more urgency?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Again, I do caution that member about making assertions on that particular data. The students who aren’t in school or who are not represented in those figures could have left school recently to go into further forms of education, employment, or training, and they’ll still be counted in that figure. There needs to be an in-depth look at that, and using that figure just out of the air and plucking it out of the air is not the right approach to be taking. The students who aren’t in school or who are in another form of education, employment, or training will be referred to the Attendance Service, who deal with the most chronically absent children in our school system. Again, I reiterate that we want to see every child or young person present participating in their education, which is why we have put so much into this.

Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing)

8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): How is the Government partnering with iwi Māori to deliver new homes for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Alongside my colleagues, Ministers Jackson, Allan, Whaitiri, and Davidson, I announced a new investment partnership between Government and iwi collective Toitū Tairāwhiti to build up to 150 new homes for whānau who need them the most. This partnership will deliver affordable rent-to-buy homes across the wider Tai Rāwhiti region and the Ōpōtiki district, getting whānau into secure, warm, and dry homes quickly. The partnership represents an innovative new approach to unlocking and enabling by Māori, for Māori housing solutions and is funded from Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, the Government’s record $730 million commitment to accelerate Māori-led housing solutions. We know that innovative initiatives like this are critical for getting a lot more new housing built where it is needed the most, and they will also help stimulate regional economies in our construction sector to help them recover from the impacts of COVID-19.

Shanan Halbert: How does this partnership reflect the Government’s wider strategy for Māori housing?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Today’s announcement follows on from our partnership with Ka Uruora that we announced late last month and both projects exemplify the promises we made when we launched Maihi Ka Ora, our National Māori Housing Strategy, and Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga. We said we will do things differently and work in partnership with Māori to deliver a better Māori housing future for our whānau. Above all, we promise action to change the status quo. The partnership we announced today is just such action with $55 million in investment to enable Toitū Tairāwhiti to get whānau into homes quickly while reconnecting them with their whenua.

Shanan Halbert: What reaction has he seen from Toitū Tairāwhiti about the announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: As I said this morning, with this announcement we are making good progress to turn around the status quo for Māori housing. I’ve seen the comment from Mr Willie Te Aho, managing director of Toitū Tairāwhiti Housing, who said, and I quote, “The next 150 kāinga will start to deal with high housing deprivation across Tai Rāwhiti. Thank you to the Minister and officials that visited. You came and spoke to our whānau. You came into our decrepit homes. You opened new builds. But, most importantly, you heard our cries of anguish. You listened to our united front. We have lots of work ahead of us, but together we will get there.” We know there is more mahi to be done, but our by Māori, for Māori solutions are delivering for whānau in Te Tai Rāwhiti.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her Government’s statements and policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in particular this Government’s efforts to prevent hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders from experiencing the long-term impacts of job loss and business closure, through measures like the wage subsidy. Our plan laid a platform for an economy to bounce back more quickly than other countries. Unemployment remains at record lows and private sector wage growth was 5.3 percent. Exports are growing; GDP was up 3 percent in the last quarter. We’re now in a strong position to grow our economy while keeping debt low and making targeted investments to support New Zealanders through these uncertain times, lift incomes, and support vital health services like health and education, and get infrastructure built.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that 667,000—or 14 percent of New Zealand’s population—were born in a non-visa waiver country; if so, how can she justify to them making them wait until July before their non-resident family can apply for a visitor visa?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the announcements that the Government made today bring forward the time at which those from non-visa waiver countries can enter New Zealand, and we believe that the path that we’ve taken is responsible and careful.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement to the effect the border will be fully open in July, or would, upon reflection, it be more accurate to say that people will be able to apply for visas to come through the border in July?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it has always been necessary for people from non-visa waiver countries to apply for visas.

David Seymour: Is the information on Immigration New Zealand’s website accurate when it says that a visitor visa can take five months to process; if so, does she accept that many of those people who are obliged to apply for a visa won’t be able to book their travel this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, some of those people will have visas that will allow them—that they already have—to be able to come in. In terms of the exact processing times, they will be matters that Immigration New Zealand will be dealing with. They have assured us that they are ready for us to have brought forward the return time by two months.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so, how is it possible that after two years of the border being shut, the constraint on people being able to come here is processing times at Immigration New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, I do have confidence in the Minister, because what he has done today is announce a simpler, smarter immigration system; one that’s going to give businesses better access to making sure that they have the workers that they want and balancing that against making sure that people are paid well and have good working conditions.

Kieran McAnulty: Does she stand behind her policy of the winter energy payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. The winter energy payment is one of the policies that we get the most feedback on. It’s something that makes sure that our most vulnerable—our older New Zealanders—get looked after. Any party, any party, who decided that they were going to take that away would be on the—I think New Zealanders would look very, very darkly upon. I’d also say that New Zealanders would look at that in the context of other policies, such as freezing the minimum wage, such as increasing the pension age—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member’s getting to a familiar list for which he’s not responsible.

David Seymour: Point of order. If you are saying that familiar list was ACT’s policies, the Minister’s actually misrepresented them in a material way, in both that he’s mentioned so far.

SPEAKER: Luckily, I’m not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements. If the member is identifying them in the same way as I am, he’s got the general debate coming up and he can have a crack then.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, it’s a very clear point of order I made. You are responsible for endorsing his list, and I don’t think that adds anything to the order of the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m also responsible for making it clear that he is not responsible for other parties’ policies. It became clear to me that he was answering as if he had some ministerial responsibility for that, which he doesn’t. If I’d let him go on, I’m pretty certain that David Seymour would have been complaining.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I think you’re missing the point here. You are the one who is asserting that that’s an accurate list.

SPEAKER: I’m asserting no such accuracy. It might be an inaccurate list, but it’s in the same general order, in the same ballpark.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Emergency Management: How is the Government supporting grassroots emergency resilience initiatives?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Emergency Management): On 2 May, I announced nine regional initiatives to strengthen community resilience to emergencies through the Civil Defence Emergency Management Resilience Fund. The range of projects supported includes projects in resilience to rain events in Tai Rāwhiti, a coastal community resilience guide for the Chatham Islands, earthquake education kits in Hawke’s Bay, a regional resilience analysis for Marlborough, a coastal community resilience guide for the Chatham Islands, and the continuation of a programme in Nelson Tasman and Marlborough to bring together the eight mana whenua to strengthen Māori planning and preparation for emergencies. Each of the initiatives is strongly focused on futureproofing regional emergency management arrangements and making resilience more inclusive for businesses and communities.

Rachel Boyack: What support was provided to the West Coast to support preparations for an Alpine Fault rupture?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Due to its isolation, its topography, and its proximity, the West Coast is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of an Alpine Fault rupture. Recent research shows there is a 75 percent chance of the Alpine Fault rupturing in the next 50 years and an 82 percent chance that such an earthquake would be a magnitude 8 or higher. A boost of $340,000 through the resilience fund has been provided to a project to enable better access to emergency fuel and power supplies and bolster local emergency communication options. It’s a practical and vital investment that will help to build on the outstanding work done by the AF8 project in the region and elsewhere.

Rachel Boyack: How has the resilience fund previously supported communities?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The resilience fund taps into the rich knowledge and expertise of our front-line emergency management practitioners in the regions, making it possible to progress smart new initiatives and test innovative ideas. It has made possible a number of valuable projects in recent years, such as the overall AF8 Alpine Fault earthquake response plan, East Coast LAB (Life at the Boundary), and the marae preparedness tool kit. Support such as that provided by the fund will also be increasingly important as communities adapt to the impacts of climate change and why the Government’s proposed national adaptation plan is so critical right now.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given that report on the Alpine Fault and the likelihood of it, do you think that’s a good reason that people—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will start again, without an assertion and without bringing me into it. He’s been around here a while; he should know.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given—

SPEAKER: No, not “given”. You can’t do “given”, to start with.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister think that the report she has received is a good reason that people should rush down and see the West Coast as quick they can?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s a fantastic opportunity to go down to the West Coast.

SPEAKER: That would be a very good question for the former Minister of Tourism.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Why have solitary confinement rates increased in mental health inpatient facilities despite the $1.9 billion announced for mental health, and what is his response to the Chief Ombudsman, who said about his recent mental health reports, “the Ministry of Health needs to answer to you and the public as to what it’s done with the taxpayers’ money”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) (remote): In response to the first part of the member’s question, solitary confinement in mental health facilities occurs under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. There are some patients who, for their own safety and the safety of others, must be kept apart from others. That’s why there is independent clinical oversight and, given its age, why also we are repealing and replacing that dated legislation. It’s not correct that solitary confinement rates are increasing. This is confirmed in the most recent report from the Health Quality & Safety Commission. The Budget 2019 investment that the member refers to principally addresses the major gap in our mental health services offering in primary care. It’s a five-year programme due to be completed in 2024 and has so far resulted in more than 900 front-line roles in 341 GP practices, covering about 46 percent of the enrolled population. It’s provided for the delivery of about 380,000 sessions, and almost 22,000 people were seen in March alone, receiving 12 therapies. All of these services were not available to New Zealanders two years ago. In response to the second part of the member’s question, the Ombudsman’s statement appears in a media article in reference to a MidCentral DHB mental health facility that’s scheduled for an upgrade. This Government has committed to a number of mental health facility upgrades as a consequence of the years of neglect of those facilities under the previous Government. In relation to MidCentral, the new facility is in the final design stage, and I expect construction to commence late this year. All mental health infrastructure projects are the subject of routine oversight and monitoring by Treasury and the Health Infrastructure Unit, and good progress is being made.

Matt Doocey: Why does he think there have been so many questions asked recently about where the money has gone for mental health?

SPEAKER: I’ll let the Minister answer it. I’m not sure that there is a responsibility for that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, many questions have been asked, particularly by that member and some of his colleagues, and I think the reason is that some people just don’t listen.

Matt Doocey: So the mental health sector who are asking where the money has gone are not listening?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My contact with many people in the mental health sector is that they are fully aware of the reviews of the 2019 $1 billion programme; reviews that have been conducted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Implementation Unit; the reviews conducted by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the independent monitor of mental health services in this country; and a range of others, and they’re fully confident of where the money is going.

Matt Doocey: Who does the Minister think the public believes is not listening—the mental health sector or the health Minister?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase that to get something he is responsible for, and general public views isn’t one of them.

Matt Doocey: Is he aware of the Chief Ombudsman’s comments that, “This really is a matter for the Ministry of Health. They are the stewards of the taxpayers’ money to oversee and implement acceptable mental health practice. They’re not doing it.”, and why do we now have another damning mental health report about his ministry?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I refer the member to the Ombudsman’s comments specifically about ward 21 in Palmerston North Hospital, which is the MidCentral facility that I think is at the centre of the member’s question. He noted the improvements in that facility. He reported that clients were positive about their treatment and care on the ward and had positive relationships with staff. The Ombudsman was positive about that facility. He was concerned, as indeed we all are, with the physical facilities. That’s why this Government has invested in upgrading not just the five facilities as part of the 2019 package but a range of other facilities. That means we now have an extensive mental health infrastructure programme that is making progress to improve the therapeutic environment which many of our acute mental health patients are in.

Matt Doocey: Why has only 2 percent been spent of the $75 million announced almost three years ago for the three new mental health inpatient facility sites recently visited by the Chief Ombudsman?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The mental health infrastructure programme is well under way. The first thing that has to happen, with any medical facility, is that it has to be well designed. Those design processes are reaching their conclusion. I might add for the member’s benefit, because he’s been confused about this before, that there is a difference between the drawdown of capital spending that DHBs—as is currently the case—make for capital works and what they themselves spend. They spend ahead of the drawdown, and that is the case with most of these mental health infrastructure projects.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, why is the Minister not aware that the 2 percent figure I gave him was the actual spend—the drawdown is only 1 percent—and is this another example of the Minister not over his detail and not knowing that mental health in-patient facilities have stalled?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is just incorrect in his assertions about the mental health infrastructure projects. They are progressing. The final design stage is in place for all but one of the projects, and the one that it isn’t is the Waikato facility, which is about to go for its final approval to the Capital Investment Committee. But I am confident that good progress is being made with all of the projects.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12—Jan Logie.

Matt Doocey: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document—what’s the word I’m looking for?—put together by my office—

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member stops right there, because a number of Speakers have ruled that documents put together by members or their offices are not documents for tabling in the House. I think we’ve had at least three Speakers rule that—not me. But I’m going to—

Matt Doocey: It’s a shame. It would help the Minister a lot.

SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 12—ACC

12. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: How does she respond to the findings of the Helen Clark Foundation report on perinatal mental health, which calls on the Government to expand cover for mental injury under the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill so that support is available for mental injuries resulting from a traumatic birth?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I acknowledge the important issues raised by the Helen Clark Foundation’s report on perinatal mental health. Currently, a mental injury is covered if it is caused by a physical injury covered under the Act, and these provisions will apply to the new maternal birth injury cover in the same way they apply to all physical injuries. The result means more women will receive cover for perinatal mental health issues. However, I do not intend to expand mental health cover in this legislation to women whose perinatal mental issue is not the result of a physical injury. This support will continue to be provided by the health system. Expanding this scheme to include broader cover for mental injuries would be a significant expansion and would have many complexities to work through. It would require careful analysis of the impacts and costs, and significant consultation.

Jan Logie: What would she say to Casey, whose traumatic birth wouldn’t be covered by the birth injuries bill, and who submitted of her birth: “I can’t bring myself to process it, yet simultaneously will have recurring traumatic flashbacks. I need mental health support but there is none available to me that is funded. It is devastating. It is impacting my ability to be a Mum.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Of course, I think every single person in this House hearing Casey’s story would empathise with Casey. The piece of legislation that we have before the select committee, which expands the offerings of ACC to cover maternal birth injuries, is not a piece of legislation that is going to respond to the needs of all women, however. I absolutely appreciate that there is more support and investment needed in the health system in particular, but also acknowledge that we as a Government have invested $1.9 billion into mental health. There is still more to do and we hope to be able to continue to make progress so that we can respond better to the needs of people like Casey.

Jan Logie: Does she think it’s fair that a midwife assisting in a traumatic birth who experiences PTSD as a result would be eligible for ACC’s support for mental injury but the mother herself would not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In 2022, you know, we are having much more comprehensive and expansive conversations about mental health. More than what we would have done 50 years ago when the ACC Act was implemented. We do need to consider what ACC’s role is with respect to mental health cover. However, we can’t just pick one particular area to focus on. I think this is a longer term piece of work for ACC—certainly something that I’m interested in. However, we’re not going to see the expansive cover that the member would like to see in the particular bill that we have before the select committee.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it’s acceptable to leave mums like Casey with stand-alone mental injuries out of the bill when the Clark Foundation report has found that maternal suicide is the leading cause of death in Aotearoa amongst pregnant people—five times higher per capita than the UK?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I feel that the member’s question is slightly unfair, given that actually for the first time we as a Government have taken an equity lens to the ACC legislation and looked at the way in which ACC is serving the interests of population groups like women. We were able to move quickly with regards to bringing together legislation to put in front of this House to actually provide cover for up to 18,000 women per year who experience birth injury. That is significant progress. Is there more to do? Absolutely. There’s also more to do in the health system, which we are committed to doing, and our health reforms clearly demonstrate that. Not everything will be covered through ACC, but we need a health system that responds effectively to the women and the injuries that that member is speaking of.

Jan Logie: Is the main reason stand-alone mental injuries relating to birth aren’t covered in the new bill to constrain costs; and, if so, how does she expect to fix the roughly billion-dollar payout difference between men and women in the ACC scheme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The answer to the first part of the member’s question is no. And with regards to the disparities that exist between women and men and the amount of cover and the types of cover that men get versus women, we are absolutely addressing that. In fact, for the first time this Government is addressing that. I’m very proud of that. We’ve made some significant steps already. There is more to do, and I look forward to doing that.

Jan Logie: Does she agree with the Clark Foundation report that: “We need our political leaders, policy-makers, and the stewards of the new health system to understand the evidence, champion the needs and rights of pēpi and whānau in their decision-making”, and if so, will she, as Minister for ACC, adopt their recommendation to extend mental injury cover in this bill in front of Parliament?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe I already am championing this issue. I think that we are the first Government to actually put a lens to the ACC legislation to uncover the disparities that do exist, and then off the back of getting that information, have already acted. I’m looking forward to what else we can achieve during our term. I’m looking forward to modernising ACC and making this 50-year-old taonga of ours more representative and effective for the New Zealand of today, and not the New Zealand of 50 years ago. But we’re not going to be able to achieve all of that in this one bill. There’s much more work to do beyond this.

Voting

Correction—Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

SPEAKER: Members, last night when the House was considering the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, the results of votes on Part 2 as amended and the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 were incorrectly announced as Ayes 77, Noes 43. The correct result is Ayes 77, Noes 42. The record will be corrected accordingly.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

The Opposition says that they believe in equality, that Māori should be treated the same as all other New Zealanders. And do you know what? There isn’t a Māori who disagrees. That’s what we’ve been calling for for over 180 years. We’ve been wanting equal education outcomes. We’ve been wanting equal employment outcomes. We’ve been wanting equal health outcomes. We’ve been wanting equal housing outcomes. It would be nice if we could live as long as non-Māori and enjoy our superannuation for as long as non-Māori, given we too paid taxes for our entire working lives, although I hear that Shane Reti wants us to be happy that we don’t die in our 30s as we did 182 years ago at the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He and his party’s top aspiration for Māori is for us to be grateful that we are alive.

Equality means that we should start on the same playing field and that we should all have the same shot but history has meant we don’t start on the same playing field. There is neither equality nor equity in Aotearoa, and the Opposition’s goal to slash and burn the Ministry of Māori Development, the Office for Māori Crown Relations, the Ministry for Women, the Human Rights Commission, the winter energy payment, and the fees-free scheme are all examples of agencies or policies designed to create equity for those who haven’t benefited by a system historically designed and propped up by and for the benefit of predominantly privileged Pākehā men.

The Opposition want to protect the status quo because the status quo is their system that looks after their needs and they like to think that, if only more people were like them, all the world’s problems would fade way. They conveniently overlook the fact that their wealth, their privilege, and their authority were built off the backs of other people’s misery and the entrenched inequality across generations.

So my tūpuna four great-grandfathers back was a rangatira who signed He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and at that time he was a businessman who was in the hospitality and entertainment industry such as it was back in the day. He was the owner-operator of two alehouses. He had market-sized gardens that fed the hapū. He collected customs duties off trading and whaling ships that came into the Bay of Islands. He was setting his hapū, my hapū, up to be productive and successful both socially and in commerce. He signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the mistaken belief that his valued possessions and resources would be his for ever.

But that was a lie. His property rights were forgotten. He was told he couldn’t collect the customs duties; only the Crown could. His pā and gardens were torched. He was arrested and imprisoned without trial or charges. He was told he couldn’t operate in the hospitality space because he needed to be licensed, but all of his means of revenue were confiscated. He was a chief who was made destitute by the system that created intergenerational poverty and inequity. He was made to relocate to a small area of the Bay of Islands. The pā that was torched and confiscated was recently sold for millions of dollars privately.

His descendants, who could have had lives of prosperity if Te Tiriti o Waitangi had been honoured, now number in the tens of thousands, and I would estimate that 80 percent of them live on the breadline. The Opposition fail to acknowledge that their prosperity was made off the back of my whānau’s misery. My hapū in the day were left with nothing. They could have done with a Ministry of Māori Development to help them get back on their feet. They could have done with Te Arawhiti, the Office for Māori Crown Relations, because I can tell you at that point the relationship between the Māori and the Crown was pretty sour. They could have done with the winter energy payment, because they were made homeless when their pā was razed to the ground, because they were made homeless at the start of winter. They could have done with the Human Rights Commission because their human rights were horribly violated and, as most of us are a product of our upbringing, the lack of equality through the generations has led to gross inequity.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We have made a number of announcements in the past week that really reflect where this Government’s priorities lie. We have had some challenging times—that would be, probably, an understatement—particularly in light of the pandemic that we have been faced with. However, not only have we been focused on ensuring that New Zealand is in the best place possible it can be during this pandemic and making sure that New Zealanders’ health is front and foremost the biggest priority, but we’ve also taken this time as an opportunity to make investments where they have been so desperately needed.

I was very proud to be part of the cross-agency announcement that was made the other day on driver licensing. There were a number of Ministers involved in pulling this together—an area that would seem simple from the outside but, in fact, has been overly complex and actually has had so many barriers in place to a large number of New Zealanders being able to access this kind of fundamental qualification.

We are going to be able to provide 64,000 New Zealanders with access to drivers’ licences. Why is this important? Because we as Government are focused on supporting New Zealanders into employment, and 70 percent of jobs that are promoted or that are advertised require that people have a licence of some sort. Why else is it important? Because a large number of New Zealanders that have interactions with the justice system usually have their first interaction being not having a driver’s licence at all or driving on the wrong driver’s licence.

I have seen a number of young people participating in these programmes. Not only does it give them better access to employment but we shouldn’t underestimate the role that it has to play with regards to lifting self-esteem and building their confidence. I am very proud of that announcement and very proud of the cross-agency work that took place to make it happen.

Also yesterday, another good example of cross-agency, cross-ministerial work, was our announcement around further investment into Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, and Māori trades training. I think one of the most shameful parts of what happened during the global financial crisis was that actually, rather than investing more into the upskilling and training of New Zealanders, funding was cut to apprenticeships. As a result of that, what did we see? We actually saw workforce shortages in critical areas like the trades.

We took the opposite approach and have actually invested heavily in this space. What we will see with Budget 2022 now is that we will further be supporting another 38,000 apprentices into employment, education, and training. We will be expanding the already successful Mana in Mahi programme—that has already had 4,700-plus young people participating on it—so that we can provide a further 1,600 places to young people in Mana in Mahi.

Quite often in this House, we are called to our feet to discuss the effectiveness of that programme. Make no mistake: it is successful. Around 89 percent of those that have participated in the programme have ended up completing the programme—or are still in the programme—and those that have left the programme have not ended up back on benefit. Considering the demographic that we are talking about, that is successful, and that is certainly the type of success we want to see across all of our employment initiatives.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson and the role that he has played in a number of these employment initiatives, but in particular, with regards to Māori trades training, where will see further investment so that we can further support more young Māori being able to get into what really is sustainable and meaningful employment with a trade.

It’s not just about giving them access to the training, though. It’s actually working with Māori providers so that it is Māori doing this for and with Māori. I’m very proud of the announcements that we have made in the past week; they really are reflective of where our Government’s priorities lie.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This week is Youth Week, and it’s an excellent opportunity for us to acknowledge and celebrate our young people across Aotearoa New Zealand and, also, to recognise the mahi of youth workers, youth-service providers, and all who work alongside and for our youth. This year’s theme is “Our voices matter, and we deserve to be heard.” It’s a theme that really resonates with me, and I’ll get to an explanation of why in a minute.

I started my Youth Week at a really uplifting event, which was the launch of He Kākano, a seed funding pilot. It was a collaboration between the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD) and the Prince’s Trust, and it’s really a pilot that gives young people who have decided to embark upon a business journey the opportunity to test the feasibility of their ideas. It gives them the investment, the mentoring, and the networking support that they need to scale up some of those ideas as well. Well, just like that event, there are about 277 different youth events happening across the motu; so, if members are keen to get out there, get involved, and support their rangatahi, I’d really appreciate that and encourage them to check out the details on the Ara Taiohi website or MYD’s website as well.

As the Minister for Youth, I really want to see our young people supported to thrive, and we can’t do that well unless we make space to really listen to them to understand what’s important to them, what their concerns and aspirations are, and then, to act on that. And that’s exactly what our Government is doing, and I’m incredibly proud of it. This is particularly important in the current environment, where we’re into the third year of a global pandemic that has disproportionately impacted our young people. The specific impacts on our youth include things like missed education, employment, and training opportunities, increased disengagement and disconnection, and significant impacts on their mental wellbeing as well. Now, none of these are new issues; they’ve experienced that before—they’ve been existing—but these have been exacerbated by COVID as well. And, as if the pressures of a global pandemic weren’t enough, we’re also seeing a global inflation spike as well as the result of ongoing supply-chain issues and the war in Ukraine, also.

And yet, though it’s been a tough few years—it’s been a challenging few years, especially for our rangatahi—we are also in New Zealand; we can take some comfort from the fact that, compared to others, we’re doing well. That means we’re now in a strong position to look at what investment is required to grow the economy further as we plan what the new normal looks like in a world where COVID is under control and inflation levels return to more normal levels as well. Because we need strong finances and sustainable growth as much as we need healthy and educated people, clean air to breathe, water to drink, and strong communities that actually look after one another, we need to look ahead to some of those big, complex challenges, because those, when I’m out and about engaging with our young people, are the issues that they talk to me about: being able to get a decent job that pays a decent wage, climate change, mental wellbeing, housing affordability, addressing family and sexual violence. And those are the areas that our Government is focused on.

In my last general debate speech, I talked about the 1 April changes that were brought into place—particularly the increases to the minimum wage and the halving of public transport costs—that young people have talked to me about. Minister Sepuloni has talked about the Apprenticeship Boost programme that will be extended. That is a programme that’s supported more than 43,000 people to get or keep an apprenticeship. It funds employers per apprentice, providing a financial incentive to keep them on, and, as a result, apprenticeships have increased by 55 percent in two years. We’re extending that to support around 38,000 apprentices—24,000 of whom are likely to be new. This is one of the reasons that we’ve kept unemployment at a record low. In addition to that, the Ministry of Youth Development supports youth-development programmes that keep young people connected to their communities, a sense of purpose, youth workers, and mentorships—all of this to ensure that, as a Government, we support our young people to be the best they possibly can be to participate, contribute, and thrive. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): New Zealanders are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We wouldn’t know it from listening to the speeches Labour members give in this Chamber, because they seem to live in an alternative reality in which there is a money tree at the end of the Government’s garden that can keep paying for announcement after announcement after announcement, with no results, no outcomes, and an endless queue of New Zealand taxpayers lining up to pay for it.

It couldn’t be further from the case, because the New Zealanders I speak to and the New Zealanders we speak to are struggling. Food is up: 18 percent more for fruit and vegetables in the past year alone. Petrol looks set to go over $3 a litre again. Rents have gone up by the most in one year in New Zealand’s history: up $50 more a week. Mortgage-payers are looking at paying thousands more in interest on their loans.

People are falling behind, their wages are not keeping up, and they look to this Government and they say to them to come down from their Beehive offices and talk to the people and understand what they are going through. Talk to people like Anna, who shared on National’s cost of living website this insight. She said, “We struggle to make ends meet and keep food on the table for our kids due to the increasing cost of food, petrol, etc. We earn too much for assistance, but not enough to get by.”, and that is the story in thousands upon thousands of New Zealand households right now.

Grant Robertson may think it’s OK to get up and say, “Well, it’s all fine. I’ve increased benefits. I’ve put in some more Working for Families.”, but he needs to remember that it is taxpayers that are funding that generosity and it is taxpayers who are finding that they are falling behind. We on this side of the House say, “Please do help the vulnerable, because you have pushed inflation so high that, if you don’t, they and their children will fall behind, but prioritise tax relief for the squeezed middle, who are struggling.”

But what does Labour do instead? They are embarking on the biggest Government spend-up in New Zealand’s history. In the Budget that Grant Robertson announces next week, he is planning to spend more, and bake it into future years, than has ever been spent before, because he’s collecting $15 billion more in tax from New Zealanders than was the case when he first became the Minister of Finance.

“What is he doing with that money?”, New Zealanders say to me. They say, “Just tell me it straight, Nicola. Where’s it all going?”, because they’re not seeing the improvement. They’re not seeing more hip operations. They’re not see more kids getting better achievement at school. They’re not seeing that, actually, the housing crisis has been sorted; in fact, they’re seeing four times as many people waiting for a house. They say, “Please, Nicola, can you just urge the Government to give us some tax relief, because we’re doing it hard.”, but will they listen? No, because, actually, on the other side of the House there is a smug belief that this Government can spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can, and there is no plan. In fact, the plan is spend more, dream up new ways to tax people for it, and then cross your fingers and hope it all gets better, and that is not good enough.

It’s not good enough for David Parker to wave around Thomas Piketty and say, “I’m dreaming up a new wealth tax.” It’s not good enough for Grant Robertson to say, “I’m just going to keep on spending and hope for the best.”, because, actually, New Zealanders are worried. They are worried that the debt levels in this country keep getting higher. There’s no plan to put the books back into balance, but all there is a plan to do is to keep taxing them more. There is a danger now that the wheels will well and truly fall off, and we have bank economists and we have thought leaders telling New Zealanders that it’s time to prepare for the worst.

So next week, when Grant Robertson puts down his Budget, I will judge it by this: does it respond to people like Anna and the thousands like her around the country, struggling with higher mortgage payments, higher rents, and higher costs, who work hard every week and who pay their tax? Does it respond to her? Can the Minister promise her that every extra dollar he is spending will result in better outcomes than she would get for that money in her household budget? I would put it to you that that is a grave responsibility and one that this Government has fallen short of again and again and again, and New Zealanders deserve better.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s nothing like a busy market day, and I think most of us have them in our electorates. In Upper Harbour, if it’s a Saturday morning, you head down to the Catalina Bay markets. It’s not just the incredible goods on sale there, not just the honey made by Carlene and Terry, or the awesome new hemp spread product made by Sam, or the larger than life avocados by Jan, or the sunflowers that you can get from Agnes, who gives part of every purchase to those who are facing war in Ukraine. It’s the buzz of innovation, it’s the creativity, it’s that mixture of pragmatism and risk taking, that unique spirit that our business community bring to New Zealand.

Down at the markets, one of my favourite places to stop is a little mum and dad stall called Family of Nuts, and they make their product right down there in Hobsonville Point. It is more than a business, I know, to many of those business owners; it’s a labour of love. But I know that it’s also been a profoundly challenging time for them over the last few years, and the Government has done a lot of work in terms of supporting them through COVID times, which means that now many of our businesses are thriving.

The markets emphasise that buzz of the business community, but it’s not the only way that they connect with the flavour and the tone of who we are as a society. On a Monday in the Upper Harbour electorate, you’ll find one of our biggest industries getting up to work early. It’s our early childhood sector, because their clientele get up early as well. When I go out and I speak to them, they also talk about the supports that we’ve provided them through hard times so they can recover and thrive.

Now, over the past two years, there has been around $23 billion worth of support for businesses and workers through the wage subsidy, the resurgence support payment, and the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. Upper Harbour has the eighth-highest amount of technicians and trade workers in all of Aotearoa’s electorates. It’s an industry that has had significant support from the Government through the resurgence payment. I am proud of the support that we’ve given them, but I’m also proud of the overall economic recovery that we’re seeing.

Our borders are reopening to tourists and business visitors from around 60 visa waiver countries as we continue our reconnection with the world. As announced today, our international borders will fully reopen to tourists and visa holders from 31 July. With our economic recovery now larger than pre-COVID levels—and we’re seeing a record-low level of unemployment—we are recovering; we’re providing the strong foundations for business to succeed. As we recover, our Labour values mean that we’ll continue to support all New Zealanders.

I hear how much this means on a regular basis to the people in Upper Harbour. A few weeks ago, I met with a grouping of principals, and I recall Rob Taylor, who’s the principal from Colwill School, telling me about how much the healthy school lunches programme means to him. He said, “Our school families really need it. It wasn’t until the lockdowns that we realised how much of a difference it makes.”

Labour values mean supporting all New Zealanders. I’ve spoken to a number of our retirees in the Upper Harbour community. There are almost 10,000 of them who reside in Upper Harbour, and they talk about what the increase to the super payment means to them. They talk about what the winter energy payment means to them.

We support all New Zealanders and we’re also planning for the future. Just earlier this week, Minister Robertson and Minister Hipkins announced that the Government is extending our Apprenticeship Boost programme, which means we’ll be supporting around 38,000 apprentices. I know this matters in Upper Harbour. Out in Massey, this is going to make a huge difference. Massey High School is the home to the innovative academy that trains people into trade and supports them into jobs that engage both their heads and their hearts.

We’re heading in the right direction. We’re reopening to the world. We’re growing our economy. We’re working to support all New Zealanders.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Over the past several weeks, I have been travelling right around New Zealand, talking digital connectivity, and hearing stories from people—whether it’s businesses or local communities at the pubs and restaurants—about their digital exclusion. From Mosgiel to Westport to Ross to Hokitika, even on the North Shore of Auckland, there are stories, time and time again, of people not having the digital support, and the connectivity issues that they face day to day. Considering the fact that it is 2022, when people are talking about gigabytes and terabytes, some people are struggling with dial-up speeds.

One in five New Zealanders faces digital exclusion—that’s extremely high—for one reason or another. It can be geographical, it can be accessibility issues, it can also be socio-economic, and it can be because of the changing world, I guess. Particularly people in the disability sector, people who have disabilities, are some of the hardest-hit communities—also, the elderly community. Elderly New Zealanders, particularly in the rural communities, are excluded as Government and services withdraw from their small towns in New Zealand. They cannot even activate their EFTPOS or credit cards or do their transactions, due to the lack of connectivity or, worse, the tyranny of distance to their nearest bank.

Rural New Zealanders face kilometre after kilometre of no mobile coverage on our State highways. On regional roads, in short, if they crash and have an accident, if they’re injured, they could be walking or actually limping for hours before they could get to the next cell signal so that they can make a 111 phone call. This is absolutely disgraceful in 2022. The Government should do better. Our State highways stretch over 11,000 kilometres, and, actually, over 20 percent of this, our national road network, has no connectivity—20 percent of our roads have no connectivity. This has to be addressed.

Only 36 percent of State Highway 94, for instance, will have mobile coverage by next August; right now, it’s only about 15 percent. The road from Te Ānau to Gore, for Southlanders, is a death trap due to the lack of connectivity. State Highway 6 is 1,162 kilometres long, it stretches the breadth of the South Island, and I travelled much of it recently, actually, during the recess, from Westport to Ross. Over 40 percent of it has no connectivity. Even when the black spot coverage roll-out is complete next September, there will be stretches culminating of 186 kilometres of roading that will remain without telecommunication services.

Madam Speaker, I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank you, as the chairperson of the Petitions Committee, for supporting me in having the topic of digital exclusion be debated in a special debate coming up on 28 July, as determined by the Business Committee today. I’d like to thank the Citizens Advice Bureau of New Zealand for bringing this topic, because it was heard in the Petitions Committee.

Elderly communities face these issues every day, whether it’s actually cheques not being accepted or the fact that, as I mentioned, their bank cards and EFTPOS cards cannot even be activated, because they cannot get to the bank to activate it, because the banks have closed in their small towns and they have no internet connection to even do any banking from their rural homes—the tyranny of distance: the fact that they can’t even connect to their digital cell sites; the fact that they don’t even get a tsunami warning if they happen to be living in a place like Dunollie, which I have actually mentioned in this House before.

Digital connectivity in a world where the Minister of the digital economy is actually sitting in the House looking down—but he needs to fix these issues for New Zealand. National believes that the future is digital and everyone, every single person in New Zealand, must have the tools they need to be part of our digital world. No one should be left behind. It is a failure of this Government to not deliver better, faster. Do better, please.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I’d like to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about a fantastic announcement that was made on Sunday that has provided record investment in the justice sector, for law and order in New Zealand. The investment announced last Sunday delivers a police force that is the biggest New Zealand has ever seen, and continues investment in the police after the goal of an additional 1,800 police will be achieved by the end of the year. That’s six months ahead of where we were scheduled to be.

Extra funding is set aside to grow police to match population growth, which in the past hasn’t been kept up with in previous Governments. This will ensure that there is at least one police officer for every 480 New Zealanders. In addition to this, there’s another $94 million specifically targeted for gangs and organised crime, funding to support businesses to protect from ram raids, and also targeting gun crime with the establishment of a new firearms unit within police.

We’ve also increased safety to front-line police with a nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model, with the training of police officers up to Armed Offenders Squad standard. Breaking the cycle of reoffending is just as important as investing in front-line capability, and that’s exactly why there’s a $193 million investment to break the cycle of offending in New Zealand, and funding on top of this for an additional 518 extra Corrections staff to support rehabilitation.

Now, I want to go back a little bit to 2016, to when the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, stated that there were not enough police to respond to retail crime. There were a couple of dine-and-dash incidents I recall, and the Government, she admitted, had not kept up with the modest goal of one police officer to 500. Now, this Government, under Minister Poto Williams, has delivered, and will deliver, 480 people per police officer.

And the response we’ve had from those opposite, in particular Mark Mitchell, who has mentioned that that’s a knee-jerk reaction—that additional funding and more police on the front line won’t help the problem go away. His answer to the problem is greater consequences for criminals and also greater powers for police. But we know for a fact—we know for a fact, on this side of the House—that you can’t arrest your way out of a problem; you have to be a little bit smarter than that. And, sadly, that’s where Mr Mitchell falls down. That number that we’re forgetting is what happened under the last Government in terms of getting tough and giving police more powers—that Government was torn straight down the middle when it came to firearm prohibition orders, and that’s exactly why that piece of legislation was never delivered upon in nine years. That Government was split right down the middle, between Paula Bennett and, I think, Judith Collins, who wanted to have warrantless, causeless searches—and then on the other side, Amy Adams, who kind of knew that we had a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that it wasn’t so cool. Then I remember it sort of all came to a head when we had Paula Bennett, then as the Minister of Police, saying that some people have more rights than others.

I think that quite aptly sums up the position of the National Party on just about everything, to be frank. That is why it’s important we stick to facts and not fiction, and that’s why I’d like to conclude by talking about a few facts that are important to remember—and that’s, in the past 10 years, what our youth justice figures have done—a 61 percent reduction in the number of children going to a family group conference or in court action. That’s 2,900 fewer children offending, and that’s 8,500 fewer 14- to 16-year-olds offending. That’s a fact. Youth crime has decreased. And the response, once again, we’ve had from that member opposite, from Mr Mitchell, is that he called it fake news. That was the response in general. I’m going to quote, “Oh, look, I was going to say, ‘Don’t be fooled by these stats. Youth crime is not trending down. Any Kiwi that applies the common-sense rule’ ”—not sure what that is—“ ‘knows that because they hear and see what’s happening every day, the reality is that this Government has found different ways of capturing stats.’ ” Fake news is what we get from the other side.

So, to wrap up, I’d like to say that I am proud of what this Government is delivering for New Zealand communities to keep them safer. The real truth is that a bunch of anecdotal war stories does not add up to a strategy that actually reduces the drivers of crime in our communities. Cutting funding and increasing police powers is not a strategy. This Government knows that we can’t arrest our way out of a problem, and we are working to deliver on those underlying drivers of crime. And I’m proud of what’s being done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Before I take the next call, I’d like to welcome the visitors to the gallery but also remind them that the rules in this House, including the gallery, are to keep us all safe, and that is that all members—except when they are speaking—and all visitors are to wear their masks correctly, covering over the nose and mouth.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare. Yesterday I was privileged to announce $114.5 million towards Te Aorerekura, towards achieving the vision of everyone in Aotearoa living free from family violence and sexual violence, living with peace.

I firstly want to acknowledge the fantastic crowd out at Porirua Ngā Uri o Whiti Te Rā Mai Le Moana Trust and particularly their kaimahi, their leadership on the ground, and people like Saviour, who delivered a fantastic mihi to this work, to the care that they have for their community. And my outstanding colleagues who were there to announce this incredible piece of work following Te Aorerekura, the launch of our strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence at the end of the year last year.

Now, what has become very, very clear is we have to do things differently. This budget is the first budget, the first financial commitment that we see from Government following the launch of that strategy. And it’s clear that Te Aorerekura is about generational change. It is a 25-year minimum commitment and has pathways to six key shifts that we must change if we have real hope—and I think we all do and can and must have real hope of eliminating family violence and sexual violence. A whole lot of work needs to be done. It won’t all be done at once. But what the strategy has done is outline the key pathways that the research has shown, that the community have called for, that the sector and expertise have called for, that we collectively have agreed are the ways towards achieving that vision and that goal for our families and communities.

So the budget that I announced yesterday is across all of the key shifts that are in Te Aorerekura. For example, there is $38.1 million in shift one, and that is where people were clear that we had to have an approach towards strength-based wellbeing. Shift two has $4 million towards mobilising communities, and that was about making sure that we are having a wider, deeper, more expanded reach across Aotearoa to work properly with and engage the leadership to mobilise communities to be at the centre of their own solutions. There is an entire shift dedicated to increasing the skill and the quality and capability capacity of our workforce. If we are going to do this work, we need a workforce who are supported, who are valued, who have the resource, the knowledge and the expertise, training and development that they want and need to do good work so that when someone puts their hand up for help, they are given the level of support they deserve. Everyone deserves the level of support they require towards restoration and healing to overcome trauma and to interrupt intergenerational trauma.

We also have massive investment in primary prevention—that has been one of the biggest gaps and lacks in successive Governments’ approaches to this work. For decades and generations, we have focused on being the receiving ambulance at the bottom of the violence cliff. We’ve known for a long time, and now we are finally dedicating huge resource and support not just to fiscal primary prevention strategies and programmes but through a collective understanding that we must commit to stopping violence before it happens—and that there are complex dynamics, shifts in cultures and attitudes and behaviours that are going to be the only way we can change the environments that allow violence to not just happen but allow it to continue to happen. Primary prevention is a third of the amount that I announced yesterday, $37.6 million, and it will be led with the leadership of communities in authentic partnership with Government.

We also know that, while we want to prevent violence from happening, it is still happening and we must improve our responses. We must have responses that are safe, that are timely, that are appropriate and, most of all, accountability from our Crown agencies and Government departments—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I want to reflect on the sun and the sun that shines down upon us as a nation, but I also want to focus on the sunniest city in Aotearoa for 2021. Of course, I see the Hon Kiritapu Allan is in the House this afternoon and she would say Whakatāne, right? She would say this is her place, this is her spot, and you probably think about that as well, but it is not. I’m sorry, it is not the Labour stronghold of Whakatāne.

Then, of course, Rachel Boyack, the MP for Nelson, a wonderful Labour member of Parliament, and often we think of Nelson as the sunniest place; unfortunately, not. Well, actually, fortunately not, because of course—it is not my place of birth—it is New Plymouth! The wonderful Labour stronghold of New Plymouth, and for another year running we are the sunniest place and it is wonderful. But then this morning I did get a text message from a friend of mine with Maunga Taranaki with a light dusting of snow that came on overnight. We feel the temperature beginning to drop and we are beginning to feel the effects of autumn that is upon us.

Of course, when autumn hits, the temperature drops and when the temperature drops we turn our heaters on, we light our fires, we close our windows, and we’re sure that we are cosy and warm. But this isn’t the experience for some people. For many people within our communities and in our nation, there are people who don’t turn their heaters on or light their fires during winter. There are those that don’t have double-glazed windows, don’t have insulation, don’t have all those mod cons of modern housing—those who do it tough, and those who suffer because of that, because of health and respiratory issues.

That’s why I’m glad that, as of the first of this month of May, yet again, we as Government have brought in the winter energy payment, running from May through to October to ensure that families aren’t stressed about turning that heater on to make sure that people are warm. I was in the wonderful small and sunny town of Ōpunake on the weekend and got to catch up with Bev, who’s a 94-year-old constituent, still lives in her own home, a little old State house that’s been converted. I know that she was grateful for the fact that she isn’t worried about turning a heater on this winter, because she has got the support of the winter energy payment. There’s also, of course, what we brought in earlier this year in terms of making sure that there’s an increase to the main benefit. There’s obviously an increase to the New Zealand superannuation, Working for Families, and, of course, raising the minimum wage, ensuring that people are looked after. Now, I know we’ve got further to go. I understand this is no silver bullet. This will not fix everything that is happening in our society at the moment, but this is a step. This is a way forward for us, and we will continue, as we always have in Government, to support people in terms of those who are going without.

Which, of course, brings us to the cuts in fuel tax and the half-price public transport. Since this has come in—you hear news of the big urban centres, obviously, with their buses and their fleets of public transport, but out in the provinces we have them as well. I can say that the Connector bus, which takes people from Hāwera up to New Plymouth and back again, in terms of those using the bus service on those half-price bus tickets, it has been going gangbusters in the last few months with these half-price fairs. I own a little Bee Card. I know I live in the provinces but we have the tap on, tap off and we’re able to use the same amenities that many people in the urban centres have. So I’m proud to know that, as Government, we’re doing things that are ensuring that people are better off; we’re making sure that people are cared for.

Finally, this afternoon, I want to talk about apprenticeships. And, again, we’ve been having so much going on in this space, and, again, Minister Robertson and Hipkins announced in terms of boosting the apprenticeship programme. We were supporting around 38,000 apprentices, 24,000 of whom are likely to be new apprentices, and the 14,000 whom will continue to benefit from the programme beyond August of this year.

Now, I know a young person, Jayden, who used to live with me and he is an apprentice. Recently I was at an event and it was a competition for young apprentices. He was so excited because, after spending years and years of coming and going from jobs and unemployment to now being working with Cleveland Construction as an apprentice, he is excited about his future and even said to me, “Next year, I’m going to be in this competition, and next year you’re going to be giving me the award for the top apprentice.”

For me, this is what this Government is about. It’s about empowering people. It’s about lifting people up, and it’s ensuring that people have a place to work and a warm home to live in.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, I don’t want to be unkind in using Glen Bennett as an example, but that might as well be a valedictory speech. Someone who holds the seat of New Plymouth by a majority of 2,500—on current polling, he’s gone. He’s not the only one on the Labour Party backbenches who knows that it’s exit time and time to talk to a recruiting agency. Nothing sharpens the mind like an imminent exit from this place—nothing dulls policy ambition.

We know that the Labour Party has been all aflutter in their caucus this week talking about three waters, saying to each other—yeah, they know. You can see the response. They know. They’ve been saying, “Do we really want to do this? Is it really worth it, botching this thing, so that we lose our seats?”—all of those provincial seats. Paul Eagle is about to announce his mayoral run. He’s less worried about it. But someone like Shanan Halbert from Northcote, he’ll be thinking, “Is it really worth it? Is it really what I want to do, to put co-governance through everything?” Is it a worthwhile goal to try and be the first country in history to achieve equal rights for every citizen and then, as if engaged in some historic shuttle run, to run back in the opposite direction and create different categories of human, where you get seats at the table on these water entities based on your ancestry rather than being elected by your constituents? That’s the problem that this Labour Party has. It’s not a policy that was ever worth doing.

You see, there might be a problem with three waters, but logically if the difficulty is that councils don’t have enough money from existing ratepayers to fund the infrastructure and the fixes for the broken infrastructure, neither will these new water entities—unless the Government underwrites the new entities. And if the Government can underwrite the new entities, it could’ve just underwritten the councils and solved the problem that way.

So why do we have these new water entities? Well, in part, because—let’s tell the real secret—three waters was never about a viable solution to our infrastructure problems. It was a Treaty settlement in disguise. Didn’t we just hear that from the member from Northcote, saying exactly that? That’s what it was all about, but unfortunately—you can hear them in the Labour benches getting upset, because they’ve been going back and forward in caucus.

Here’s a prediction: the back-down has begun. They’ve decided it’s not worth losing those seats like New Plymouth for something that never stacked up anyway, and so they’re going to say, “Oh, it was never”—they’re going to change the language first. They’re going to say, “It was never about co-governance.” And then the next thing that they’re going to say is, “Well, actually, we’re going to have equal representation. That’s what it’s about.” Finally, when they realise that the spin doesn’t work, the people don’t want it, and their own political careers are in jeopardy, the Labour caucus will vote to abandon three waters, if it hasn’t already. That is what is going to happen, and you heard it here first.

Kiritapu Allan, she is wise. She’s smart. She knows it’s the truth, and I can see it on her face, because when the ship goes down, she is far too smart to go down with it for no reason whatsoever. She’s one of the sensible people, who, I suspect, has actually been saying to people that this policy, three waters, a Treaty settlement disguised as an infrastructure project, does not make sense. It’s not good public policy. It’s not worth our careers. It’s not worth losing our seats for, because the people know that it makes no sense and the people are going to vote us out if we don’t start listening to them. That’s what the people are saying in the Labour Party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies. Order! I ask the Government members—remind them that interjections are to be rare and reasonable, and a barrage of shouting is not acceptable.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there you have it. It is clearly the case that the Labour Party cannot hack it. They don’t like backing down, but the back-down has been voted in their caucus. It’s coming, and we are not going to see three waters as advertised, because they’ve finally realised that it just doesn’t stack up as a policy and it’s not worth losing your seat for bad policy. That’s why three waters co-governance is on the way out. Ka kite anō.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s always a pleasure to take a call in the general debate, particularly after Mr Seymour has resumed his seat. Mr Seymour, keep trying—that’s what I say. My message to you is keep trying. It’s getting pretty tired, actually, Mr Seymour. It’s just more absolute unnecessary chat from members on that side of the House yet again. Actually, let’s remind ourselves and remind everyone else in Aotearoa New Zealand what Mr Seymour and his party is seeking to cosy up next to, in arrangement with the National Party, and what the alternative is.

Let’s just briefly have a look at that because Mr Luxon has been the Leader of the Opposition for six months now, and he says that he has some new ideas. Let’s remind us all about what those new ideas are: minimum wage increase, which this Government has consistently delivered on, gone; Labour Day public holiday gone; fair pay agreements gone; public transport subsidies gone; and CEO tax bills gone as well. Not to mention the happiness of increased incomes in that member’s back pocket as a result of what is proposed. So let’s just remind ourselves and remind the hard-working Kiwis in this country what the alternative is under Mr Seymour and his buddies. On this side of the House, we’re not going to stand for that.

But I’m not going to dwell on the negativity, because I want to share some news with the House. I want to share some news with the House about colleagues who have recently visited the mighty Manawatū. We’ve had Minister Faafoi visiting the mighty Manawatū and acknowledge the immigration announcements that have been made by the Government this afternoon. We’ve had the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall meeting with our public health workers—doing a fantastic job. Consistently, I’ve made a point in my general debate contributions of acknowledging the hard work that those people are doing in that particular part of daily life, and today is no different for that. She met with seniors in Palmerston North, who were delighted to hear of, as Mr Bennett has said, the continuation of the winter energy payment, and the increase to superannuation rates from 1 April—making a huge difference, providing a welcome boost to households.

In terms of a boost, I’m delighted that last week I was able to visit Norwood’s—a strong local business operating in my community of Palmerston North—who were saying to me how important the Apprenticeship Boost opportunity has been. I was there to actually look at their national training centre—I met with some of the apprentices, who had travelled from all around the country, from different franchises and opportunities, to be trained in Palmerston North—and to hear about the good work that Norwood’s, a strong local business, is doing in my rohe. So it’s a fantastic opportunity to acknowledge the extension of the boost initiative, making sure that that increase of 55 percent within the apprenticeship opportunities over the last two years has solidified and will continue as well.

Yesterday, I travelled to Parliament on my local train service, the Capital Connection. I want to thank Minister Wood and others for including that local train service in the 50 percent fare reduction. That makes a huge difference to my constituents—and I know my colleague the member for Ōtaki will agree with that because it makes a huge difference. It is a longstanding service that connects the capital to Palmerston North and all of the places—

Rachel Boyack: What a great place.

TANGI UTIKERE: —in between. A fantastic place it is. Thank you, Ms Boyack. And it’s also convenient. So I’m proud to be part of a Government that is continuing to invest in rail infrastructure but also meeting the demand and the needs of local communities when it comes to the accessibility of public transport.

In racing parlance, I guess you could say that this week is something of a quaddie—there are four things going on this week. It is New Zealand Sign Language Week, and we acknowledge our signers and our interpreters all around Aotearoa New Zealand. It is Road Safety Week, and I want to particularly give a shout-out to our road patrollers in schools. I stopped by, on Monday, one of my local schools—Central Normal School—to see the teachers but also the students doing that diligently in the morning and again in the afternoon. It is Youth Week, and the Minister the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan has touched on the importance of that. Finally, it is Rotuman Language Week. While that is a small community, is an important one. I think, actually, it might be the only Island nation that is at the apex of Macaronesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. So that’s important to acknowledge that as a special identifier there.

Finally, in terms of accolades, can I acknowledge New Zealand’s top scholars, who have been acknowledged here at the Parliament today. In particular, can I acknowledge Palmerston North Girls’ High School’s Myrna Brown for being the top scholar in painting. It was fantastic to see national achievement in our young people, and I congratulate them all. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Before I go into my primary speech, can I acknowledge the manuhiri who are gathered here today—tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e te Whare Pāremata ināianei. Hoki mai and haere mai to the Hon Marama Fox, and I see also the Hon Rick Barker, so haere mai—welcome. Can I also follow in the footsteps of the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, and acknowledge our top scholars. Two—I might up the ante here—two from Glendowie College: Damon and Joshua. Very, very proud of you both.

But now to turn back on to the Government after bouquets, so to speak. On Friday—not Friday, Monday, oh the days blend. On Monday night, hundreds of locals in my electorate of Tāmaki gathered to talk about crime and safety in the community. It’ll be no surprise, regardless of my electorate or across New Zealand, the grave and strong concerns people have about the ongoing crime. I have almost—almost—lost count of the number of ram raids alone in my electorate, having visited over 25 businesses in recent months. That’s 25 businesses in my electorate alone, ram raided. That is on top of the myriad of cars stolen, antisocial behaviour, assaults—particularly of our young people, and the list goes on. But people gathered together, along with our police commanders and councillors, on Monday night to discuss how we move forward.

One of the things that was very striking was actually the support of our policemen and -women on the front line. I’d have to report to this House, because I am an honest man, believe it or not, the police got more claps than I did. Maybe that isn’t a surprise to people, but actually they were being well thanked. But the point being the anger and the frustration of my community was with a Labour Government that has been soft on crime; that has ignored the crisis in front of us—a Government, in fact, that tells us they reject the premise of the very question that there’s a problem of crime. So it’s a rhetorical invitation at this time, but the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police are very welcome to come to my electorate and to meet my people, who want to say to them that they want the Government to take this seriously. They want to see more resourcing for police, they want to see more patrols, and they want to see more focus on truancy when hundreds of our young people are not attending school. They want fewer excuses from a Government that sees every person as a victim and not an opportunity, and that in particular was a focus on our young people. They want the young people to be given hope, not a path towards the gangs. And in fact, as one person pointed out, they want to see fewer Government Ministers having a chat with gang members. They want, actually, the Government of the day to talk to young people and give them hope and inspiration. They want more support for our businesses. They want bollards; fog cannons; cameras; and as I said earlier, more patrols. These are just some of the points of feedback.

But the last point that came up, and well just by pure coincidence of course, fits—one of my portfolios is corrections. They are sick and tired of a failing corrections system. They are tired of a Government which is appropriating, basically, a catch and release approach. The Government trumpets almost 4,000 fewer people in our prisons. Well, that would be all well and good if those men and women who have been in our prisons were given proper rehabilitation. But, do you know what, the Government has spent more money in corrections but is actually offering fewer rehabilitation slots and processes. This is a failure of public spending, and it is a failure of a duty of care to those men and women in our prison that deserve a second chance, a third chance, and even fourth and fifth chances. They are catching and releasing them.

And I hear laughter from the other side, as if it’s funny. Recidivism rates are just as bad now as they have been in years past. They’re letting more prisoners out with less rehabilitation, and recidivism rates are as bad as they’ve always been. We’re seeing more money, as I said, being spent. On top of all of that, we’ve now found out that since 2017 the Department of Corrections, get this, has doubled the number of its back-room staff—doubled the number—a 50 percent increase to be completely accurate, but only a 16 percent increase of people on the front line. And, if you’re talking to corrections officers like I am, there’s low morale; they’re frustrated. And yet there’s more people working in the back office. It’s completely and utterly a shambles. Spending more money, more back-end staff, and more reports on strategies—could probably point a stick at God knows how many of those. Yet, as I say, more prisoners being let out, delivering fewer rehabilitations, very little improvement to recidivism, no implementation of the strategies—don’t even get me started on that—and ignoring the needs of prisoners and staff. It’s an utter shambles, and this Government is responsible.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (remote): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

Tākiri mai ana te ata, i runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Korihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea.

Tihei mauriora. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tae mai nei runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou.

Kia whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei, tēnei au, otirā mātou Te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. The voice of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day.

I now begin. Greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed, may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all.

To pay tribute to this comfortable land, I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the present issue. Therefore to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, greetings to you all, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I’m grateful to be here, in this form, to speak to the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to begin by acknowledging members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, some of whom I understand are in the gallery this afternoon. We’ve only been allowed in the last few weeks to welcome iwi back into the House to watch their bills being read, and it’s always special to be able to celebrate the event when this happens.

I’d like to take time to remember and pay tribute to Ngāti Kahungunu leaders and loved ones who have passed on before they were able to bear witness to today’s milestone. They’re all in our thoughts and with us today in spirit. I also want to acknowledge the work and dedication of the Ngāti Kahungunu negotiation team. In particular, I want to thank Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Haami Te Whaiti, and Hayden Hape. The negotiators have been well supported by their advisers, Rawiri Smith, Marama Tuuta, and Lee Gray, and their legal counsel, Jennifer Braithwaite and Mike Colson. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua have been served over the years by extremely courageous and committed negotiators and advisers, and I acknowledge their tenacity and hard work.

I also want to thank and acknowledge my ministerial colleagues, chief Crown negotiator Rick Barker for his contribution to this settlement, and officials from Te Arawhiti and other Crown agencies who’ve worked alongside Ngāti Kahungunu to develop this package.

Today’s reading marks a major milestone for Ngāti Kahungunu and their settlement journey. This comes after generations of struggle for their people seeking justice for the Crown to uphold its commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and for recognition of the many breaches of Te Tiriti by the Crown. This settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgment and apology for its repeated breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

I want to mention that, in particular, the Crown acknowledges and apologises for the forced cession of tens of thousands of acres of land at Maungaroa in 1845; for the failure to act in good faith during rapid and extensive land purchases, which left Ngāti Kahungunu virtually landless by 1900; for the failure to honour the chiefly gifting of Wairarapa Moana, for which the Crown promised ample reserves on the shores of Lake Wairarapa but instead gave land at Pouākani, north-west of Taupō, much of which was subsequently taken back through public works; and for the failure to actively protect and encourage te reo Māori.

Unfortunately, when we signed the deed in October last year here in Wellington, we were operating under COVID-19 restrictions and were unable to have a large ceremony. It’s important the Crown apology is delivered to everyone, and I look forward to a time when the situation permits me to visit Ngāti Kahungunu in their rohe and to deliver the Crown apology in full to Ngāti Kahungunu kanohi ki te kanohi.

The redress contained in this bill will support Ngāti Kahungunu in realising their future endeavours and aspirations for their iwi and the many generations to come. The settlement redress package provides for 27 sites of deep cultural significance to be transferred to Ngāti Kahungunu as cultural redress. These include two properties in Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, a property at Remutaka summit, two properties near Mount Holdsworth, and three properties in South Wairarapa.

Significantly, I also wanted to mention that Ngāti Kahungunu will receive cultural redress shared with Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua through Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, which was read only a couple of weeks ago in this House. Through that joint redress bill, the Crown-owned part of Wairarapa Moana will transfer to iwi. To complement that great taonga, this bill provides for the return to Ngāti Kahungunu of the reserves surrounding Lake Wairarapa and Lake Ōnoke, including the Wairarapa Lake Domain and Lake Shore properties and the bed of Pounui Lagoon.

The bill will vest the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve in the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust, which will then be gifted by the iwi to the Crown. This is a very important place and taonga within the Ngāti Kahungunu rohe that will be able to be enjoyed by all New Zealanders. This gift is testament to their commitment to the new partnership between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown, and I thank them for their generosity.

The total financial and commercial redress for Ngāti Kahungunu is $115 million, and the bill also acknowledges the association of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua with their rohe by recognising 30 place name changes.

I mentioned earlier land at Pouākani. The Crown’s actions in relation to this land amounted to a breach of Te Tiriti, not only through the Crown providing Ngāti Kahungunu the land of another iwi but through the subsequent public works taking back of those lands. Pouākani is acknowledged in this settlement, and the prejudice suffered by Wairarapa Māori at Pouākani was taken into account in the development of redress included in the settlement. While not possible to provide redress in Pouākani, the hope is that extensive redress in Wairarapa forest land and farmland, along with redress at Wairarapa Moana, which will return to Ngāti Kahungunu, will assist in restoring Ngāti Kahungunu’s social and economic position in the lands of their ancestors.

The road to reaching settlement is a long and complex process, and this journey has had many bumps along the way. Together we are addressing grievances which will cause hurt and pain today. It’s the Crown’s wish that this settlement marks a new day in the relationship between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown. Today is about acknowledging the past and looking forward to the future. It’s been a long journey to come to this day. No settlement can fully atone for the wrongdoing of the Crown or compensate Ngāti Kahungunu for the hurt they have endured, but I sincerely hope this settlement is the beginning of a stronger relationship between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown, based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for Te Tiriti and its principles. I propose the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the National Party’s spokesperson for Treaty negotiations to speak in support of this bill at first reading.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Waipareira [Wairarapa] Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, he rā tino nui tēnei mō koutou, nā koutou te kaha me te manawanui. Nō reira e rua rangatira mā, tēnei tāku mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Ngāti Kahungunu ki Waipareira [Wairarapa] Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, this is a very important day for you and your strength and steadfastness. Therefore, to the many chiefs this is my acknowledgment to you, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

National supports this bill to select committee. To the elders, leaders, and members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua who are witnessing this moment here within Parliament, we’re very pleased to be able to have you here this afternoon. As the Minister before spoke, it’s been rare in recent times for that to be able to happen. To those who are watching from home, wherever in the world they may be, I extend a very warm welcome, and it was a pleasure to be at the first reading ceremony this afternoon, for the mihi whakatau, and to see those in the gallery there this afternoon.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua have waited a long time to reach this point, especially considering the delay in signing the deed of settlement once it was initialled in 2018. I will also just take a moment to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, the officials, and the negotiators who have helped us reach this point.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement, signed on 29 October 2021, in which the Crown and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua agree to final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. Ngāti Kahungunu has a population of approximately 12,000 people and consists of two of the six taiwhenua, regions, that make up the iwi. The Ngāti Kahungunu area of interest spans from, in this case, Cape Turnagain down to Cape Palliser, and it comes to the wider Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua regions.

Following nine weeks of hearings between 20 March 2004 and March 2005, the Waitangi Tribunal released the Wairarapa ki Tararua report in June 2010 at Te Oriori Marae, Masterton. Their report covered 28 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and the Rangitāne hapū, and other claimant groups. The inquiry district covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island, inland to the Ruahine and Tararua ranges, and northward to Southern Hawke’s Bay. The claims investigated by the Waitangi Tribunal, concerning Wairarapa ki Tararua, covered the Crown’s purchase of land—including land around Wairarapa Moana—and the compulsory acquisition of Māori land for public works. The grievances of Ngāti Kahungunu included the Crown’s forced secession at Mangaroa and acquisition of vast lands throughout their rohe that left Ngāti Kahungunu virtually landless, the loss and degradation of Wairarapa Moana, the Crown’s failure to protect Ngāti Kahungunu from the erosion of their tribal structures, and the social deprivation and loss of te reo Māori that followed.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Nevertheless, the Crown’s undertaking to Māori in the Treaty applies to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. From the 1840s, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua welcomed settlers to Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and enjoyed wealth and benefits from rent and trade. In 1845, during the Crown’s first encounter with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, the Crown prejudged their guilt in a dispute with settlers and forced them to cede tens of thousands of acres at Mangaroa with threats of violence. During the late 1840s and early 1850s, the Crown threatened to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua unless iwi sold their land on to the Crown and gave up the pastoral leases, which were providing Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua with income and trade benefits while retaining ownership of the land.

In June 1853, the chiefs and people of Ngāti Kahungunu signed the Castle Point deed, their first land sale to the Crown. In August, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua met Governor George Grey for komiti nui, a large meeting, to hear of his plans for future land sales. They were led to believe that substantial educational, health, and economic benefits from settlement were the real payment for land sales. The Crown agreed to use some of the profits made from on-selling certain lands to provide a koha fund to be managed in committee with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua to supplement some of these benefits. Immediately following the komiti nui, the Crown purchased approximately 1.5 million acres—well over half of the traditional rohe of iwi. The Crown did not fulfil its obligations regarding the koha fund, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua received few of the benefits they had been led to expect.

From 1866, the Native Land Court operated in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, determining the ownership of Māori land and converting customary title into title derived from the Crown, a process that imposed a heavy cost on iwi. Until 1873, legislation limited the ownership of land blocks to 10 or fewer individuals. The individualised formal title granted by the Crown eroded tribal control and rendered the land vulnerable to fragmentation and sale. As a result, large areas of this land under the Native Land Court title were purchased by the Crown and settlers.

Iwi responded to extensive Crown purchasing and other grievances with staunch but peaceful resistance and tried to work with the Crown to address issues through kīngitanga, kotahitanga, the repudiation movement, and direct engagement. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua responded to extensive Crown purchasing and other grievances with staunch but peaceful resistance and tried to work with the Crown—as discussed.

In this bill, the Crown apologies to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua for not honouring its obligations to respect the tino rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kahungunu through repeated breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, and its principles and for the damage caused to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. These include the forced cessation of tens of thousands of acres of land in 1845, Crown threats to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, the failure to protect Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua from becoming virtually landless, not upholding the spirit of the agreement in 1896, and a failure to actively protect te reo Māori.

The settlement package includes an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress. The bill provides for the vesting of 27 Crown-owned sites in Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. The fee simple estate of the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve will vest in the settlement trust on the first 16 March that falls after the settlement date. On the seventh day after vesting, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua will return the fee simple estate to the Crown as a gift to all New Zealanders. Four sites will be jointly vested in Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust as shared redress. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua will also receive financial redress of $115 million plus interest. There is an issue. It will need to be addressed at the Māori Affairs Committee and I would look forward to hearing submissions on that as one of the permanent members of that.

The main value of Treaty settlements to our national life is they reorient the Crown-Māori relationship from a backward-looking historical focus to a future-facing focus. It was important that the way in which the Crown facilitates a settlement does not inflict new breaches and that the resultant settlement is durable. A key risk in this bill is that the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation litigation in the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal would be brought to an end by this bill. There has been a clear recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal that the settlement should not proceed at the present time and this does raise concerns as to Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani’s rights to due process before the courts and the durability of the settlement contained in this legislation.

The Waitangi Tribunal indicated in early 2020 it was inclined to recommend the return of the land. However, the Crown and Mercury challenged this in the courts. The Crown and Mercury had a measure of success in the High Court. Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation appealed the High Court decision and on an application by the incorporation the Supreme Court agreed to leapfrog the Court of Appeal and hear the appeal directly. That appeal was heard at the start of this year and is awaiting the delivery of a decision. In the lead-up to the appeal, the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust. This deed of settlement purports to settle the incorporation’s Wai 85 claim. In the week before the Supreme Court heard the incorporation’s appeal, the Crown then introduced the legislation giving effect to this settlement. If passed, the legislation would bring an end to the incorporation’s application for the return of the land of Pouākani. The Supreme Court hearing went ahead despite the introduction of the settlement legislation.

There have been a number or risks or issues that the Waitangi Tribunal observed also—that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust did not have a mandate to settle the incorporation’s Wai 85 claim and a number of other issues that I look forward to hearing more about in the Māori Affairs Committee. This bill is completing a settlement process, however, for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, which was begun under former Treaty negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson and will help build a better future for iwi and future generations. Settlements recognise and right the wrongs of the past and strengthen the relationship between Crown and iwi. Settlements help iwi unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ōku rau rangatira, ōku iwi o Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa i runga i te kaupapa whakanui. Harikoa te ngākau ki te kite i a koutou anō, nō reira, nau mai haere mai ki tō Whare, tēnei koutou.

[To the Speaker, greetings, and to all the members of the House, greetings to you all.

To my many chiefs, to my iwi of Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, this is my compassionate greeting to you as we honour this issue. I am elated to see you all again; therefore, welcome, welcome to your House, greetings.]

I’m pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill and, yes, we probably can extend up to Waipareira, and that may be the intention for Ngāti Kahungunu to become Waipareira, so ngā mihi, ngā mihi. [Interruption from the gallery] Oh, kia ora, e te whanaunga. This is indeed a significant day: the first reading of a bill that has taken years in the making. Can I please acknowledge all the negotiators—the iwi negotiators, the Minister. Minister Little acknowledged the helpers on the side, those that lay and lodged the claims—many who are not here with us here today, but are in our thoughts. To the negotiators, thank you for your mahi. To the Crown negotiators, the Hon Rick Barker, the officials from Te Arawhiti, Te Puni Kōkiri and the other Government departments—I want to acknowledge your support—and, of course, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, and his predecessor Chris Finlayson, for their mahi.

Treaty claims aren’t the easiest undertaking. They are an attempt to right a wrong, and you heard both the Minister and the previous speaker talk about what happened to these particular people. I want to acknowledge that the people in our gallery at the moment, and those at home watching, descend from the kotahitanga kaupapa; a kaupapa that was formed for self-determination, for self-governance, and for national unity because too much of our land was being taken. And so what you have before you in the gallery are descendants of those rangatira who stood firm and fast at Pāpāwai—not once but twice—to indicate to the Crown of the day “You are taking land that does not belong to you.” and to return it.

I want to acknowledge these descendants who played that critical role, as we saw back in the 1880s. I want to share with members of this House that, prior to the signing of Tiriti o Waitangi, iwi, Māori, hapū were economically viable units. They owned their own whenua, they looked after their own tikanga and reo, they produced off their whenua, and they traded—and they traded. But what they also did is they welcomed in the settlers, they welcomed them in. They leased land. They allowed them to live amongst them. This was the graciousness of this iwi, and many others. But what did the Crown do in return? The Crown, in return, said, “Not enough, not enough. We don’t just want to lease your land, we want to purchase your land.”

So here we are today, acknowledging the huge sacrifice and the land grabs that happened for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. And, for today, a small portion is being returned back to the people of Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua—a small portion, because we know they will never return the tens of thousands of acres that were taken from the Maungaroa. They won’t receive that. But this offer from the Crown is an acknowledgment of the hurt, of the tāhae that went on for these people, and I’m proud to stand in support of this first reading.

It is only the first reading, but I know these people have waited long enough. They have waited long enough, and it is to this House that we passage this bill so it comes back from the select committee in an expedient time, so we can pass it into legislation at its third reading, so we can acknowledge the hurt, the harm through this settlement for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. I did mention around the claims that were lodged, because without claims that are originally lodged you will have no opportunity to negotiate with the Crown. So I want to acknowledge all those tīpuna who lodged initially.

Interesting that the mandate was agreed to in 2012. The AIP—which is the agreement in principle—was signed in May 2016. It was ratified in November 2016, and again, the Crown acknowledged the ratification in December 2019. In March 2018, the deed of settlement was initialled—or the DOS—and then that was ratified in November 2018, and here we are in May 2022, having the first reading.

Now, those years that I’ve given from 2012 to 2022 do not—even though it’s a 10-year period from achieving mandate to negotiate into the first reading, 10 years may seem, for a lot of people, a long time. And it is a long time, but if you add on the tāhae of land that happened in 1845, you’re getting a real perspective of how patient these people have been to have their claims heard and that we are starting on this journey to complete. So I am pleased to raise in support of this first reading.

Like the Minister said, it will go off to the Māori Affairs Committee—which will be in good hands; I’m told good things of that committee—and I do ask all those, including maybe some parties in this House, that have problems with this particular bill to submit, to submit their reasons for why, and for anyone that has difficulty with what we are debating in this House today. It is an opportunity for all the public—and I encourage all those who have opposing views or want enhanced views to please submit to the Māori Affairs Committee, who I know will come back to this House and report progress so we can see this bill completed.

It is a great day for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. I want to acknowledge all those that have travelled near and far to be here to witness the first reading. I want to acknowledge the people’s patience while we finish this part of the process. But really, the day belongs to you, ōku iwi, ōku rangatira, e kui mā, e koro mā. [my iwi, my chiefs, my female and male elders.] And also to those that brought mokopuna, because it is for their lifetime that what we are doing today can improve their lot. Treaty negotiations never address all the issues or all the ills, but it does enable an opportunity for the iwi to go forward.

Like, I started this kōrero—these people are descendants of the kotahitanga kaupapa, which talked about coming together, it talked about unity, and it talked about national pride in who we are as Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. So with those few words, I wish this bill the speediest passage through this House, and I look forward to its third and final reading, where the iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua can duly celebrate in all their hard work, their sacrifice, their patience, and acknowledgment of the wrongs of the Crown. Nō reira, e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): E te Māngai, tēnā koe e te kui. E tū ana au ki te karanga mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire, Te Pire Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. E mihi ana au ki a koutou ngā manuhiri e huihui mai nei i tēnei wā, ngā uri o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

Ko Harete Hipango taku ingoa. Ko au he mokopuna a Hori Hipango. Ko au he uri nō Whanganui.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. I stand to speak for the first reading of this bill, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. Greetings to you, our visitors who have gathered here at this time, the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

My name is Harete Hipango. I am descended from Hori Hipango. I am a descendant from Whanganui.]

In acknowledging our manuhiri who have travelled from afar and arrived here after generations of journeying, I follow my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, uri of Ngāti Kahungunu. I also acknowledge in the House manuhiri and uri of Ngāti Kahungunu; however, former members of Parliament, the Hon Rick Barker, and I believe Marama Fox is back in the Whare. Tēnā koe, tēnā kōrua.

I turn to, importantly, the bill. As I’ve referenced, this has been a journey of generations for people of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. And as uri of Whanganui, having been on that journey, I know that over the passage of time we carry our old people with us. However, I was heartened at the mihi whakatau to see our young people, tamariki, mokopuna, and rangatahi, because the purpose of this settlement bill is transitioning from the grievance and the injustices of the past and moving forward into the future with hope and prosperity.

I’m always cognisant that those of us who have travelled the journeys with these Treaty settlement bills, we know the history, we know the kōrero, we know the whakapapa. However, the opportunity to address people gathered in the House is also to those New Zealanders who may be tuning in or are tuned in through the television and technology. So these readings are also about bringing the rest of Aotearoa New Zealand on the passage of this journey as the passage of this bill has entered the House for its first reading; and then will transition to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of serving as a member of; then back into the House for the second reading, possibly with some amendments, some adjustments after hearing submissions from those interested parties to the bill; and then to transition to the third reading and into law. So this is an opportunity that I seize to bring New Zealanders on this journey, because many are ignorant of the facts of the journey of where our people have come from to the point that we are arriving at today.

On that note and in the limited time that we have—10 minutes to address the House—the key message, as my colleagues have addressed and spoken, is that this is a settlement bill to attempt to redress the wrongs, the injustices, the grievances, and the mamae from the past. My colleague Joseph Mooney, who spoke as a member of the National Party, as I do, traversed some of the history which is going to be encapsulated and inscribed, written into the bill. There was a particular poignant moment when a koroheke spoke at the mihi whakatau as your last speaker today, talking about the e koro, being of his generation and era, and the imposition of colonisation not making enough room and space for our tikanga for our way of living. And, e koro, I sat there quietly because your story is a story that my father shared with me. And my father, in his childhood, his parents made the decision and saw fit at that time, in the 1940s and 1950s, that for my father—and then, if followed through the generations thereafter, for us to not only survive but to succeed, we had to assimilate into Te Ao Pākehā. And, koro, I acknowledge, thank you, the privilege of listening to your story. It’s a shared story for many of us that many New Zealanders do not know and have not lived and do not carry that burden or the mamae from. The purpose of this settlement bill is to address some of those wrongs, to remedy, and to make better moving forward.

By way of background, part of the journey—and only part of the last 30 years of entering into this process to arrive here today at this time for the first reading—started, I understand, 30 years ago in terms of this part of the legal journey. Moving from Te Ao Māori to tikanga ngā ture Māori into this dimension of acknowledging and the passage of writing things from past wrongs into law. So I understand that in November 2012 the Crown recognised the mandate of the trust to represent Ngāti Kahungunu, with terms of negotiation signed in June 2013. And then on 7 May 2016 the agreement in principle was signed. In November 2016 the members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua ratified the post-settlement governance entity, the settlement trust, and then the trust was formally established in March 2017. On 22 March 2018, the settlement trust, with the Crown, initialled a deed of settlement that was ratified in November 2018, and then the deed of settlement was signed—and I’ve misplaced the time but the people know this. It was signed on 29 October 2021. So that’s just a snippet of the passage that it’s taken to arrive at this point today.

The Māori Affairs Committee will have the duty and responsibility to prudently go through—but, importantly, to listen to—the submissions from the people of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and other interested parties about the detail of the letter of the proposed law in this bill. It will be our responsibility and obligation to listen to the submissions but also to turn our minds and our lens as to whether there are parts of the bill that may need to be improved.

The bill is being passed unanimously in this first reading through to select committee. At that stage, as I indicated, there may be some amendments. It’s been touched on in the House by one speaker, as I recollect, that there had been some grievance by hapū who took their concern to the Waitangi Tribunal. Findings with recommendations have been made, and then there were High Court proceedings initiated which the select committee will, with interest, await to see whether there is a determination or judgment during the time that we preside and listen and scrutinise the bill.

My point is that the Crown, having committed to signing the deed of settlement, is acknowledging the injustices, the grievances, and the wrongs from the past, but it is important as we move forward into the future to ensure that there are no further injustices that are created, or, if they are, that must be remedied. On that note, I complete my kōrero by saying it is a privilege always to speak to Treaty settlement bills, but today for me, as uri of Whanganui and tūpuna Tamatea Pōkai Whenua—the marae I come from is Pūtiki Wharanui o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua.

On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa ngā mihi ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā.

Engari, aroha mai, tuatahi e tika pea ki te mihi ki ngā mate kātahi anō kua hinga. Ā, kua hinga ngā kapua pōuri i runga i Taranaki Maunga, kua wehe atu rā te tumuaki o Te Hāhi Rātana, arā ko Matua Harerangi Meihana. E koro, moe mai rā me piki ake koe mā runga i te aroha o te iwi ki te taha o tō koroua, arā a Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana.

E Harerangi, he kākano rangatira koe i ruia mai i Rangiātea, he maha anō ngā tini kākano kua tiakina e ō ringa. Kua waiho rā āianei i te ātārangi o te haerenga, otirā ahakoa te pōuri me whiti mai te rā kia ahu mai ngā otaota mō ngā rā kei tua. E te pou, haere atu rā, hoki atu rā kei raro i te aroha o Te Matua, Te Tama, Te Wairua Tapu, me ngā Anahera Pono me Te Māngai e tautoko mai, āianei, āke nei āe.

Huri au ināianei ki taku hoa tawhito kātahi anō kua hinga inā nā, ko Anaru Robb. Ahakoa he tangata Pākehā, he ngākau Māori tēnei tangata. I ngā wā o mua e mahi ana ia i taha o ahau mātou ko Derek Fox i runga i te ao pāpāho, Mana Māori Media. He tangata i tautoko Huirangi Waikerepuru me ngā rangatira i roto i te ao Māori. E tika ana ki te maumahara tēnei tangata, he tangata i whawhai mō ngā tikanga Māori ahakoa he Pākehā. He tangata momo, he tangata mōhio tō tātou reo Māori. Nō reira e tōku hoa, Anaru, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Ka nui tēnā.

Ki a koutou ngā rangatira tae mai nei i tēnei wā. He rawe, rawe ki te kite a koutou i tēnei wā. Ahakoa i raro i te kapua o te pōuri i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. Tika ana pea ki te haramai ki te maumahara ngā wā o mua ki te whakanui tēnei kaupapa hoki, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Greetings to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, to you, who are ennobling us today.

My apologies, firstly we should acknowledge those who have passed recently. Dark clouds hang over Taranaki Mountain as the leader of the Rātana Church Matua Harerangi Meihana has passed. To my elder, rest, ascend upon the love of the people, alongside your grandfather, Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana.

Harerangi, you were a chiefly seed sown from Rangiātea, and there have been numerous other seeds tended by your hands. We are left in the shadow of your absence, and in spite of the sadness, the sun will shine so that the grass will grow for the days to come. To the stalwart, go, return, within the love of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Faithful Angels and The Mouthpiece, to uphold us now and for evermore.

I turn now to also my old friend who has only just died, Andrew Robb. Although he was a Pākehā, this man had a Māori heart. In the past he worked in broadcasting with myself and Derek Fox at Mana Māori Media. He was supported by Huirangi Waikerepuru and other leaders within the Māori world. It is appropriate that we remember this man, who fought for Māori customary practice even though he was Pākehā. He was a character and a man that knew our Māori language. Therefore my friend, Andrew, may you rest in peace. I will leave it there.

To you the chiefs who have arrived here today. It is marvellous, marvellous to see you at this time. In spite of the dark clouds of the time, this is a very special greeting to you all. It is perhaps appropriate to come and remember the old days and, as well as celebrate this issue, warm greeting to you all, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

Welcome our manuhiri here today; lovely to have you here today. A sad day, when we have to announce the loss of the head of the Rātana Church, who, no doubt, some of our whānau who come here today will be a whanaunga to. It is a significant loss for this country—not just for Labour, but for this country. Everyone knows about the connections with Labour, but these sorts of connection are with Te Ao Māori. If you go there you’ll see all different denominations there, and we mourn the loss of a leader today: Harerangi Meihana, or Harry, as we used to call him. I always liked him. I liked him because of his understated ways and not out the front there like other kaiārahi—understated, unsung hero, in terms of Te Ao Māori. So we mihi to Ratana at this time.

I also did a mihi to one of our old mates, a Pākehā fellow who worked with myself and Derek Fox in Māori media; a guy who got fluent in the reo and was a huge supporter of Te Ao Māori—supported Te Ao Māori all his life and supported people like Debbie Packer’s whanaunga Huirangi Waikerepuru. Huge. One of those kaitautoko there all the time. Anaru Robb—we called him Anaru—Andrew Robb, one of the neatest people you could ever come across; I was very saddened to hear of his loss yesterday, and just a wonderful contributor in terms of Te Ao Māori, so we mihi to him and his whānau.

And I mihi to you all today. You’ve heard all the kōrero about the statement, you heard our Minister, and you’ve heard Harete Hipango and Meka Whaitiri. We know all the background to it; I don’t want to pour anything on this kaupapa because there’s a lot to celebrate—that’s why we’re all here. I don’t want to pour any worry on the kaupapa.

I always say in these types of situations, it’s always good to reflect on the Treaty settlements process. I was probably one of them who opposed it to start off with—all those years ago when I was a lot younger, of course—and was against the settlement process, because who was going to settle for $1 billion; you know? I’m sure some of our audience here would remember those days, where we had Tame Iti standing on a ladder and pointing, looking down at Doug Graham—those were the days, you know! And Māoridom sort of moved en masse against the settlement process, but in the end we sort of all—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Woke up!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I wouldn’t say—Gerry Brownlee says “woke up”; he’s probably not far away actually. “Gave up” might be the other side of the argument.

It’s an interesting kōrero, and I respect Gerry Brownlee because he’s been part of that kōrero—because the challenge is: do you take nothing or do you take something? That’s the challenge always for our Māori leadership: do you take nothing or something? That was the challenge for Mahuta and for O’Regan. These are not silly men; these are not silly rangatira. So you’re talking about these people taking $170 million in 1995, 1996. Gerry Brownlee might know the economists at the time, particularly in terms of Ngāi Tahu, were talking about Ngāi Tahu being worth—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Six billion dollars.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Somewhere between $15 and $18 billion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, that’s right. Gerry knows.

So what does that say about our people? It says they want to get on with things. And against all odds, our leadership—and of course the allegations of being called sell-outs and all that sort of thing, that goes with the territory; that goes with the territory. Rawiri Waititi knows this, now being a member of the Crown. He refuses to accept it, but he’s a member of the Crown; him and Deb, they’re staunch as, but we all know. He actually speaks for me now at formal gatherings—got better reo, you see, so I’ve got to utilise him.

But these are the things that we have to wear. If you want to get into Māori leadership, then you’ve got to take it from our people. That’s why I admire the Mahutas and the O’Regans, because they got called this. I remember Sandra Lee, who I worked with in the past, she opposed the Ngāi Tahu bill—but they did the deal, and look where those tribes are today.

My hope is that this tribe will go down the same track. We can scorn or criticise the pūtea that’s been put there, but it’s a good pūtea. I’m saying now to people, don’t work out what percentage it is; you only have to go the Māori Party site and they’ll tell you every two minutes what it’s worth! But it’s no good doing that, otherwise you get negative, you see! You listen to these fellas too much, you’ll go jump off the Auckland Harbour Bridge!

Rawiri Waititi: Well, hurry up!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ha, ha! But the reality is, it’s a good pūtea and you can do something with it; make something of it. How are we going to look after our—we work with the tribes now. We work with the tribes now; myself, Minister Whaitiri, and Minister Kiritapu Allan. The challenge now is where do we go as iwi? How does that iwi utilise that pūtea? How does that iwi work with Government? What pūtea are they going to put up? Do you think that the Government should be putting everything up or should there be a partnership? How are you connecting with urban Māori? These are all the challenges for people who settle.

We all have to remember this: some tribes, most tribes are doing well. There’s one or two where there’s a few questions—there’s a few questions, probably not too far from where yous are. There’s a few questions and we have to utilise this pūtea well, because we’re talking about advancing our young people. That’s the challenge for the negotiators. I want to thank all the negotiators, and they have already been named, for your fortitude and for putting in the time to make this happen. The real challenge will be: what do we get out of it, what do our rangatahi get out of it, how can we preserve that pūtea and actively work?

Don’t sit there and just—you know, invest here. There’s a lot of things we’ve learnt through the process: we’ve learnt to work with Governments, whoever that Government is; be constructive; be creative; be good partners and the $100 million could become a $1 billion just like with Ngāi Tahu and Tainui.

I didn’t go into the settlement. I thought I’d just have a general kōrero just to tautoko the kaupapa and have a bit of a poroporoaki to my old mates. Mihi to you and so well done. Is that you up there, the new chair of Kahungunu? You look very flash, very sharp. Congratulations to yous, and don’t forget Ngahiwi—don’t forget Ngahiwi Tomoana. Mihi to our mate Ngahiwi.

Mihi ana ki a koutou, tātou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa, kia ora.

[Greetings to you all, to all of us. This is my acknowledgment to you all, greetings to you all, greetings one and all, thank you.]

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. E mihi ana me te ngākau whakaiti ki a koutou katoa e karapinepine ana ki raro o te whakaruruhau o tēnei Whare. E mihi ana ki a koutou i whakapau kaha ki te tae ki tēnei wāhi o te haerenga roa i tīmata mai i te wā i whati te Karauna i ngā tūmanako o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He pōhēhē nā rātou i te mea ko tō tātou Tiriti he oranga mai i te wā i haina ngā tīpuna tae noa ki tēnei wā, nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.

He mokopuna tēnei nō Te Tai Rāwhiti, he whanaunga kē ko Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki, ko Rongowhakaata, Ngāi Tāmanuhiri, ko Whānau-a-Kai, me Ngāti Oneone.

[Greetings. I greet you all with a humble heart as you gather here under the shelter of this House. I acknowledge the energy expended to arrive at this point of the long journey, a journey that started at the time the Crown breached the expectations of the Treaty of Waitangi. They are mistaken because our Treaty has been a living document from the time it was signed by our ancestors right through to today; therefore greetings to you all.

I am a descendant from the East Coast with connections to Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki, Rongowhakaata, Ngāi Tāmanuhiri, Whānau-a-Kai, and Ngāti Oneone.]

Today I’m channelling my grandfather, Kahungunu Kerekere, who was born in 1898, unfortunately passed before I was born, but I absolutely feel him here with me today. I also rise on behalf of Jan Logie—my colleague is our Tiriti o Waitangi spokesperson for the Green Party—to speak to this bill, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. We note it’s the compendium bill to the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and it gives effect to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi Claims between you and the Crown.

Firstly, we acknowledge that the claims settlement process is deeply, deeply flawed because it enforces Crown control at every stage, often undermining whakapapa and mātauranga Māori. It is designed to pit iwi and hapū against each other, layering new intergenerational trauma over the settler colonialism on which this process is founded. And after decades of work and sacrifice, iwi receive approximately 1 percent of what was already theirs, while the Crown congratulates itself on yet another settlement. We do not consider any of these settlements to be fair, full, or final. My colleague just spoke about our iwi being pragmatic, and we know we have to be, generous and patient—absolutely. But we also acknowledge that after all these years of work and sacrifice, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua needs it to finish. It is an impressive achievement that you are here and we know that your negotiators and all the whānau are exhausted. It was a privilege to be at the pō’hiri today, but sad to see the photos of the pā and those you have lost—on the table beside us. Too many have been laid to rest through this process. It is time to finish it. We acknowledge, though, their wairua here with us today.

While the iwi have acted in good faith throughout, we have major concerns about the actions of the Crown and the implications of those actions on the constitutional arrangements for other hapū and other iwi. At the best of times, our hapū and iwi do not always agree with each other, or maybe that’s just our hapū and iwi at home. So of course that rolls out in most, if not all, of these settlement claim processes. It is exacerbated by the rules around large natural groupings, which significantly disadvantage small iwi and it invisibilises hapū.

Whilst Treaty settlements are rarely, if ever, tidy and unanimously agreed to, the concerns with this settlement are actually significantly greater than usual. And in this case we have the recent Waitangi Tribunal ruling that others of my colleagues have mentioned here today, which unequivocally tells the Crown to stop progress on the settlement until the litigation before the Supreme Court is completed. The tribunal also found that the settlement trust does not have a mandate to settle on behalf of two parties to this bill—Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi and Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation—and that continuing with this settlement would create new breaches and not result in a durable settlement. No one wants to go through all of this again, and we are not proposing that we stop here to wait for that court settlement. We hope that it will be done through, as my colleagues have said—and it will come out in—the select committee process and all of that will be resolved.

We acknowledge that Waitangi Tribunal rulings are not binding on the Crown except in the case of the return of State-owned enterprise land, but we do not think it is appropriate for the Crown to dismiss completely a direct ruling from them. To our knowledge, it is unprecedented for the Crown to introduce legislation that, once passed, will extinguish the rights of parties with a case in front of the Supreme Court. We may be MPs and this may be Parliament, but we do not have the right to undermine and determine the whakapapa of any other hapū or iwi. We should never be looking to undermine the tino rangatiratanga of any of them. The Minister, though, has assured us that he believes the Waitangi Tribunal was incorrect and that the Supreme Court will rule against the claimants. It is essential we remember that the Crown is not a neutral party in this. They have a clear financial conflict of interest in the outcome.

The Greens have met with some of the interested party, who have been in the courts over this matter. The issue is not with the settlement trust; it is with the Crown. They expressed a wish for the settlement to go ahead, just without the sections of concern or their inclusion. I heard the wero laid down at the pō’hiri today: haere whakamua i roto i te kotahitanga. [Move forward together.] Absolutely. We agree we must move forward together. So we will not delay this bill. We will absolutely not hold it up in any way and we will not vote against it. In our own wero to the Crown, though, today we will abstain.

Having stated thus, let’s look at some of the whakapapa. Some of my colleagues have given more details, but we note that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. They have contributed greatly to the nation through military service and wealth created from their lands, some of which has been gifted as with Wairarapa Moana. As is their wont, in some of the bad faith that we will often see from the Crown, they forced the cession of tens of thousands of acres of land in 1845, threatened to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua to force land sales, and failed to uphold the rangatiratanga of the Wairarapa Moana, failed to actively protect te reo Māori, which we all know means they actively attacked our language in parts of the attempt to assimilate Māori, which, of course, they did around the country.

This resulted in many of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua being alienated from their lands, culture, and language and the rich fabric of hapū and iwi life being severely damaged. The ravages of colonisation have left them virtually landless and much of what they retain lacks legal or practical access. Their waterways and lands have been degraded to fuel economic development. They have endured social and economic underdevelopment, and have struggled to make use of the lands that retained, maintain their traditional marae communities, and recover their language and culture in the 21st century.

These are awful, awful things. But the people still stand proud. They still retain their mātauranga, still know their whakapapa—all of those things. With this, even though it comes with pūtea, even though it might come with land, some bits and pieces, it is nothing to what has been lost. It is, though, the basis from which to move forward. The Crown must apologise for its misuse of power, its theft, and its treachery, and the profound intergenerational harm that it has caused. A fulsome apology is the absolute minimum that is required to honour the tino rangatiratanga of the people here, and that apology can only be genuine if a real, proper fair redress is made available. This will enable the uri of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua to continue to rebuild, to create a better future for them and their whānaua for their mokopuna.

So finally, after all the work, all the sacrifice, all the meetings, discussions, arguments, and let’s admit it, probably a few full-on fights, this bill is in the House. It may not be ideal, but soon it will be done. So you can celebrate, rest, heal, and keep moving. The Green Party absolutely wants this for you. And so with much respect to the negotiation team and the whānau who supported them to do that, those who have travelled to be in the gallery today, those of you watching, tēnā rā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tātou katoa. [Greetings to you all, greetings, be well, one and all who have gathered here.]

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to support the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the people who are sitting here today, and I cannot imagine how you must be feeling today, after years of fighting for what is right.

It is a real honour to be a part of that and to stand here today and say thank you for your courage, your strength, and your patience to get to the point where we are today. I’m hoping that the select committee process allows you to have a voice, to make changes, or to express how you’re feeling, and to express if there is an issue that you would like to still be addressed, and, hopefully, the select committee process will be a better process than what you’ve experienced so far.

Every person in New Zealand, no matter what their origin or their ethnicity, deserves to be treated with equality before the law, and every New Zealander should feel that their property rights will be protected. Unfortunately, early in our history, the Crown failed to uphold people’s basic rights and allowed numerous thefts and frauds of people’s property. This is why ACT supports the Treaty settlement process. But in saying that, I can only imagine the hurt and the pain you have suffered, and I am saddened that is has taken so long to get where we are today. I can only hope that once this last, final bit has finished, this can bring some closure to that pain and allow our next generation to see a better future for themselves and their children.

This settlement is to acknowledge the injustices of the past that resulted in the alienation of your tribe’s culture, language, and land, and with that comes an apology, cultural redress, and financial compensation, but this will never be able to change what happened in the past. But I hope from the bottom of my heart that it allows those affected to start to heal, and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, e ngā mema tēnā koutou.

[Madam Speaker, greetings, to all the members, greetings to you all.]

Karanga mai ki a Tākitimu waka e kōkiri ana

Karanga mai ki a Ruahine Maunga e tū whakahī ana

Karanga mai ki a Manawatū awa e rere ana

Karanga mai ki a Ngāti Kahungunu whānau whānui

Tēnā koutou, ngā rangatira me ngā mokopuna hoki.

[I call to the Tākitimu canoe, moving forwards

I call to the Ruahine Range, standing proud

I call to the flowing Manawatū River

I call to the extensive family of Ngāti Kahungunu

Greetings, from the chiefs down to the grandchildren.]

It is always special to welcome the whānau for whom these settlements are negotiated into this House, which is your House. And I’m glad that our COVID restrictions in Parliament now allow us to share this day together. May I start by acknowledging the settlement trust chairman and the settlement trustees, particularly Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Haami Te Whaiti, and Hayden Hape as well as their tireless advocates, including Jennifer Braithwaite and all those who stand as kaitiaki and custodians of this process.

Tēnā koutou katoa; tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou i tēnei rangi ātaahua.

[Greetings to you; these are my warm greetings to you on this beautiful day.]

Let me also acknowledge and thank the Hon Andrew Little for his work and, before him, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and negotiators on both sides, including the Hon Rick Barker—tēnā koe te rangatira. I want to also thank officials and advisers who have worked on this bill and the settlement arrangements which accompany it, which represent decades of work between the Crown and this rōpū. I want to also acknowledge the settlement trust’s work in engaging directly with the people who will benefit from this settlement—through its proactive approach to communication, whether it was sending mail directly to its people or whether that was communication on Facebook and through digital methods, and through its voting process by hosting and live streaming hui. I want to acknowledge those who have been advocates for this whānau, and the whenua that are no longer with us as well.

The first claims were lodged when I was just a small child, and their work has informed the lively and valuable debate that we have had over the years about this settlement and the wider exploration of these issues in the Waitangi Tribunal and in other bodies. And I thank them. I have heard the calls from the trust’s chairman for everyone involved to look to the future, and it is in that vein that I want to assist the House in understanding the future-focused arrangements in this bill between the Crown and the iwi—the arrangements that sit beneath it.

The redress package includes commercial redress and the valuable opportunity to buy Crown-owned properties. But it’s the other redress that I want to highlight, which relates to the Wairarapa Moana which I will speak to later, as well as the right to taonga tūturu and to work with Government departments as kaitiaki. These things are very important, and we haven’t yet addressed them in this House. I look forward, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, to scrutinising those arrangements in great detail, but I want to touch on them now and the sorts of discussion that we will get into. For the bed of Lake Wairarapa the arrangements in this settlement negotiation include a statutory board that will include four members from Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust. That board will be responsible for managing not only the lake and those assets but also the reserves around it. It’s a really important step, because managing that process and creating this sort of board brings people together to share their ideas about what’s important in this natural asset, which is so important to the people who use it and to the neighbours of the whenua. It’s also a way that promotes the sort of dialogue that we need in our regions and also in our enduring settlement process.

I also want to touch on the sites of significance, particularly Castlepoint Scenic Reserve o Rangiwhakaoma. It recognises the cultural and spiritual associations that this iwi has with this whenua. And this particular place includes a cave where the lighthouse is today named Te Ana o te wheke o Muturangi, which is a particularly important site, and one where an ancestor of mine, Whātunga, established a pā. That’s one where our ongoing associations with this particular piece of whenua, are incredibly important to not only this iwi now and its children who are alive now, but those children who come after us and the way that they experience their land and the associations that we place on it and the way that we teach our history to our children.

Now let me touch on the taonga tūturu protocols in this bill, which is something that is often overlooked in Treaty settlements but which is particularly important and something we should take note of. These are relationship agreements issued by the CE of Manatū Taonga—the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—to the iwi, and they support the cultural and heritage aspirations of the iwi. They help iwi engage in policy and legislation reviews, and give iwi a say on the relevant appointments to the boards that make decisions about arts and cultural institutions in their area. That’s so important when we have a thriving arts and culture sector in New Zealand, but we desperately need more Māori leadership in those organisations. We get that, with iwi who feel empowered to come to the table. We get that, with Māori coming through with scholarships and with assistance into the arts sector to take those leadership roles, because for too long New Zealand’s art sector has been led by people who have come from overseas, but we need iwi to take the leadership and to take the reins in that sector.

They also set in place agreements for iwi to be involved in arts and culture events and celebrations at a State level and at a council level, like Matariki, which is coming up very soon and we’re proud that it will be a New Zealand holiday this year. These sorts of agreements will make sure that we have the leading role in making sure that it is celebrated in a way which is relevant, and celebrates that day appropriately.

Most importantly, in my view, these agreements cover those matters set out in the Protected Objects Act. That is where taonga—things like kō, things like axes, adze—when they are found, and when agencies are involved, these set out how the iwi should be consulted; when they should be brought into the process; what role they should play; and whether they are displayed, kept, or not kept. Because for a very long time, it was up to the State, and it was up to our State institutions, and they always went in museums and on display. It’s so important for the whānau to say that sometimes the creators of these taonga wanted them in the ground.

It also creates recognition for 30 geographic name changes. You might think that that was not significant, that that was a matter for councils, but it is incredibly significant for the way that our children relate to the land. When they see the names of their tūpuna on street signs; when they see the names in their whakapapa; when they bear the names of their maunga, of their awa, of their whenua, it creates that important knowledge of who we are and where we stand in the world, which is what these settlement agreements can do when they are negotiated well.

I’m looking forward to considering this bill in the Māori Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my colleague Tāmati Coffey. We will consider this carefully. We will listen to the submissions of all people, and we will really benefit, I think, from a lively discussion in that committee, which I welcome. I commend this bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I stand to follow Te Paati Māori’s first speaker today, Willie Jackson, e hika mā, [friends] and thank you for opening the floor for us! Also, at this time—we usually only get five minutes, but generously National has given us their other five, so you’ve got 10 minutes to listen to me, e hika mā i tēnei rā [friends, today]. So thank you to Gerry Brownlee and the National Party for the 10 minutes of Te Paati Māori i tēnei rā. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Marama Fox, awesome to see you, sister, nice to see you back in the House after standing outside the House. Being trespassed and not trespassed—nau mai, hoki mai. Where are you? Oh, she’s up there in the corner there. Kia ora e te tuahine.

Hey, just to pick up on what ACT was talking about in regards to not knowing how it feels today after 182 years of abuse, what I know is that—what are we going to do tomorrow? We have a duty of care in this House to ensure we put a stop to the constant abuse that many Governments in the past—and I’m sure in the future if there’s not constitutional transformation—will continue to do on our mokopuna. That’s the big question. Treaty settlements ain’t an apology for us to get over 182 years of abuse—e kāo. This is an opportunity for us to move forward, but to allow us to do that with some dignity. The greatest thing the Government can do is to give everything back.

Pere atu taku pere ki Te Tai Rāwhiti, ko Te Pōtangaroa ko Te Toiroa Ikariki. Kei Pukerimu ko te puna o Te Mātenga, ka kohiti te marama i runga o Te Kōrito.Tōia mai, tōia mai Kahungunu ki runga Pōneke, ki te Whare Pāremata.

Tika tonu ngā kōrero a taku rangatira, a Willie, tangihia ō tātou mate o te wā. Arā, ki te whānau Walker Gemmell, ki te whānau Karaitiana me te whānau Kāwana hoki, ngā wharemate o te iwi, tangihia. Pīkauhia. Mā rātou tēnei kaupapa e kawe ki te ao wairua.

Ā, me te hāngai tonu ngā mihi ki te tumuaki o te Hāhi Rātana ki a Harerangi Meihana, ā, ki a Andrew Robb hoki. Whoatu rā koutou i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangia e te tini, e te mano. Hoki mai rā ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga iho, tēnā tātou.

I rongo atu awahau i ngā kōrero i runga i te pae i tēnei rā mō te ana o te raiona, kāore au i kite he raiona i roto nei. He puihi noa iho. Tōia mai Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Tōia mai Tākitimu waka. Tōia mai i ngā koroingo o ngā mātua tīpuna i te pō. Tōia mai ngā tūmanakohanga a te iwi Māori mō ngā mokopuna e ao ake.

Tōia mai te kerēme Tiriti o Waitangi o Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Takoto mai rā i runga i te mahau o tēnei Whare hei kōrerorero hei wānanganganga mā te hunga, mā ngā māngai o te motu. Ko te tūmanakohanga ka whai ana hoki tātou i tētahi huarahi hei oranga mō tātou i tēnei rā me Ngāti Āpōpō, ā tātou tamariki mokopuna.

I rongo atu awahau anō hoki i te kōrero a te pae tapu. Nau mai, haramai tōia mai i te Pāpāwai. Tōia mai i a Te Mānihera Te Rangitakaiwaho, nāna te kaupapa o Te Kotahitanga. Tōia mai i a Hāmuera Tamahau Mahupuku, nāna te Whare o Hikurangi hei Whare Pāremata Māori, hei Whare mō Te Kotahitanga.

I rongo i te oranga a Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua i ngā hua i roto i te āhuatanga o te hainatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i te tau 1840, te taha ki te mahi hokohoko me te mahi tahi ki a Pākehā. He iwi whai rawa i tērā tāima. Wairarapa waha nui, tēnā koutou.

I tūtakitaki te iwi tuatahi ki te Karauna i te tau 1845. I whakatumatuma te Karauna i te noho Māori a te iwi ki runga i tōna whenua, ā, ka noho te Karauna hei tuarā maitai mō Pākehā i whakararuraru i te iwi i tērā tāima.

Ā, ka raupatuhia te manomano eka ki Maungaroa me te whiu i te riri ki runga i a Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. I mahi mū te Karauna, i mahi mū me te kī atu ki te iwi ka whakawātea a Pākehā ki runga i ō koutou whenua e te iwi mēnā ka hoko ngā whenua ki te Karauna, pokotiwha. Kātahi te mahi mū ko tērā.

Nā ngā whakahau a te Karauna i te tau 1853 i te marama o Hune, ka hainatia te iwi i te kawenata o Castlepoint. I whakaae ana te Karauna ki te whakaritea he pūtea mō te whenua hoko atu ki wētahi atu mā Kahungunu e tiaki, engari rā auare ake. Ko hoko e te Karauna neke atu i te 1.5 miriona eka me te kore i mana i te kawenata rā. Nā Te Kōti Whenua Māori i te tau 1866 ki te 1873 te whakapākehā i te whenua mā te tohatoha ki te taitara tangata hei aukati i te mano o ngā hapū ki wā rātou whenua tōpū. I tēnei rā, waru tekau pai hēneti noa iho o te whenua o Castlepoint kei roto i te whenua rāhui o Mātaikona.

Kua here te Kāwanatanga i taua whenua paraka rā, tōna mana, tōna ihi, tōna tapu kei roto i te whenua rāhui o Mātaikona. Arā ana ngā mahi mū a te Kāwana. He iwi whenua kore tēnei iwi. Te tokoiti o te whenua kei a rātou tonu kua tūkinotia, kua parangia e ngā paru o ngā kamupene penehīni, arā kei te patua tonu i tēnei rā.

Inā ngā kōrero a Tākuta Takirirangi Smith ka whakaritea ngā mahi parahako a te Karauna ki tētahi pahū nui. Te tāhae whenua, te apo tikanga, te apo māra hoki me te āta wetewete i ngā tawatawaenga here ā-whakapapa, ā, kei te ū tonu te mamae i ēnei rangi tonu.

Ka huri au ki te reo pihikete.

[My bell rings in the East, where Pōtangaroa and Te Toiroa Ikariki reside. At Pukerimu is the pool of Te Mātenga, and the new moon rises over Te Kōrito. Welcome, welcome Kahungunu to Wellington, to the House of Parliament.

My esteemed colleague Willie is correct; we must mourn the recent deaths. So to the Walker Gemmell family, to the Karaitiana family and the Kāwana family as well, the bereaved families of the tribe, mourn them, carry them. They will carry this issue to the spiritual realm. They will instruct, they will tell of the things that you are bearing in the physical world.

And I must acknowledge Harerangi Meihana, the leader of the Rātana Church, and also Andrew Robb. Go forth upon the storied pathway forged by the myriads. Returning to us all, those who have been left behind, greetings one and all.

I heard in the speeches given today there was mention of the lion’s den, I do not see any lions present. Just pussycats. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, you are drawn here today. Tākitimu canoe, you are drawn here today. Bring with you the dreams and desires of your ancestors who have passed. Bring with you the hopes of Māori for tomorrow’s generations.

Bring with you the Treaty claim of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Lay it down on the porch of this House to be discussed and be considered by this group of representatives from around the country. It is hoped that we can also follow a path that benefits us all as well as the future generations.

I also heard the speeches of the orator’s bench. Welcome, welcome to those from Pāpāwai. Bring with you Te Mānihera Te Rangitakaiwaho, from whom sprang the kotahitanga movement. Bring with you Hāmuera Tamahau Mahupuku, who established the House of Hikurangi, used as a Māori House of Parliament, for the kotahitanga movement.

We heard of the health, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, of the benefits of signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, in terms of trading and collaboration with Pākehā. They were a well-resourced tribe at that time. Boisterous Wairarapa, I acknowledge you.

The iwi first encountered the Crown in 1845. The Crown challenged the tribe living as Māori on their own land and the Crown acted as a formidable ally for Pākehā who were causing problems for the tribe at that time.

Thousands of acres were confiscated with threats of violence against Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. The Crown was underhanded, people, they were underhanded in telling the tribe that Pākehā would be removed from your land if the land were sold to the Crown, what a sham. What an underhanded tactic that was.

In June 1853, under the instruction of the Crown, the tribe signed the Castlepoint deed. The Crown agreed that a fund would be created for Ngāti Kahungunu from the onsale of lands, but this never happened. The Crown purchased over 1.5 million acres and did not fulfil its obligations to the deed. From 1866 to 1873, the Native Land Court assimilated the land into European culture by distributing individual titles and thus blocking thousands of sub-tribes from their own land. Today, 80 percent of the land from Castlepoint is in the Mātaikona reserve. The Government has locked up that land block, its spiritual and physical significance, and its sacred nature, in the Mātaikona reserve. That is the underhanded work of the Governor. This is a landless tribe. The little land that is left to them has been mistreated and polluted by the contaminants from the petrol companies, and that goes on to this very day.

Dr Takiririrangi Smith has likened the disparaging acts of the Crown to a great explosion. The stealing of land, the extortion of customary practice and cultivations along with the purposeful unravelling of genealogical connections, the pain of which is unyielding to this very day.

I now turn to the English language.]

Many Governments of the past have flaunted themselves as a beacon for indigenous rights on an international stage while exploiting the generosity of tangata whenua at home. Crown negotiation policies such as large natural groupings and the fiscal envelope have determined this. Engineering further division, further harm, and further breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi itself. That is why Te Paati Māori does not accept that settlements are full and final—they never should be. You will only get 1 percent of your due, but we must always leave the door open to our mokopuna to fight for the other 99 percent. Our trauma does not lie in the past—inequality, poverty, and the desecration of Papatūānuku is happening in the present, and will continue to be our future if we continue down this track. I would like to remind the Crown—Willie Jackson—that the Treaty was never about tangata whenua. We had mana motuhake long before we had the flu. The Treaty is what gives the Crown the right to be here, so I’m not sure why we’re in such a rush to settle. Article 1 consented to Kāwanatanga, article 2 secured the pre-existing rights of Māori before 1840, and article 3 was about working together to create a better future as a nation. Te Tiriti is not for settling; it is for honouring. I honour you today, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): E te Mana Whakawā e koa ana te ngākau i te tū i konei, kōrero ai Te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

Tuatahi iho he mihi ki ngā uri o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. He mihi aroha ki a koutou i tēnei rā tino whakahirahira.

I tēnei wā ka hoki ngā mahara ka rere ngā mihi ki ngā rangatira, ki ngā kura tangiwai kua riro tītapu i mua i te kitenga o tēnei taumata te pikitia ana. Kei te rua o te mahara rātou, ā, kei konei ā-wairua i te rā nei.

E mihi ana ahau i te paunga o te kaha, i te ūnga o te ngākau o te tira whiriwhiri a Ngāti Kahungunu. Ina koa ka mihi ki a Ron Mark, rātou ko Ian Perry, ko Robin Potangaroa, ko Haami te Whaiti, ko Hayden Hape e tautokona paitia ngā kaiwhiriwhiri i ō rātou kaitohutohu, arā e Rāwiri Smith rātou ko Marama Tuuta, ko Lee Gray tae atu ki ō rātou rōia, ki a Jennifer Braithwaite rāua ko Mike Colson.

I roto i ngā tau e tautokona paitia ana a Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua he hautoa e te manawa ū o ngā kaiwhiriwhiri me ngā kaitohutohu, ā, e mihi ana ahau i te manawa roa me te pukumahi. E mihi ana ahau ki ōku hoa mahi, ki te Minita, ki Anaru Iti, he mihi mahana ki a koe i tō whare.

Ki te kaiwhiriwhiri Karauna matua, ki a koe Rick Barker, mō āna mahi i te whakataunga nei me ngā āpiha a Te Arawhiti me ētahi atu tari Karauna, nāna nei i mahi tahi ki a Ngāti Kahungunu hei whakarite i te kaupapa nei.

E te Mana Whakawā, ko te pānuitanga i te rangi nei, he pai nui mō Ngāti Kahungunu. I te whakataunga kerēme nei, he pae tawhiti kua tata. Kua hia whakatupuranga nei te iwi e oke ana, e whai ana i te tika kia ea ai e te Karauna ōna herenga i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, kia whākina hoki ngā wāwahitanga huhua o Te Tiriti e te Karauna.

E tātou e noho nei e hiahia ahau ki te whāki ana, e mihi ana, e whakapāha ana te Karauna mō ēnei mahi. Ko te tukunga uruhitanga o ētahi eka whenua e hia tekau mano nei Maungaroa. Ko te korenga ōna e mahi i runga i te tika me te pono i ngā hokonga tere, ngā hokonga nui o te whenua e tata whenua kore ai a Ngāti Kahungunu ā tae atu i te tau 1900. Ko te korenga e whakatutuki i te tukunga rangatira o Wairarapa Moana, i kī taurangi ai Karauna ka nui ngā whenua rāhui ka tukuna e te tahatika o Wairarapa. Ā, ko te korenga i āta tiaki, i āta poipoi i te reo Māori.

E te Mana Whakawā, ka tautoko te puretumu o roto i te pire nei i a Ngāti Kahungunu ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata i ngā hinonga o muri nei mō te iwi me ngā whakatipuranga e haere mai nei. E rua tekau mā whitu ngā wāhi tapu rawa kei roto i te kete puretumu nei, ka tukuna ki a Ngāti Kahungunu hei puretumu ā-ahurea. Ko ētahi o ēnei: e rua ngā whenua i roto o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua; ko tētahi whenua kei te tihi o Remutaka; e rua ngā whenua e tata ana ki Taratahi, ā, e toru ngā whenua ki te taha tonga o Wairarapa.

Ko tētahi take e hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero, arā ka whiwhi ngātahi Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne o Wairarapa me Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua ki te puretumu ā-ahurea mā te puretumu ngātahi te Rohe o Rongokako. Mā taua puretumu ngātahi i whiti ai ki ngā iwi ki wāhanga nā te Karauna o Wairarapa Moana.

Hei hoa haere o taua taonga nui ka whakaritea e te pire kia whakahokia ki Ngāti Kahungunu ngā whenua rāhui huri noa i Wairarapa me Ōnoke tae atu ki Wairarapa Lake Domain, ngā whenua o Lake Shore me te takere o te tāhuna o Pounui. Ka tū ki te pire i te Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, a Rangiwhakaoma ki te tarahati whakataunga a Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua kātahi ka takohaina e te iwi ki te Karauna.

Ko tēnei wāhi, he wāhi tino whakahirahira, he wāhi tino tata ki tōku ngākau, he taonga hoki o roto o te rohe o Ngāti Kahungunu e rēhia ai ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa.

He tohu, he tohu takohanga nei o tō rātou titikaha ki te nohonga kōtui hou i waenga o Ngāti Kahungunu me te Karauna, ā, tēnei au te mihi ki a rātou mō tō rātou ohaoha ngākau. He roa, he kōpikopiko te huarahi ki te whakataunga, ā, he huhua hoki ngā tukituki i runga i tēnei huarahi. E rongona tahi ana tātou i ngā nawe e whakapā tonu ana i te mamae i te kinikini i te rangi nei.

Koia tēnei ko te hiahia ko te Karauna ki te tohua ki te whakataunga kei te aonga o tētahi rangi hou mō te whakahoanga o Ngāti Kahungunu me te Karauna. Ko te kaupapa o tēnei rā ko te mihi i te onamata me te tahuri ki te anamata. He roa te haerenga, āe, tae noa ki tēnei rā. E kore e ea i tēnei mea te whakataunga ko ngā mahi hē a te Karauna ko te mamae rānei e pā a Ngāti Kahungunu. Engari e tūmanako ana taku ngākau ka noho te whakataunga nei hei tīmatanga mō te whakahoanga pā kere kē i waenga i a Ngāti Kahungunu me te Karauna, he whakahoanga e takea ana i te whakapono o tētahi ki tētahi, te mahi tahi me te whakaute i te Tiriti me ōna mātāpono.

Ka tautoko au i tēnei pire ki te Whare. Nō reira e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, I am elated to stand here today to talk about The Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. This is my compassionate greeting to you on this very important day.

On this day we recall, and our acknowledgments flow to the chiefs and the treasured ones who have passed on, before being able to see this goal be reached. They reside now in the abyss of memory but are with us in spirit today.

I acknowledge the exhaustive energy put in, and the resolute hearts of the Ngāti Kahungunu negotiating team. Specifically I would like to mention Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Haami Te Whaiti, Hayden Hape, the negotiators who were well supported by their advisers Rāwiri Smith, Marama Tuuta, and Lee Gray, including their lawyers Jennifer Braithwaite and Mike Colson.

Over the years, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua has been well supported by the courage and steadfastness of the negotiators and advisers and I acknowledge their perseverance and hard work. I also acknowledge my colleagues; to the Minister Andrew Little, I send warm greetings to you, at home.

To the chief Crown negotiator, to Rick Barker, I thank him for his work on this settlement along with the officers of the Office for Māori Crown Relations and other Government departments, who have worked together with Ngāti Kahungunu in negotiating this claim.

This reading today will be of benefit to Ngāti Kahungunu. By way of the claims settlement a long-term goal will be achieved. For many generations the tribe has fought, pursuing justice that the Crown should fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and also to disclose the Crown’s many breaches of the Treaty.

To everyone seated here I wish, on behalf of the Crown, to disclose, acknowledge, and apologise for these actions: the forceful ceding of tens of thousands of acres of land at Maungaroa; the lack of fairness and honesty in its dealings and the speedy sales of large tracts of land, which left Ngāti Kahungunu virtually landless by the year 1900; the failure to fulfil the chiefly gift of Wairarapa Moana, with the Crown promising numerous lakeside reserves; and, furthermore, the absence of proper protection and care of the Māori language.

The redress within this bill will support Ngāti Kahungunu in fulfilling its aspirations of future entities for the tribe and the generations to come. There are 27 culturally significant sites in the redress package, which are being returned to Ngāti Kahungunu as cultural redress. Some of these are: two sites in Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua; one piece of land is at the summit of Remutaka; two sites near Clareville, and there are three sites in the south of Wairarapa.

One issue I would like to talk about is the joint redress that Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua have received, in respect of the Rohe o Rongokako in the form of cultural redress. This joint redress allows for the Crown’s allocation of Wairarapa Moana to be vested in the tribes.

In addition to those important treasures the bill will also arrange for the return to Ngāti Kahungunu of reserve land all around Wairarapa and Ōnoke, including Wairarapa Lake Domain, lands at Lake Shore, and the bed of the Pounui Lagoon. The bill vests Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, Rangiwhakaoma in Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua settlement trust, then the iwi will be gift it back to the Crown. This place is an important place, a place very close to my heart, a treasure as well within the boundaries of Ngāti Kahungunu, where all people of Aotearoa New Zealand will be able to recreate.

This is a sign, a sign of their commitment and dedication to the new relationship between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown, and I acknowledge them for their generosity. It has been a long and winding road to reach this settlement, and there have been many stumbling blocks along the way. Together we have heard about the grievances that still cause pain and gnaw away to this very day.

The desire of the Crown is this—to indicate by way of this settlement that a new day dawns with this partnership between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown. Today’s purpose is to acknowledge the past but turn towards the future. Yes, it has been a long road to arrive at this day. This settlement will never take away the deceitful actions of the Crown, or the pain felt by Ngāti Kahungunu. But it is my heartfelt hope that the settlement will stand as a beginning to this strong relationship between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown, a relationship stemming from trust of each other, one of collaboration and one focused on upholding the Treaty and its principles.

I recommend this bill to the House. Therefore, to the tribe, greetings to you, greetings, greetings one and all.]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. Greetings also to the House. To the esteemed leaders, greetings, welcome to the discussions of the day. Welcome to the chiefly tribes of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua; greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the really important first stage: the first reading of your settlement bill. These are the moments in Parliament that I wish more people would witness, because this is an important piece of legislation that we do support, and while I don’t necessarily agree with some of the comments the speakers before me have made, this day is about you.

This is a step in what I’m not even going to pretend to comprehend. I feel fortunate as the member of Parliament for Taupō, having walked some of the journey for Treaty settlement with Ngāti Raukawa and Tūwharetoa, so I’ve been able as a student of theirs to learn the history, the hurt, and the anguish. While it feels, at a level—when I speak in this House—like I can’t even scratch the surface, I do, as a mark of respect to you and your forebears, stand in this House to speak in support on behalf of the National Party in this first reading.

One of the things that is really clear to me, and I think about the other Treaty settlement processes that Christopher Finlayson started as the Minister, and that now Andrew Little continues as the baton has been passed, is that so much of that process is beyond challenging. I do feel incredibly fortunate as a New Zealander to have witnessed a Crown apology, and I have to be honest and say that I thought it would feel like words. But the power of the Crown apology is so much more than that, and, as I say, if I hadn’t witnessed it for myself, I wouldn’t be confident to say that.

I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee in my second term in Parliament. I know it’s really important, the discussions that will take place after this first reading as the submissions are provided, and some of that will provide more angst and more anguish. But it is so, so critical as a result of this next step of the process to get to a point with the second reading, and then I look forward to being in the House and witnessing your jubilation at the third reading. May it not be too far off, because I know what an enormous difference it makes for you, it makes for your children, and—more importantly—it makes for us as our communities and as our country.

One of the wishes that I have with the claims settlement process is that more New Zealanders understand and learn our history to acknowledge it and to honour it but, more importantly, to think carefully and deeply about our future, which can only be and must only be together. Kia ora.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. Kaupeka ki runga, kaupeka ki raro, kūī, kūī, whiti ora e! He mihi ki ngā rangi, he mihi ki te whenua he mihi ki ngā tāngata, ngā whānau o Ngāti Kahungunu ka mihi atu ki a koutou.

Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata, ki te whare raiona, nau mai, haere mai. Ki ngā kaumātua, ngā kuia o te motu ka mihia ki a koutou nau mai haere mai ki te kōrerorero mō te kaupapa nei, nō reira e mihi ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, a warm greeting to you. Kaupeka above, and below, alive and flourishing. Greetings to the skies, greetings to the land, greetings to the people and the families of Ngāti Kahungunu, we greet you.

Welcome to the House of Parliament, to the lion’s den, welcome, welcome. I acknowledge the elders, both male and female who have come to discuss this issue, and so welcome to you all, welcome, welcome one and all.]

Whānau mā, it’s beautiful to see you this evening and to join you this afternoon at the pōwhiri. You’ll hear the whakataukī that I take from Mōkai Pātea at the start of my kōrero this evening. But many of you will know that we are not too distantly related, and in fact, our rangatira, our tūpuna, is Kahungunu. It also reminds me of familiar faces—as you came through the door this afternoon—of my late father, Winston Halbert, and growing up in Ngāti Kahungunu, we travelled to many marae where he spoke, where you spoke, not too different to this Whare and the kōrero that we are having today. But, deeply and humbly, can I welcome all of our whānau here for this very important kaupapa.

Ka mihi atu ki a koutou Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou.

[I acknowledge you of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua; my sincere thanks to you all.]

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and as somebody that’s new to this House, it’s always a privilege to go through the number of Treaty settlements that we have in the past 18 months. To sit there, to learn, to hear the stories, to hear the kōrero of our people on both sides, to hear the history, is very, very important to understanding how we proceed forward. I sat here this afternoon in the general debate and listened to the leader of the ACT Party’s kōrero, and I looked up to you. And while you may have seen a little a bit of shouting at this end, it came with passion and aroha and embarrassment for that kōrero over the other side of the House that diminished the state of our people and the contribution that we can make to this nation as Māori. It was divisive, and it challenged all of us to stand up and be very, very proud of what we can do together, and today’s mahi, our kaupapa here [today’s work, our purpose here] is the start of that.

After that, I heard from my colleague, the other ACT Party member Karen Chhour, who talked about fighting for what is right. I know, as a member of Parliament—and I’d like to think that all members of Parliament that are here are here to fight for what is right. And we can use a term of co-governance as a political tool to bash each other with across this country, but when we look at pieces of legislation like this—and I’ll speak to it soon—it is that we share common values of what we want for the future of this nation, what we want for our taiao, what we want for our wai. And, indeed, there are ways that we can work together.

This particular settlement includes significant pūtea—yet not enough to acknowledge the hurt and mamae that has been done—but it brings forward a Crown apology and acknowledgments. And, in my readings of the Tribunal report, it speaks of the speed of changes that happened in the Wairarapa-Tararua district in colonial times as one of these things that, in particular, not just us but the Tribunal marvelled at. The Crown’s whirlwind buy-up of 1.5 miriona—1.5 million—acres in the Wairarapa in 1853 and 1854; in the space of no more than a decade, from the 1850s to the 1860s, tangata whenua were no longer being landlords of their own whenua. And in my memories, I look back to the first time that I spoke in this House, in my maiden speech, and I remember my other tupuna, Hiraka te Rango, who came to Omāhu marae back in the 1800s as a part of te kotahitanga to stop the confiscation of Māori land. So those are the memories that we remember when we’re looking through these pieces of legislation in this first particular reading.

This settlement has been 30 years in the making with ongoing negotiations and litigation along the road, and I acknowledge that, in the report, our kaumātua and kuia have been organising and researching these claims. Some of those kaumātua and kuia are no longer with us today: moe mai rā. And it is fitting that we should mention one in particular, namely the late Hinepatokoriki Paewai, who was tireless in her efforts to take these claims forward to the Crown. Treaty claims were presented to the Waitangi Tribunal over nine weeks of hearings between March 2004 and March 2005—a long time ago. The Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released on 26 June at Te Ore Ore marae back in 2010. And that particular report makes findings in relation to Barton’s run, Mangaroa, the collapse of the Wairarapa leasehold economy, Crown purchasing in the Wairarapa, Native Land Court operations in the Wairarapa, the loss of Wairarapa Moana, the provision of Pouakani, Pouakani and Mangakino issues, the Public Works’ takings, and local government, the Department of Conservation, and taonga-protection issues.

Whānau mā, I’m the last speaker of this first reading for this piece of legislation that is before the House. You will also see myself—and can I put in the apologies from our chair, Tāmati Coffey, who is away at the moment, but he did ask that I pass on his apologies—along with Rawiri across the way and Joseph Mooney, Arena Williams. We will be there visiting your whenua in order to hear your oral submissions as a part of the Māori Affairs Committee. And know that we are with you, know that we are there to hear from you. Kōrero mai ki a mātou. Talk to us. Put it all on the table once again so that when we put the departmental report back into this Whare, it has been scrutinised, it reflects the correction of this mamae, of this hurt, and we can move forward together. But, most of all, whānau mā, remember the kōrero in this Whare today. Remember it for months; remember it for years because, today, we remember you. Nō reira, mihi ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted. I shall be on the Chair after dinner at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Retail Payment System Bill

Third Reading

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

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Retail Payment System Bill be now read a third time.

It feels like only yesterday we were all here in the committee of the whole House discussing the Retail Payment System Bill, and here we are today, passing this bill through into legislation. The bill aims to ensure that we have a competitive and efficient retail market—

Andrew Bayly: How?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —in New Zealand. It’s vital for consumers that the retail payment system is both competitive and efficient, and I look forward to explaining how for the benefit of members opposite, who expressed a keen interest.

In an increasingly cashless society, of course, it is easy for any one of us to forget just how important retail payment networks are. It all happens so quickly and so easily: money is transferred from our wallet quite virtually into a business as a payment for goods and services. But it’s been apparent for some time now that in New Zealand these payment methods that we are so familiar with attract higher merchant service fees than they should. That’s why in the 2020 election, the Labour Party took a manifesto commitment to reduce these fees and to bring them into line with comparable countries, and today we make good on that promise. This bill establishes a new regulatory regime that’s concerned with the underlying causes of high merchant service fees. However, it also takes much more direct and immediate steps to lower the fees in a short time horizon and be clear that payment networks where those problems are most acute are designated immediately.

While I don’t want to prolong the bill’s journey through the House, I do want to make a few acknowledgments and remind the House of the ways that this change will benefit merchants and consumers. So, quickly on the history: the possibility of regulating the retail payment system has been considered by successive Governments, and after pledging to get on with it and to actually regulate these fees at the 2020 election, as the newly minted Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I set about my task with alacrity. Straight away and at pace, we put together a discussion document to go out to get feedback from the public so that we could make sure that we did this in the way that would be enduring and would achieve the purpose we’d set out.

Now, policies for this bill were agreed by Cabinet in April and July following that consultation last year. I was then able to introduce the bill to the House in October 2021, and it’s carried the momentum through the select committee. I do want to thank those who worked in the select committee on this bill, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials through to the stakeholders who made submissions on the bill, and there were lots of high-quality submissions; the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff, who do the drafting; the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, Jamie Strange—and I see the chair here; I acknowledge his work—and the whole committee; and, of course, the Commerce Commission, who fed in their expertise along the way as we’ve brought this from a rough-hewn stone to a polished product.

Now, the bill executes, as I’ve said, a short-term and a long-term strategy for promoting competition and efficiency in the retail payment system, and that is for the benefit of consumers and merchants. So in the short term, there is an intervention in that the bill caps interchange fees in the Visa and MasterCard networks for an initial pricing standard. Interchange fees, as many in this House will now know, have been a part of the debate, and what many folks at home will know is that it’s often the largest part of a merchant service fee. They’ve tended to be particularly high in the Visa and MasterCard networks, and that perhaps reflects the dominance of those networks in the New Zealand market. Capping interchange fees will happen six months after this bill has passed and had Royal assent and it will relieve a significant burden on, particularly, small merchants who face a disproportionate burden from the interchange fees. It’s been estimated that this change, this cap, this pathway that will see in six months these fees adopted as the ceiling, on a conservative estimate will save New Zealanders around $74 million a year. So that goes in the first instance to those merchants—

Jamie Strange: How much?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s $74 million a year and it’s a conservative estimate and then many of those savings—or much of that saving—will be passed on to consumers and come back into Kiwis’ pockets.

The longer-term strategy that’s embedded in the bill is the empowerment of a regulator—in this case the Commerce Commission—to respond to competition or efficiency issues as they arise in the markets. So, essentially, we’re futureproofing here but also giving them the powers to investigate once a payment network’s been designated to dig into it and to make further decisions about how it should be regulated—make sure there’s transparency in the system, and so on. So the Commerce Commission are given regulatory tools through the passing of this bill and those tools—as I say, the process for designating networks which the commission can then regulate—are designed to be flexible and responsive as the retail payment system continues to evolve over time.

Andrew Bayly: Is that how it assists with competition?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It certainly will assist with competition, Mr Bayly—absolutely. The commission will be able to regulate designated networks through network standards and directions and it enables them to do some very specific things, which I’ll just share with the House: require network participants to disclose information, regulate prices they charge for payment services, require participants to allow entrants to access certain critical services or network infrastructure, require network rules to be set, and scrutinise certain changes to network rules. Now, those are quite technical aspects but indeed they do get to making sure we have a competitive market.

Importantly, there are several constraints on the Commerce Commission in the use of these powers. They’re only available in relation to designated networks. The bill prescribes a process for designated networks that involves them going out, setting out network standards and directions. They are subject also to criteria, to processes. The commission must publish any proposed standard or direction issues and its reasons for proposing that standard. They must also consult affected persons before they can issue any standard or direction. Ultimately, the commission is bound by the purposes and the principles that are embedded in the bill in terms of the way that they conduct themselves as regulators. Finally, the standards and directions are secondary legislation, meaning they’re disallowable by Parliament, so Parliament retains a degree of oversight here.

The bill also enables the commission to intervene should it wish on surcharging standards, surcharging practices, and could set standards to make sure that merchants aren’t over-recovering on their costs. It’s quite reasonable when you see it: sometimes merchants are charging a surcharge where they face a higher fee and it seems reasonable to allow them to pass that on to consumers because some networks are more expensive to use than others. But the commission will have the power to intervene if they see abusive practices evolve in this area. Now the commission has the flexibility in how it uses any merchant surcharging standards to achieve that. But the flexibility is likewise subject to constraints and procedural requirements.

Network operators and card issuers will need to be in a position to comply with the initial pricing standard within six months of the bill coming into force—and I do want to thank the support around the House for making this happen. This is a very direct intervention. It’s a way of making sure that this pledge kicks into action sooner rather than later, as the commission may take some time, in my experience, to do their analysis on certain things because they are thorough. This sets an initial standard that is comparable to what we have in Australia.

I want to thank the House for prioritising the passage of this bill to ensure that the savings that it generates are passed on to merchants and to consumers. As the Labour Party made its pledge, front of mind was those small businesses that talked about how tough it was. I spoke to a number of small businesses, particularly around this announcement originally, and as we went out with consultation documents and the like they shared with me just what a burden it is with some of the fees. They don’t have the leverage with the banks and the schemes to demand different network fees. So this cap will make a meaningful difference for small businesses, and if small businesses flourish we know we will have a more competitive landscape for consumers and we know also with the cap on fees that that money not only lands back in the merchants’ pocket but gets passed on to consumers.

So this is good for small business. It’s good for consumers. Reducing merchant service fees has been a priority for the Government. We’re now passing this bill. It’s a good day. And it brings me to the end of my speech with great pleasure as I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be speaking on the third reading of the Retail Payment System Bill. That wasn’t a bad effort from the Minister, and I just wish we all had the opportunity to have people write us notes.

But I think the first thing I’d like to say is, after socking small businesses with about $3.5 billion worth of extra costs over the last nearly five years, I’ve got to say—when you think about all the different things, all additional taxes that Labour have thrown at small businesses—I hardly think this bill is going to cut the mustard. It is good, we will support the bill; we have supported the bill. But if you think $74 million against $3.5 billion that’s been thrown against our small - business owners is going to really save them, I don’t think so.

The other thing I find amusing is that the Minister said, “We’ve fulfilled Labour’s 2020 election promise.” So we’ve just had two years where many small businesses have just about gone out of business, if they haven’t already gone out of business because it’s been so tough during COVID lockdowns, particularly for businesses in Auckland and the Waikato, but across the country—even in Dunedin, where the Minister comes from. Here we are, and this thing is going to take—it will be in force, come into play, six months from now. So, effectively, we’ve gone from 2020 to 2023 before small businesses are going to benefit from this $74 million benefit. If it was that high of a priority, why haven’t you pushed it through under urgency? All the urgent bills that have come through this House over the last couple of years, why didn’t you push this through if it was so important? Why didn’t you help our small - business owners quicker, with at least one little thing so they can think, “Well, I’ve got something out of this Labour Government.”?

But just to put it in context, $74 million across 536,000 small - business owners. Not everyone’s going to be using credit cards and so on, but let’s say that’s about $110 million a year—$110 million is the savings a year. There will be some that get a higher amount of savings, there will be some that get less, but it hardly is going to help it. But none the less, we will support the bill and we have supported the bill.

But I don’t think Labour members should stand up and say, “This is a panacea for our small - business owners.” Because, unfortunately, it’s not. Unfortunately, if we get the opportunity to get back in 2023—if we get the opportunity—one of the big things we’re going to have to do is to deal with the huge avalanche of costs and compliance issues that have been imposed on them by this Labour Government.

Anyway, there are good parts, as the Minister talked about. Just to be very specific—if people are listening at this stage to this third reading, which means it’s going to pass tonight—there’s going to be a cap on the interchange fees. As the Minister quite rightly said, interchange fees are the major part of merchant fees, so there’s a cap of 0.8 percent on credit card transactions, 0.6 percent for online debit card transactions, 0.2 percent—or 5c per transaction—for a contactless debit. So what this means is that if you have a Visa or MasterCard, they will be subject to these fees. Just to be clear, Diners and American Express (Amex) are not included under the current regulations, and I do stand to correct a comment I made at the second reading. Amex weren’t covered by this arrangement in Australia when it was put in place—and, of course, this is mirroring what went on in Australia. But none the less, this bill gives the Minister and the Commerce Commission to recommend, of course, that if one of those entities should be part of the regulations, then the Commerce Commission will have to recommend it to the Minister.

The big thing we talked about yesterday during the committee of the whole House stage is, what is the threshold that a new card might enter this arrangement? It was very unclear whether it’s a market value test, a market share test, because the rules around that are very unclear. It just sets out the process and some of the guidelines that the Commerce Commission might adopt, but without really tangibly helping anyone to assess whether or not they might be put in place.

A lot of changes made in the select committee—I think some of them are very good, and I thank all colleagues across the House in terms of making those. One of the big things is MasterCard and Visa are large, internationally arranged businesses. New Zealand needs to be careful that if we’re going to impose regulations on a global operation, then we need to be mindful that we are at a very small end of the global arrangements. So one of the important changes the committee did make is the process for the Commerce Commission, how it would engage with those network operators to make sure that any changes—if they were so sought in New Zealand—could be put in place where appropriate, because the last thing we’d want is some of those credit card operators to pull out of New Zealand.

Look, there is a whole lot of other stuff, but I’m not going to talk about it. I think we’ve canvassed it. As the Minister said, it was only but yesterday that we were going through the details of this. We move on and just acknowledge, as I said before, members of the select committee and also the officials.

Long may our small businesses prosper and hopefully get over the past two years of such a dreadful period in New Zealand as we’ve gone through this period of COVID lockdown, and hopefully this is but a small part that will help them on their journey. My view is that we need to look after every small business, not only the owners and the people who put up the capital, but the people that work in them. They are the driving force—the economic force—of New Zealand, and it’s so vitally important that we look after them.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a rather unusual speech from someone who’s supporting the bill, but we do hear a bit of confusion over on that side of the House, at times. But I do acknowledge the support from the National Party for this piece of legislation, and I’m hopeful that other parties will also speak and vote in favour of this piece of legislation, which the member says is insignificant, but $74 million per year for businesses and consumers, I would argue, is significant. For the businesses I’ve spoken to about this—and I’ll give a couple of examples—they’re certainly very much looking forward to this piece of legislation coming into law in six months’ time.

On the weekend, I was in Te Awamutu—lovely, lovely spot, there near Hamilton—and I purchased some fish and chips for my family for $32 and I was about to put the card through their machine, payWave, and I noticed on the machine that the surcharge for the payWave was 66c. I paused for a minute, “OK.”, so I actually got the chip on the card and put it into the machine, and, unfortunately, it didn’t recognise my card. So I swiped it, still didn’t work, and so I had to do the payWave thing, so I, obviously, paid the 66c for that. But I spoke to the owner of that small business and I told her about this piece of legislation that’s coming through in terms of significantly lowering those surcharges, and she was absolutely delighted. She said, “Oh, wow. I’m so excited about that.” She wasn’t aware that it was coming through, and I believe that I really made her day, because the reality is that it is quite challenging for, particularly, small businesses to absorb those fees. We have seen quite large fees when we compare to other countries over recent years. So this is a piece of legislation that I expect will be well received by our small businesses and our consumers, as this passes through.

I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for bringing it to the House. I note the previous speaker said this should have come through urgency because it is such a good piece of legislation. Look, it is a good piece of legislation. We made the commitment to do this within the three-year period, and we are sticking to our word on that.

I’d like to acknowledge the select committee, as the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I believe the member here—we’ve got Melissa Lee; I believe it’s just us in the House, but I certainly acknowledge Melissa and the other members of this committee. We are a committee that do take our role very seriously. We look at these pieces of legislation. We have quite extensive conversations with the officials. This was a very technical piece of legislation and there was learning for all of us in terms of how those fees are worked out, and there are quite a few components and there’s quite a disparity in terms of different providers. So there were some complexities around it, and, in terms of that, I’d also like to acknowledge the officials who guided us through the process in terms of that.

The Minister has outlined what the bill does, so I won’t go into that level of detail, but just to say that this is a piece of legislation that will make a significant difference for our small businesses. I’m thinking of the dairy down the end of my street. I was recently in there with my son, purchasing some food, and I spoke to the dairy owner about it and he said, “Very much looking forward to this piece of legislation.” Many of us when we’ve been to, particularly, a dairy or a very small business, we’ve seen on the EFTPOS terminal “No credit.” The reason they say “No credit” is because, when you pay by credit card, the owner of that store has to absorb that cost, often up to 3 percent of the sale. So the reason that we are putting this through is so that people can use their credit card, they can use the payWave, and the fee to the business owner will be significantly smaller. It’s an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to rise to speak on bills that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee have worked on. It is also an opportunity for me to acknowledge the chair, who has just sat down. I have to concur with him that the select committee does, in fact, work very hard—although it’s a very small committee but a very tight-knit committee, and very focused on the work that we do. I’d like to commend the chair because he is a fair chair. I’m not so sure if I’m actually helping his political career by saying that. But he is an excellent chair and respected by everyone in that committee, I have to actually say.

On to the bill, the third reading of the Retail Payment System Bill. Obviously, my colleague Andrew Bayly had actually said the National Party, on this side of the House, supports the bill—we wouldn’t have if it wasn’t something that benefits the consumers or if it was a terrible bill. But I think the issue that he was actually raising was the situation currently in New Zealand. I know that Andrew actually speaks with lots of passion and lots of whoomph, and sometimes I wish I had his energy level as well. But this bill—as the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark; Andrew Bayly; and Jamie Strange have said—reduces the amount of fees that both consumers pay and merchants have to absorb. And I think that’s a really, really good thing.

Anything that supports our consumers to pay less—and we’ve all seen it, I think. I’ll give you an example. When I was purchasing an air ticket to go back home to visit my family in Korea, I tried to use an American Express and the travel agent basically said, “Oh, that’s going to incur a certain amount of percentage extra than what you pay.” And I thought that’s ridiculous; that was a ridiculous amount of money that I had to pay for the whole family to travel. But if you give me Visa it will be a slightly lower percentage. So I went for the slightly lesser percentage surcharge to actually get a cheaper deal.

But surcharging has actually been around for quite a long time. This bill actually reduces that surcharging by retailers, who actually get those fees charged by the issuers of the cards in interchange fees, and I think that is a wonderful thing. I think it will help everyone.

However, although the initial cap on the card fee—reducing it’s a really, really good first step. But in terms of retailers and small businesses, as Andrew said, they have been hit really, really hard. Even before, they were doing it tough before COVID-19 actually hit. But even with COVID-19, before the Delta lockdown happened, 12,000 businesses closed permanently. I think what we were actually saying is that if the Government is so focused in reducing cost and improving the lot for small businesses, there might be better things that they could have done instead of just reducing the cap for the interchange fee—that’s what we’re actually talking about.

In particular, the hospitality sector and the retail travel that I just talked about—I mean travellers. A lot of ethnic-community businesses deal with inbound travel businesses. A while back, especially after the initial lockdown, I had a meeting with about a dozen inbound tour operators whose businesses were absolutely decimated, they could no longer actually operate. The stress that they’re under—and I have never actually seen grown businessmen, who happen to be of Korean descent, sit in front of a woman, particularly a woman and an MP, and cry. It is so stressful for these small businesses trying to sustain their business, run a business, and to earn a living for their family.

This is where this Government has actually failed them. The mental health situation of these families, the businesses that have failed—how are we supposed to resurrect these people’s lives? Yep, it’s a pandemic, it’s affected everyone around the world—but what is this Government doing to help those small businesses that have actually collapsed? They’ve poured their life savings into it. They’ve worked day and night to grow their business. They’ve often not taken salaries for themselves, trying to grow their business. And yet tourism is only now just opening up.

I know the announcement was made today that, from the end of July, we will actually have people coming into New Zealand—the New Zealand border’s going to be open. But at the moment it is only open to visa-free countries. That means that even we, members of Parliament, can’t meet with people—other MPs from around the world, or politicians, or Ministers—who want to come to New Zealand.

This particular bill deals with retail payment systems and it is a very small part of a huge industry called the small to medium sized enterprise sector, which is the largest sector that drives the New Zealand economy. It is the engine—the literal business engines—that drives the big engine called the New Zealand economy. I wish—I wish—that the Government would be a little bit more ambitious than reducing and putting a cap on retail payment systems. However, we support the move—however little it is—to benefit the consumers and the business sector. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill, because it’s actually not a bill that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I was on. It’s really nice to be able to come into the third reading of a bill that I’ve actually been really looking forward to because it was something that was in our manifesto. This bill fulfils one of our commitments relating to merchant service fees charged to retailers. It wants to bring them in line with comparable economies across the world because New Zealand fees are higher than some of our other counterparts.

Retail payments are the nuts and bolts of the market economy. The retail payment system is what makes it possible for consumers and merchants to sell and receive goods and services. The common ones that have been spoken about tonight and right throughout the whole bill process have been credit and debit cards and EFTPOS cards. These are all really familiar not just to the House but to everyday New Zealanders, because we are one of the highest users of EFTPOS cards throughout the world.

The issue that this bill resolves is that the fees that sit behind them are simply too high. This has been a problem for a while now, but COVID-19 has accelerated the reason for us to have to put this bill to the House and put it forward. COVID-19 changed the way that we spend our money, and online and contactless transactions are being used more. These payment methods currently, again, have higher fees, and they put additional pressure on businesses who then pass it on to the consumers.

For most people, they’ll know that when they do some transactions—when you go through payWave—it says “Do you accept the 0.02 percent” or the 0.2 percent “merchant service fee?”, and you have to say yes in order to pay for it with that credit card. But it’s not necessarily 0.02 percent; it’s usually 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. It’s too high compared to the rest of the world.

Again, I was not a member of the select committee, but I sat through the committee of the whole House debate yesterday. I want to congratulate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I heard very loudly and clearly—right throughout the debate last night and a number of times tonight—that they are a very small but hearty committee. So congratulations to the members across the House and to the chair, the member Jamie Strange.

Examining their report back, the bill seeks to address four main problems: higher merchant service fees; lack of competition in the market, which is why you can have higher service fees; and the incentivisation for customers to use these payment methods because they get the kickback of a reward. There are a number of reward services that most people are familiar with, with credit cards and some of those particular services. This incentivises them to use it in order to get a reward somewhere else. The other issue is that high merchant service fees disproportionately affect small businesses. For those not familiar in the House, 98 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small businesses, and a large proportion of them are retailers, particularly in an electorate like mine, Mana, where I think retailers are around about the fourth-highest industry out of our electorate.

During the campaign, I remember talking to one of my regular coffee cart owners. His name was Kenny, and most people know his coffee cart, which is near the Harvey Norman and the Pak ’N Save petrol station. He talked about the monthly fees he was having to pay to his merchants, and he said it was around $6,000 a month. From his perspective—and I absolutely agreed with him—$6,000 was too high for a small coffee cart owner. But the reason why he still paid that fee was because he felt like he had a moral obligation to his customers. Given COVID, he wanted to minimise contactless transactions as much as possible. So I say to Kenny and to all those small - business retailers across the country who we promised that we would make this commitment that we would reduce the burden on them in relation to merchant service card fees, we are doing that tonight.

I would like to once again thank the Minister for his work on this, thank the select committee for their review of this, and thank the 30 submitters on this particular bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s really nice to speak on this third and final reading of the Retail Payment System Bill. As we’ve said in previous readings, this is a pretty common-sense bill and I think it’s about time that we updated our regulatory frameworks for merchant fees for debit and credit card systems, payWave, and other similar services.

I wanted to pick up on what the member to my left, Barbara Edmonds, was talking about regarding New Zealand having a really high rate of use of EFTPOS and payWave services. It really struck me when I first came to Aotearoa 16 years ago—and I kind of crossed through bits of this in the second reading. As a migrant I was really struck by how much of a cashless society we already were back then in 2006, and COVID really pushed us to not only become cashless but contactless. And as Barbara was talking about, many of those small-business owners are paying really high fees to use the services.

One of the things that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee report talked about was just the regressive nature of this bill. It traversed some of the tactics that small businesses ended up employing to cope with those fees that, unfortunately, meant that some of these costs were being passed on to consumers, with low-income consumers facing a disproportionate brunt. Tactics such as loyalty cards were being used, and loyalty schemes, to try and alleviate the costs. But the perverse outcome was that low-income people ended up paying, effectively, a disproportionate amount towards these costs. Low-income people cannot actually often fully participate in those loyalty schemes and end up subsidising high-income earners, who have much more of an ability to reap the rewards of such loyalty schemes designed to actually pass some of those costs to consumers. So we really welcome the Government fulfilling its manifesto promise to set up this regulatory framework.

We also acknowledge that there will be around $74 million worth of savings in the economy as a result. And I repeat again that while this is not a massive amount of savings in the scheme of the broader economy, I think it’s about the principle of creating a less regressive system that is really important. I think there will be other conversations that we’ll need to have around the types of cards that are being included in this regulatory framework, and I welcome the ongoing conversations.

I’m not a member of the select committee that discussed this bill, and so I mihi to the group that participated in reviewing the submissions and ensuring that we ended up with actually a pretty strong select committee report that has made it really easy for us members who are not members of the committee to participate. I also thank the officials for, I think, really capturing, as I traversed, the regressive nature of the current system. So I am really happy to commend this bill to the House and I look forward to reflecting on the continuous need to tweak and reform capitalism’s ongoing failures.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading tonight. The ACT Party favours competition and efficiencies in all charges and fees with regards to assisting small business. Just to clear up on our friends with American Express, it is a different network and it has a substantially different business model to some of the other players that are right there. But my address tonight is more about the largesse around the Commerce Commission and where this is a classic example of how Government intervention actually takes away some of the value that’s supposedly being created in savings, and I’ll touch on that later.

But given that the Commerce Commission has the ability to designate schemes, I’d say—those that are already in the bill—it would be good to get a stronger commitment from them that they will actually monitor the costs of the unregulated system and will be beneficial for merchants and customers. And this is one of the important things for Governments to ensure, that they’re active in ensuring a level playing field while actually delivering these savings. And if you crunch the numbers, it does look like we have Peter robbing Paul, where we’ve got a $15 million business empire created, again, at the Commerce Commission, to collect $75 million. And that is even questionable, whether that $75 million will actually get to the merchants or the consumers, if you divide it by the number of transactions that are occurring electronically and digitally in New Zealand.

The Government considers that a targeted regime is the way forward. The bill introduces a role for the Commerce Commission that allows it to not only build an empire like the raw milk pricing team it’s got, or the telecommunications team that it’s got, but it just adds to the largesse of that administration structure. I think Barbara Edmonds and I and Minister Clark could sit down every six months and actually set these designations and charges that would go out into the marketplace, and that would be the end of it, as opposed to building a quagmire. One of the things that the ACT Party truly believes in is that after two years, these savings should be analysed and the department’s role should be assessed to see if it’s actually delivering the value for money that it said it would and that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said it would in its initial analysis. To me, it sounds like good politics. We’re all for saving money for the small-business owner. But, again, we have seen no evidence that it’s actually going to get there and that it’s actually going to get through to consumers and help them.

So the Government is giving the Commerce Commission, again, a broad range of powers. We hope the Commerce Commission should be sensible and consumer impacts around innovation and competition and new products won’t be hampered by what the Commerce Commission will do, and that it will be ready for a new set of products and suites to come through. One of the things we have to really recognise is that the more sophisticated these products become, the more that they do have to charge, and that they will be more value-added products in the New Zealand market. And it is a bit of a test bed for testing what then eventually goes on around the world.

The Government’s made the decision to empower the Commerce Commission. It’s now got to stand by and deliver these savings. The reduction in interchange fees and merchant services fees allows us to actually have some benchmarks, which will show us how those suite of powers have worked and how they have recommended to the Minister how they’re going go about their business. The Commerce Commission will be able to determine and issue directives, regimes, access for new participants. And we think it’s going from, as Kirk Hope said at BusinessNZ, what should have been a very light-touch mechanism to something now that’s really heavy touch and brings into question the actual efficiencies that were marketed and promoted by the Labour Party in its manifesto. So we are not convinced.

Overall, the package considers selling services in the marketplace where you’ve got retail sales of $100 billion, so a 20 percent reduction in credit card interchange fees is equating to the figure that the Minister’s promoting. The biggest risk here is that the model relies on providing the Commerce Commission with tools, but the practical applications of these powers have not been ascertained, and the legislation needs clearer objectives. We think, to reduce systemic risk, the Financial Markets Authority should have a look at this after two years.

In terms of the guaranteed $74 million, we believe it’ll get stuck in the legal system and not get to business and consumers in the quantums that are discussed. We believe the administration fees—well, if you divide that $74 million by 15, you’re already taking away 15, 20 percent of the benefit, just by setting up a Government department. So what is that all about? This is the problem with these types of laws, right? Giving the powers to the Commerce Commission does not reflect actual savings, and so it’s disingenuous to actually say that the consumers and merchants are going to get these.

So we believe we need a bill that’s fit for purpose. Elements of the bill in terms of charges are acceptable, but the actual role of the Commerce Commission is not acceptable. And if you want to save money in the marketplace in New Zealand with regards to charges, you have to take in a holistic ability, which has been disturbed by the Government’s handling of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), that people use these charging services for cash flow for their businesses as well. Right? So sometimes they’re really willing to take this payment because that helps them run their business day to day, and so as long as they’re getting the benefits and as long as the Commerce Commission isn’t stopping that—but we know with even getting a credit card now, it’s extremely difficult under the CCCFA.

So ACT will be opposing this bill not because of the savings but because of the Commerce Commission’s undefined role inside it. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Retail Payment System Bill, and I just want to note some comments following the previous speaker from the ACT Party, and I want to note—just regarding his speech tonight—that last week ANZ reported their half-yearly profit which was up 18 percent on the previous year, showing a record profit of $1.1 billion. And it’s very interesting to note that the ACT Party have chosen, on this bill, to side with big business, with the banking sector of New Zealand, instead of supporting small businesses who have been doing it tough. It’s interesting to hear the ACT Party show their true colours in Parliament and refuse to support a bill that is intervening in a market—

Damien Smith: Point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no way you can make that comparison of a company’s results, that sell mortgages, business finance, corporate finance, and in fact—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is not actually a legitimate point of order—

Damien Smith: No, no, that is not a reflection of our position and I’d like it withdrawn—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to take a seat. That is not a legitimate point of order. Rachel Boyack.

Matt Doocey: I seek leave for Damien Smith to make a personal explanation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When one makes a point of order, usually they should actually quote the Speaker’s rulings that they’re making a point of order about and, as the Chair of this House, it is up to me to decide whether or not a point of order is legitimate.

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam. In terms of Standing Order 121, “Personal reflections”, I’d just like to ask if you feel that the member Rachel Boyack, through her comments about ACT policy, and about the ACT member Damien Smith, in fact made an imputation of improper motives against a member, and whether that would, if she had done so, require her to withdraw and apologise. I’d like to hear your opinion on that, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Standing Order that you referred to was 120. Is that right?

Simon Court: It was 121.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Standing Order 121, “Personal reflections”. In my opinion, that is not a point of order; the Standing Order does not apply. Rachel Boyack, continue.

RACHEL BOYACK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I was noting there is that there are times when it is appropriate, when a market is not delivering for people or for those involved in that market, for Government to intervene, and that is exactly what we are doing: delivering on a manifesto commitment from 2020 to ensure that the retail payment system is fair. Look, in my electorate of Nelson, this is a policy—a piece of legislation—that is incredibly popular. I’ve spoken to many dairy owners, cafe owners, who often feel quite embarrassed, quite frankly, that they have to add an extra fee on to the payments that people are making—adding that fee to the transaction value. For example, they’re often using payWave because of their commitment to keeping people safe; they want people to be able to make a contactless transaction. So this bill is actually going to ensure fairness in the system for consumers and for the retailers and those hospitality, small businesses who are affected by this particular issue.

One of the points I’d like to make is the importance of ensuring that all parts of this system have regulation attached to them, so that’s the totality of charges that are faced on a transaction—including payWave, credit and debit card fees, and the interchange fee that has been talked about tonight, so that, for example, a merchant, a bank couldn’t perhaps see one set of those fees reduced and then increase another fee to cover that. So one of the things that the select committee has done, which I think is very good, is they have looked at that totality of charges to ensure that there is fairness in the system.

The Minister, earlier tonight, noted that there would be some initial designations. There are some areas where the Minister will be putting initial pricing standards in place—and specifically MasterCard and Visa credit and debit networks—so while the legislation will be another six months prior to it coming into effect and for the Commerce Commission to take on their role, in the meantime the Minister is making some initial designations, which I think is a very pragmatic way forward. So I want to thank the Minister, thank the officials and the select committee for their outstanding work on this very important bill, which will make a difference to New Zealand businesses and, on that note, I’m looking forward to this becoming law, and I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity this evening to speak on the Retail Payment System Bill, third reading. And I must acknowledge, listening to the contribution of the last speaker, Rachel Boyack, when she singled out support for big business—well, let’s just remind the House and those at home that that big business that she referred to employs 9,000 people in this country; hard-working Kiwis in every corner of this country, working in branches, in head office, supporting our economy, supporting business, supporting our agri-sector, and that side of the House categorically says, “You guys are bad people because you support big business.” Well, implicit in that conversation is their saying that they don’t support hard-working Kiwis, and that is greatly disappointing.

I’d love to get back to the bill, which we’re here to speak about tonight, because while National supports this bill, it is on the backdrop of Grant Robertson’s largest increase in Budget in the history of this country—$6 billion of additional spend is going to be spent. And so we talk, this evening, of savings of $74 million, and, well, we go, “Wow, that is a big amount of money.” It’s not a big amount of money in terms of the consultant spend and contractor spend in the three waters campaign, which is $21 million, but we don’t want to talk about that, so we’ll get back to this bill in itself.

But what the challenge is in terms of making savings around this bill, which we’ve articulated, is, yes, it sounds nice in terms of that, and we do believe, but it is a very small step in terms of what is required by our communities and our business sector in this country. They are burdened by a huge amount of regulation under this Labour Government, a burden of regulation and compliance that is adding additional costs, and this bill will take a little bit off that but will be inconsequential in the context of cost burden and regulation placed on hard-working Kiwis across this country that, today, are struggling to pay the bills, because inflation is running twice as high as wage growth and every Kiwi out there at home—that squeezed middle—is struggling to pay the bills.

So why aren’t we seeing more examples of things like this bill on a much larger scale that actually truly deliver benefits into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis? Well, I’ll give you a little insight in terms of why we’re not seeing that: because that side of the House do not understand the reality that Kiwis are facing today. They have no idea. They are out of touch. They do not understand how business works. They don’t have communication and conversations, like people on this side of the House do, with hard-working Kiwis that are really struggling at the moment, and that is what is so disappointing.

One of the things that National would do in regards to dealing with the cost of living crisis is we would stop adding cost to businesses, employers, and the productive sector. And, in regards to this bill, while it takes a little bit of benefit out and puts it in the hands of our businesses, we need to scale that up significantly. We need to ramp up the support that we’re providing for hard-working Kiwis so that they can get on and achieve an aspirational future for this country—that they deserve, that we all deserve, and that will make this country stronger in the future.

The challenges around putting in place aspects such as this are that while the regulation will impact around setting a charge, I think, in fairness, when you look at the feedback made by a number of the associations, including the New Zealand Bankers’ Association, they noted very clearly that there is another way in order to achieve this outcome. And, therefore, the regulatory framework that is being put in place here is not industry led, and National would, if we were in Government—and will be—in 2023, undertake industry-led self-regulation in this space, because that is what’s required. We don’t need to come down with a hammer on these types of organisations. They’re already doing the best thing for their customers and their people, and this type of regulation is a big hammer hitting a nut. I want to just finish off by saying that while National supports this bill, we are opposed in terms of the costs that it will play in a broader sense.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Actually, I was listening really carefully to that contribution and I was a bit confused; I thought that the Opposition were supporting this bill this evening. While I think that was just a slip of the tongue at the end there, the point is that you are supporting it but still take some issue with it.

Arena Williams: Give them a personal vote.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Arena’s saying, “Call for a personal vote.”

Anyway, I just want to take a brief contribution, as the Māori Party aren’t here tonight. So I’m taking this opportunity to add my bit to it. I actually heard the member opposite saying that we don’t have conversations with hard-working Kiwis—oh, he’s left, so now he can’t hear the rest of my contribution. But it is on the basis of conversations that I have had with hard-working Kiwis, with our small businesses, in places like Kaeō, Kawakawa, and Ōkaihau, who all, when we were talking about this as part of our manifesto for the last election and when we made announcements that we were introducing this legislation, said, “Yes. Make that happen.” So I can say to the business owner in Kaeō, tonight we are going to proudly pass this bill and it is going to come into force and it is going to make a difference for their small businesses.

So, for all of our small businesses out there, we know that you are the centre of our economic recovery. That’s why we introduced the wage subsidy scheme. You’ll see today that over 50 percent of our businesses benefited from that. This is another step that we can do to support our small businesses. Without prolonging the debate any further, I wish to commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It is a privilege to rise and speak on another manifesto commitment delivered by this Labour Government. Reducing merchant service fees is something that Minister Clark has worked hard on since taking the commerce portfolio, because a lack of competition within our retail market has meant that New Zealand retailers are paying higher fees. But it’s a bigger challenge now that COVID-19 has meant the use of contactless payment has become ubiquitous. And so it’s a real pleasure to speak on something like this which has been moved quickly by the Minister.

Now, I won’t make this a long speech, but I do wish to thank the Commerce Commission for this work. We love it on this side of the House when the Commerce Commission is brave, takes on big challenges like loan sharks, backed by a Labour Minister who backs their work for consumers, who makes it possible for changes that make big changes to people’s fees that they are paying. This bill, though it is a small bill, will save $74 million in fees for the people who use these payment services. We’re proud of the Commerce Commission’s work on the supermarkets, and there’s more to do. We love it when the Commerce Commission take on these challenges, and I commend this bill and their work to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That last speaker talked about the supermarkets and the Commerce Commission and how great they were. Remind me, but Labour’s done nothing in that area and basically has done an inquiry and said, “Oh, there’s something there, but we don’t want to do anything about it.” It was like their great inquiry into petrol prices that was going to be there. I remember that one. Stuart Nash was going to get out there and smash those companies. He was going to make petrol cheaper and then we were going to have—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I invite the member to come back to this particular bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, we are on this bill, the retail payment system. What’s more retail than supermarkets and petrol? So we had the Labour Party with all these great plans of how they were going to change the world and then we get this bill. They actually are doing something. We will support it. It is good law. It will make a slight little difference for New Zealand consumers and it is something that we as a National Party will support.

But the big issues out there haven’t been addressed by the Government. They haven’t got into the supermarkets, they haven’t got into the fuel, they haven’t actually looked at the cost of living increases they’re putting on consumers. If they really wanted to do something, they would work out the supply chains in New Zealand, they would work out the labour supply issues in New Zealand, they would work out the skills gaps in New Zealand. They would make sure that New Zealand workers were in the cities and not staying at home necessarily and supporting our urban businesses. They would be actually doing some practical things that made New Zealanders’ retail spending stronger. They’re doing the opposite. They’re actually hurting Kiwis by putting up the cost of living and they are hurting Kiwis by putting up interest rates and they’ve hurt Kiwis by putting up the price of their properties.

If the Labour Party were genuine about helping people, because the fundamental premise of this bill is to help people through the cost of retail transactions, let’s look at some of the fundamentals they could actually be doing to really help business. They won’t do those things. It’s all these glorified plans of the future. But what about little things now about getting that trading going, about getting the supply of services, about getting people back into work and doing it properly? That’s what business wants now. They will take this retail payment system change, consumers will take that, but it’s not actually what they really need. They need a Government focused on making business work now; not these grandiose plans of 10 years’ time. Business is in trouble and if business can’t work now, then we are in that circle of increasing inflation, increasing costs, and the loser in the end is the consumer, and especially the more vulnerable consumer, because those on fixed incomes are going to be the ones that lose out the most when you’ve got the inflation spiral that you’ve got going on.

So in the end, it’s great that the Labour Party comes to House with little bills like this but let’s do something about immigration, eh? Let’s actually let some people in with some skills. Let’s do something about getting those Government employees back into the cities—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! I remind the member to come back to this retail bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s about consumers. If the Labour Party was so supportive of business they would do some of these things. They would actually sort out the supply lines. They would actually help in making sure that we have the skills in New Zealand. They’re not doing any of that stuff. All we’re hearing is—going to hear about is—how they’re going to change the environment and how they’re restructuring health, restructuring local government. They’re not talking about the actual things that make money today. And they give us a bill like this to say, “Oh, look at what we’re doing, and it’s a matter of dollars and cents.” We’ve got businesses that are going under, businesses that could be doing much better.

If the Labour Party really wanted to do its job it would get out there and do those fundamental aspects of making business operate now, and they’re not. And so be proud of this, the Labour Party. This is all you’ve got to deliver for business and consumers in New Zealand. Good job. At the same time, you’re killing them day by day by having the inflationary spiral and bad economic policy and a failure to listen to what they need. So good luck making it work for the New Zealand economy. But this is not going to change the nature of what business needs. Business needs good Government that listens and does things now that will enable them to succeed in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Despite what the Opposition member has just said, this isn’t a little bill. This is a bill that is significant to a number of business owners. This is a bill that is about the conversations that we’ve had in our local communities. I know that this bill means a lot to Jamie at the Greenhithe store, to Aki at Peko, to Koshe at West Harbour Superette, to Barry and Holly, who run Beer and Kai on the North Shore, who I’m sure the other member who spoke about us not reaching out to communities will know well because they are a North Shore institution. We are out there speaking to communities. We know what matters, and this will make a difference for people.

I think what I’ve heard from communities echoes what I read in a Newsroom article where they analysed the results of a Retail New Zealand survey in 2018. The numbers there were really horrifying. They found that the retail margin was about 3.7 percent—much lower than I think a lot of people realise for many small to medium sized business in particular. What that meant was an average profit of $96,000 of which, on average, those businesses were paying $26,000. This is not just dollars and cents that mean nothing; this means a lot to those small and medium sized businesses. What was especially horrifying is that the article made the novel point that when a cardholder’s bank is the same as the store’s bank, the bank is getting its share of that 1 percent of sales by moving money to itself. So really horrific—we knew that something needed to change. That is what this bill’s about.

This bill is about accountability. This bill is about transparency, and it’s about putting in a framework now so that our businesses get some relief. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Maritime Powers Bill.

Bills

Maritime Powers Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 May.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Maritime Powers Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you’re on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you’d like to raise a point of order.

If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment.

Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): When we last considered this bill, leave was given for all provisions to be taken as one question. Therefore, the question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): When we concluded last night, there were three questions that we hoped that the Minister would be prepared to answer. If you give me a moment, Madam Chair, I’ll just find through here what those are and restate them so the Minister knows what they are.

The first is, will non-police personnel be restricted in the exercise of enforcement powers provided in the primary legislation that provides the limited enforcement powers they have? In other words, will non-police staff be restricted in what they are able to do according to the Act that empowers them in the first place? So that’s wildlife officers, rangers—I’m not sure where defence would fit in that, but the Minister might like to reflect on that.

The second is, will the enforcement officers in all cases have power to arrest but no power to execute a warrant? Clause 25A seems to refer to a “constable”, and of course the definitions make it clear that that’s a constable in relation to the Police Act. So I’m just wanting to know what exactly the status for those people are.

Third question is, why does the agreement of the flag States—it’s a fairly important question. Why does the agreement of the flag State for any vessel that might be subject to surveillance, subject to pursuit, subject to boarding, have to be sought from the flag State before those actions can be undertaken—particularly if it’s likely to be undertaken because it’s believed that the particular vessel has been party to some transgression of either New Zealand or international law?

Those are three questions that we would have to ask. So I said before, the National Party is supporting the bill, but we do have concerns about the range of powers being conferred upon a range of different persons known as enforcement officers, who sit outside the normal policing-type enforcement that we understand in New Zealand.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): In relation to the question, so we did make a note of the ones that the member that’s just spoken identified, as well as other questions. So I’ll go through and respond to them.

In relation to the existing powers of enforcement officers, the bill confers powers to the Police, Customs, New Zealand Defence Force, along with the Department of Conservation, where an offence at issue is within their jurisdiction. Again, these powers are comparable under existing legislation.

However, in terms of the limitation, I note that the bill does not confer the power to carry weapons to all enforcement officers. It’s only the police and the New Zealand Defence Force that are permitted to carry weapons. So I think that is the exception where there is an extension for a specific purpose of the existing powers.

In relation to the flag State consent regime, pursuant to international law, the consent of the flag State is required to exercise powers in relation to foreign vessels except in certain limited situations. This is reflected in clause 12 of the bill, which also sets out the limited situations where, in accordance with international law, flag State consent is not required to exercise powers. This includes where a foreign vessel is engaged in piracy or slavery.

Clause 37 of the bill sets out the process for obtaining flag State consent. It provides that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for obtaining consent of the flag State, and this reflects that such requests are typically transacted through diplomatic channels. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has experience in both requesting and providing flag State consent to other States.

On the issue of—and this was raised last night by the member—the reference to “aircraft” in the maritime bill. Clause 6 of the bill deals with situations where a foreign vessel commits an offence within New Zealand’s maritime zone and then flees into international waters and New Zealand chooses to pursue it. As recognised by international law, a ship or aircraft can be used to pursue an offending ship in that scenario, and that’s why there is a reference to “aircraft” in the bill.

Then there was a further question in relation to the consenting powers of the Attorney-General. Clause 34 of the bill creates some offences necessary for the functioning of the bill, such as threatening or intentionally obstructing an enforcement officer. In line with New Zealand’s practice to require the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecute extraterritorial offences, clause 36 of the bill provides that the Attorney-General’s consent is required to bring proceedings for these offences.

A technical change was recommended during the select committee phase to clause 36, to make it clear that the Attorney-General’s consent is not required to arrest a person or remand them in custody or on bail. This is important, as it may be necessary to urgently arrest someone and remand them in custody before the Attorney-General’s consent is received if the person is a flight risk or a danger to the public. That technical change is consistent with the approach of existing New Zealand legislation, which is to require the Attorney-General’s consent for proceedings to be brought for extraterritorial offences, but allow powers to be exercised before that consent is received.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanks, Madam Chair. It’s a quick question to follow up on, basically, the consent of a foreign power, which absolutely makes sense. I don’t think the Minister would be wanting to ride roughshod. I’m not going to go into the particulars; I don’t think that would be the correct thing to do. But I know, under the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) Act, to do with a foreign ship in the Ross Sea which we wanted to interdict, which I believe the foreign State eventually did not want to be involved with the prosecution of what that ship was involved with—in other words, New Zealand and others knew what the ship was up to, pursued a prosecution. The flag State, the foreign State, involved—and maybe the officials will know which country I’m referring to—decided not to pursue any action or prosecution. I want to be clear: that’s to do with CCAMLR; that’s to do with a fishery. But I would like to extrapolate that into this law. If a foreign State who does not wish to follow the rules chooses not to give consent, does she see a problem with that? In other words, are we not going to be able to exercise our sovereign right through this bill because another nation is not going to follow the rules of law?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Just while the Minister takes advice on that, can I just back up what my colleague has been saying. This is a bill that is necessary for New Zealand, given that we have such a huge territorial sea ourselves and that we are, beyond that, surrounded by international waters. It’s interesting that at the moment you’re looking at a conflict in Europe where a very large State that does have interests in the Pacific has decided to not follow the international rules of law to work simply outside what has been a rules-based system for the last 70-odd years.

So the question does arise around this: are we in fact enacting legislation that will enable a rogue State, effectively, to get away with whatever they want to? It’s almost like a catch-22 situation. So on one hand we want to have legislation that allows us to intercept and to make arrests and to make confiscations of vessels etc., where they have been engaged in either illegal fishing, illegal transport of persons, slavery, effectively, and yet we could be in a situation where our own law says that because the offending country doesn’t agree with or actually give an acquiescence to that particular action, we’re hamstrung. So it’s a very reasonable question that’s being asked, and, of course, we know that we live in a volatile world at the moment. We’re seeing it all the time. We know also that you’ve got various arrangements being made by other large countries about their reengagement in the Pacific, particularly our part of the world, for many of these reasons. So we just need to be clear about what the legislation actually says.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, I was going to give Minister Nanaia Mahuta more time, but also just to acknowledge that the honourable member who has just taken his seat, Gerry Brownlee, had far better articulated my question than I had myself.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to the helpful clarification of the question, it is correct, I guess, to surmise that there is the potential for that situation to occur. Given that we respect the sovereign rights of other States and it is a fundamental rule under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, if they didn’t agree—that would be a very interesting scenario if it did happen—we wouldn’t be able to use the powers under the Act. We would instead be in a situation where would encourage that State to pursue our concerns under their own laws and on our behalf.

The hypothesis is one that is useful to raise; in practice, it would be a peculiar situation. But if it did occur, again, we would use other diplomatic channels to ensure that that State was well aware of our concerns and pursued our concerns under their own laws.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): You have no desire to particularly prolong the discussion, but I wonder if the Minister might reflect—or perhaps the officials would speak to the Minister—about why we have got this in the law. If it effectively could become a hamstring for us in some circumstances, hypothetical though they are at the moment, given the volatility of the world currently then it’s not so unreasonable to consider that hypothetical.

So the question is, really, what would have been the situation had we decided not to put that in? If we’d in fact said that if someone is transgressing New Zealand law in an extraterritorial sense, then we are going to have a domestic law that enables us to go after them. That may be something the Minister wants to clarify—I’m sure there are very good reasons, but I just want to make sure that we’re not doing something that the officials consider to be the puritan approach when in fact we want quite a punitive approach to anybody that’s acting illegally inside our territorial sea, or just beyond in international waters, as prescribed in this bill. I’m sure the Minister’s going to take a call in a minute so I’ll leave it there.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): One of the things that I really want to ensure is that while the hypothesis is purely valid, the practice of how we articulate the international rule of law and the respect that we have for, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, becomes quite an important context for considering the way in which we’re framing this legislation, but also the obligations that we would oblige ourselves to in other international waters as well. So we’re trying to ensure that we’re creating the context by which other States are abiding by international law; we’re obligating them to do that. It would be unusual if States did not have the respect for those obligations that we all want to uphold across international waters.

So the member, I guess, has identified that perhaps writing this into law when there is the potential for flagged States not to recognise or not to consent could happen, however that shouldn’t prevent us from writing the law in the strongest way possible to ensure that we’re building the right architecture around international rules and norms that should exist in the high seas in our international waters, in a way where we can protect our sovereign interests and advocate very consistently in other international waters for the same preservation of those similar concerns. So I do not think it would be useful to not have a provision in here around flagged States. I think we’ve just got to continue to stand on our values and principles—which we have always done as a small country—which means upholding international rules and norms that allow us to be a responsible citizen in the international community, in the way that we protect our sovereign interests and advocate consistently across the globe in this area.

Can I say, if I come back to the reason why we’re trying to ensure there is a bill of this nature, is that we do recognise, and the member makes a very good point, we’re in very challenging and complex times. There’s a lot of unusual things that could happen, actually, because of those complexities. But we should always set the standard by which we choose to be measured by. I believe that this maritime bill that’s been long awaited for, it’s an extension of existing enforcement powers within maritime waters to our international waters. It will give enforcement officers broader powers to be able pursue our interests, especially where there are real concerning criminal activities around human trafficking, trading in endangered species and wildlife, the drug trafficking, and the like. It’s my sense that the House would want to see the progression of this bill fairly swiftly.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Maritime Powers Bill and reports it without amendments. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I present a legislative statement on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to end the export of livestock by sea and shows the Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare. This year, our food and fibre sector is forecast to hit a record export revenue of over $50 billion, demonstrating its value to New Zealand as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Keeping our eyes on our future economic security, it’s vital we stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under more and more scrutiny.

The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in October 2021 and was reported back to this House in April 2022. The committee received and considered 637 submissions and heard oral evidence from 33 of these submitters. We sincerely thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill in the package, but we also acknowledge the valuable input from both written and oral submitters and the considerable support the bill received from the public. The committee was split in their views and were unable to agree on whether they believed this bill should pass. Both National and ACT expressed differing views in which they believed that a focus should be made on regulatory improvement. However, we already have a world-leading regulatory system for the export of livestock, and no improvement would have been enough to protect the welfare of these animals and to protect New Zealand’s reputation, and there’s plenty of evidence that I have here to prove that.

At the heart of our decision is upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare. The Government started a review of the livestock export trade in 2019 in response to concerns the trade could be a risk to New Zealand’s reputation. The objective of the review was to provide New Zealanders an opportunity to reflect on how we can improve the welfare of livestock being exported. The review consulted on several options including both regulatory improvement and a complete ban on the trade. The Cabinet paper and decisions around the future of livestock exports was delayed due to the Government’s response to COVID-19, but not long after we initiated the review, there was the tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in September 2020. This was the seventh livestock ship to have sunk since 2009, globally. Beyond the devastating loss of life—and I want to acknowledge the families of those New Zealanders who lost their lives—the sinking highlighted the concerns and the risks the trade poses to animal welfare. Since January 2019, 27 of the 50 voyages to have left New Zealand have been in non-purpose-built converted vessels. Travelling for long lengths of time on any vessel, let alone ones that are not purpose built for transporting livestock, creates conditions that are not suitable for livestock welfare. Any recurrence of negative animal welfare incidents like this has the potential to inflict lasting damage to New Zealand’s reputation and trade—no matter how hard we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone’s best efforts on those boats.

On 14 April 2021, I announced the Government’s decision to ban the export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship with a transition period of two years. We acknowledge the economic benefits some farmers have and still get from the trade, but support for it is not universal at all. There are different opinions on its long-term value and how it impacts on New Zealand’s commitment to animal welfare. A key question to answer is whether the activity aligns with the international consumers’ image of Aotearoa New Zealand. We have seen an increase, in recent years, with the direct value of New Zealand’s livestock export trade increasing to $261 million for the year ending December 2020, following the $84 million income from 2019. There was a rapid lift in the value of the trade. It’s hard to estimate the total number of farmers who use the trade as that can be dependent on conditions and on farm decisions from year to year. This is a fluctuating trade, and the economic benefit is not consistent. It amounts to only around 0.2 percent of our primary sector revenue since 2015. New Zealand’s $50 billion in primary sector exports, which rely in large part on New Zealand’s good name and reputation, should not be put at risk for this relatively small trade.

I acknowledge that those involved in the trade have made improvements over recent years, but the voyage times and the journey through the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere markets will always impose animal welfare challenges. Despite the best efforts of industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries, as well as any regulatory measures that we could put in place, as long as the trade continues the risk to animal welfare will remain. We’ve also seen an increase in consumer focus on perceptions of animal welfare in a number of markets, such as the United States, the EU, and the UK. With these market-led insights in mind, recurrent, negative animal welfare incidents and reports could inflict lasting damage to New Zealand’s reputation.

I acknowledge that demand for livestock exports by sea has increased in recent years. However, as noted already, they still only amount to approximately 0.2 percent of our primary sector export revenue since 2015. The Government has set—and, you know, it’s been debated and criticised by many out there—a two-year transition period for the trade, which will end on 30 April 2023, next year. This allows stakeholders and our trading partners time to adopt alternative options and gives those farmers and others involved in the trade enough time to change their business models. We recognise the importance of our relationships with international partners and are committed to working with them to boost trade through other means. The decision to ban livestock exports by sea has been discussed with our trading partners. They are aware of why we have come to this decision. I am informed that most of the other affected parties—exporters, farmers, trading partners, and importers—are aware of the ban and understand the intent of the transition period.

During the transition period, we are continuing with improvements being made to the trade. Following the tragic loss of the Gulf Livestock 1 and an independent Heron review, a series of recommendations were implemented immediately, and longer-term improvements will continue to be implemented as part of the livestock export continuous improvement work programme. But, nonetheless, risks with long-distance travel by livestock through the tropics with the consequential heat stress and risks associated with travel through the high seas mean we must act to protect New Zealand’s reputation on animal welfare. Our commitment to high animal welfare standards has already shown its value in animal welfare discussions in free-trade agreement negotiations with the United Kingdom. They were adamant that we had to have and maintain high animal welfare standards. The same expectation is there for the European Union when we’re negotiating with them—as we are at the moment. New Zealand needs to stay at the forefront to maintain its reputation as an exporter with high standards of animal welfare.

Making this change to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 will prohibit the live exports of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship from 30 April 2023. In doing so, we reinforce, and build on, New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and ethical producer of high-quality products from animal management. There are numerous images, and I know that submissions were made to the select committee that showed the conditions that are often present on these long voyages of up to three weeks. I spoke directly and rang around, before I made this decision, with people who had been on many of these voyages and reported directly from where the animals were landed, and we saw some of those images from Sri Lanka. It is absolutely essential that, if we’re to get premiums for our products in international markets, we maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and that we do not continue with the live exports of animals by ship because of the inherent risks to animal welfare and our reputation.

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

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I rise once again to do the Government’s job for it and actually support the rural sector and the productive powerhouse of New Zealand, because neither the Government nor Minister Damien O’Connor will do it. I’d like to acknowledge the families, though, before I begin my submission this evening, who lost their lives following the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, particularly the two New Zealanders Scott Harris and Lochie Bellerby. But this proposed law change has been prompted by an accident—a terrible, terrible maritime accident. We would acknowledge that the immediate response was appropriate, where following the tragedy the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) placed a temporary ban on live exports, which was lifted in October 2020.

But let’s remember, when the trade resumed new more rigorous animal welfare standards and reporting requirements were introduced as a result of the inquiry carried out by Michael Heron QC and Admiral Tony Parr into the trade. These new standards were well received by industry and our offshore markets, and they set a real precedent as far as global standards go. And that is the opportunity that this Parliament, and indeed this Government, have in front of it now. It is two choices: to either continue its plans for an outright ban, or take the opportunity to lead the world in welfare standards for the safe and humane trade of live animals. That is what we in the Primary Production Committee heard time and time again.

Unfortunately, though, that select committee inquiry has been nothing short of a farce. A totally predetermined outcome that has made an absolute mockery of what an inquiry should look like. The MPI departmental report actually states, and I quote, “Given the Government has made clear its commitments to the ban being in place by 30 April 2023, the recommendations in this report are intended to give effect to this decision. In MPI’s view, the bill should progress as it was presented to the House at the first reading.” Well, what a shame that that was not made clear to all the submitters who put in the time and effort to make a submission to the inquiry. They were doing their level best to make this Government see sense. Many, many industry submitters made the point that this is a largely unregulated industry, but the vast majority impressed upon us that rather than an outright ban on live exports, the Government should look to legislate for a gold standard—a quality-assurance programme that would set world-leading compliance standards.

The fact that overwhelming evidence that opposed the ban and suggested an alternative approach has been ignored is, frankly, egregious. Certainly, as the Minister acknowledged, we have heard evidence of substandard practice that no fair-minded New Zealander should tolerate. But a regime like a quality assurance programme would ensure that New Zealand exporters adopt the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Because in fact New Zealand exporters do set high standards for themselves, and repeatedly we have heard from industry that those standards can get even better.

We know for a fact that more custom-built ships land in our ports than those that have been refurbished. We also know for a fact that more ships that are less than 25 years old land in our ports, and that is the really important point. New Zealand’s current exports require high animal welfare standards, but these are not enshrined in legislation. So surely a far better option for all involved, least of all the cattle that we’re seeking to protect, is to legislate for world-leading regulations.

Now they, Minister, would include things like built-for-purpose ships with none being older than 25 years old. State-of-the-art air conditioning and air ventilation systems that don’t cause intolerable noise to animals. Vets on all vessels to ensure that welfare remains at high standards and there are multiple checks made throughout the voyage. Restricting stocking densities on vessels to about 90 percent of the limit, as the Australians have recently imposed. Increased requirements for voyage reporting, including daily vet checks and reports. Increased minimum feed and water requirements to ensure that at least 20 percent extra feed is available on ship for the inevitable delays to some voyages.

The overwhelming evidence, despite all of that that was given to us at the select committee, despite the regulatory impact statement giving two options—the improvements similar to what I’ve just mentioned, or an outright ban—the Government is still, inexplicably, determined to ban this $261 million trade. It is an emotional topic, but it needs a logical conversation and a logical, practical application. I do understand the perception that New Zealand has no control of the welfare standards of animals once they land in port in offshore jurisdictions, but again, an importer licensing regime, a quality assurance programme would help enforce New Zealand’s standards in offshore jurisdictions. And let’s be rational here, no foreign farmer paying an absolute premium for these animals are going to want them to turn up in poor condition, least of all harm them, once in-country. As vets and multiple exporters told the select committee, offshore standards are higher than perceived. A lot of these offshore jurisdictions are learning from New Zealand’s practices and Australia’s practices, and they too want to be seen as world-leading in this space. Why on earth would a—for example—Chinese farmer spend all that money shipping animals halfway around the world only for them to live a life of misery.

I’d also like to turn the attention to the Government’s very casual glossing over of the wider economic impact of this ban. To claim it is just a $260 million industry is farcical. It is grossly underestimated. The select committee asked, but would not be provided with any detailed economic analysis of the wider impact or the wider ramifications. This is an important revenue stream—yes, for breeders and farmers, but what about the knock-on effects to the truckies, the stock agents, the vets, the representatives? This is too big an industry to just impose a ban on rural New Zealand.

So to conclude with the National Party minority view, I would like to put it on the record it is the view of the National Party that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to take a leadership role in setting and maintaining world-leading compliance standards. In order to enable this, the Government should create a quality regulatory environment to licensed operators. Rather than an outright ban of live animal exports by ship, it is the National Party view that the Government should legislate a quality assurance programme that would include but not be limited to interim recommendations made in the Heron report, as well as an industry-led gold standard assurance programme. The National Party opposes this bill in its entirety.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great surprise for me to be standing taking a call on this bill. I wasn’t on the select committee, and I understand that it was a hung select committee, so there was in fact no decision made—they weren’t able to come to a decision. I’d just like to acknowledge that it would have been a very harrowing but also interesting select committee process, which seemed as if there were two very disparate, very different viewpoints. I’d just like to acknowledge that when I take this call tonight, I have used the documents and was not involved in the process.

First and foremost, like others I would like to acknowledge the tragic loss of the 43 crew and the 6,000 head of cattle on Gulf Livestock 1. That’s a tragedy, but, let’s be very clear, that was not the reason this work was undertaken. I had a look at the Mike Heron QC report. I’d just like to read this quote, if I may. It’s in regards to the international movement of stock across borders.

“[The] transport of livestock by sea over long periods”—and, remember, it takes about 17 days to get from New Zealand to China on a boat for these stock—“is a complex and challenging exercise requiring thorough planning and diligent execution [in] all stages to ensure adequate animal welfare results. The trade is difficult to regulate, given it spans jurisdictions and the high seas and involves a myriad of international agencies, regulators, and commercial players. It involves many participants, including veterinarians, maritime surveyors, stock handlers, ship’s crews, ship owners … their agents, exporters, and various regulators. In such a context, there are no simple solutions and there is no single body or agency with ultimate control. In addition, we note the obvious: rules and regulations themselves cannot necessarily prevent tragedies and accidents.”

I put that quote on the Hansard because I think the Minister spoke very well to this point. We cannot risk the reputation—the international reputation—of New Zealand as a safe and generally grass-fed primary industry exporter to be basically throwing these animals on to ships, treating them in a manner in which we hope—and we want—them to be treated the best, but we cannot guarantee that and we cannot make a clear process, besides a regulation, to ensure their safety. Therefore this is a difficult thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, this is another example of the Labour Government introducing flawed legislation that’s going to have bad outcomes. It’s left to the Opposition to stand up for the farming community.

I’m just going to speak very briefly about Scott Harris and Lochie Bellerby, and extend my condolences to their family. In the case of Lochie Bellerby, the adventurous young man who was working to save up to get in to managing and buying the family farm near Te Ānau, Southland really feels his loss.

This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and inserts a new section 41 that, “prohibits for, and the issue of, animal welfare export certificates for the export of cattle, deer, goats, or sheep by ship if the animals would leave New Zealand on or after 30 April 2023.” By prohibiting the issuing of animal welfare certificates this bill has the effect of an absolute prohibition on these exports from that date.

In April 2021, the Government announced a ban on live exports would be implemented. This was a reaction to the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, where both animal and animal lives were lost. And I’ll just note that the Panama authorities have recently released a report on the fatal Gulf Livestock 1 sinking to New Zealand authorities. However, New Zealand authorities have not released that report to the public. I hope they do, as it’s a matter of some public interest. This was, albeit, a truly tragic maritime disaster. However, instead of enshrining an animal welfare gold standard into law, the Government has instead used this as an opportunity to shut down a significant industry for New Zealand, virtually overnight. While there have been examples in the media and in the select committee of poor practice, this does not reflect the standards of the majority of the exporters who operate built-for-purpose vessels and undertake strict monitoring on board and at destination. These exporters have also been calling for a gold standard to get rid of the small minority, like in any industry, where there’s some cowboys who don’t comply with the standards voluntarily.

In 2020, ruminant livestock exports brought over $261.5 million into the New Zealand economy, capturing a large portion of the total livestock export trade globally. This revenue is crucial to the wellbeing of New Zealand’s rural communities. It is also important to remember New Zealand’s breeding livestock, particularly dairy cattle, are highly valued in the international agricultural community, and that our high standards of animal welfare increase the desirability of our breeding livestock. Rather than legislate just to end New Zealand’s livestock export capabilities, we should develop a gold-standard approach for our livestock export capability. This could be achieved by aligning our practices with those of Australia to ensure that supreme animal welfare conditions are upheld by livestock exporters, while also preserving our stake in the livestock export market. By choosing to ban the live export trade, the Government is turning its back on animal welfare rather than taking up the opportunity to globally influence and contribute to better animal welfare into the future. The demand for livestock in established foreign markets will subside or disappear if New Zealand bans the export of live breeder cattle. Livestock will be sourced from other countries without the animal welfare support and the regulation that our law could provide for.

This legislation also overlooks another significant consequence: the New Zealand dairy herd has effectively ceased expanding. Now dairy herds reproduce for lactation purposes, and the proposed ban will see their resulting progeny becoming essentially worthless, adding to our livestock in New Zealand. The opportunity costs of these 150,000 bobby calves means that New Zealand could forgo $200 million to $300 million in direct economic benefits from the live export industry. Labour may think this income is just for farmers, but that’s incorrect; it’s for all of New Zealand. Let me use the example of David Lindsay, a sixth-generation Southland farmer in my electorate who wrote to the Primary Production Committee last year. David and his father had been supplying export cattle to several export companies for many years. David and his father are also predominantly dairy farmers. They milk their cows 365 days a year. To do this, they run a split calving system. This means calves are born in spring and summer, 65 percent of their herd is calved in spring, and they autumn calve 15 percent of their herd. The remainder of their herd, 20 percent, is made up by non-pregnant calves that they purchase from other farmers in the autumn. Now these empty, non-pregnant cows are replacement stock. Like most New Zealand dairy farmers, David’s farm does not require calves to be reared to maintain their herd, therefore the export market provides an important outlet for the calves they don’t need.

There are many benefits to the system that Southland farmers like David run. Exporting unrequired livestock improves efficiency by reducing wastage. They don’t need replacement stock to be reared. Live export cattle are wintered on feed pads. Farmers like David have actually reduced the environmental footprint by reducing the calves they rear and graze. Farmers involved in the live export trade provide employment and spend much of their income in their rural communities. David told the select committee that the revenues derived from live exports are used to support the farm’s investments and to reducing its environmental impact. And this is the thing, you’ve got to be in the black to be green. Something that I think Labour, unfortunately, forgets a lot of the time.

David’s submission also highlights that farmers in Southland and across the country strive to provide the best conditions for their animals. In David’s case, his business has invested in excellent calf-rearing facilities, chilled calf milk vats, and purpose-built stockyards for the calves. The farm also employs five calf rearers throughout the season. Further, to fatten the calves, David leases a local farm which provides a healthy rental to a local owner and provides more local employment. David’s farm turns over about $1 million, which is then reinvested back into his local community through the wages paid, the lease of farmland, the purchase of calf feed and trace elements, local vets, local farm supply providers, local tradespeople, local stock agents, and transport providers who transport animals between farms and transport facilities. This, I think, is something that Labour often forgets, is the ecosystem of our economy and the complex web of interrelated relationships that actually make the economy work; break one part of it, you break the system. It’s a real risk.

Labour does not realise that rural communities, everyday people who work hard to support their families, are going to be adversely affected by this outright ban. As a consequence of this legislation, hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be taken away from small rural communities around New Zealand. This foregone income is going to go to another country in this post-COVID environment when export income is critical to our nation’s economic recovery and to the resilience of New Zealand’s rural communities.

I also note with concern that Cabinet made its policy determination before having consulted the industry or with rural New Zealand. It is important to remember that New Zealand has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world already. Also, the Beef + Lamb New Zealand study shows that New Zealand farm produce produces only 25 percent of the global average in terms of carbon emissions. Removing New Zealand’s ability to export stock will only serve to induce demand for less carbon-efficient beef, which will ultimately increase global emissions.

Compelling evidence from cattle breeders, vets, and export industry experts has been totally ignored at the select committee. Unfortunately, this is becoming a habit from this Labour Government. There is an alternative approach to the self-destructive proposal for our economy. National believes that the livestock trade should continue but with stronger regulations through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. The Government has turned a blind eye to submitters and the points that they raised very rightly.

The live export sector directly contributed $261 million to the economy in 2020. The projected economic loss caused by such a ban has been grossly underestimated, and rural communities across New Zealand will be detrimentally impacted by both jobs and revenue loss. Food supplies and exports are becoming more important than ever in the coming years as the world faces a food crisis. The world’s food security relies, in part, on Kiwi farmers, Kiwi growers, and the Kiwi Government to be encouraging, to do their bit, and to make sure that we can export food to the world, not be hampered by their own Government.

New Zealand’s current exports require high animal welfare standards. There are ways to improve animal welfare. For example, National would support legislating for purpose-built ships, airflow standards, maximum stocking rates, minimum vet availability on board, increasing food reserves, and minimum drainage pen standards. This bill is irretrievably flawed. It threatens jobs. It threatens our rural communities, and it creates a demand in the market overseas for less carbon-efficient and less animal welfare friendly products to supply the market. National does not support this bill.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to ban the export of livestock by sea and shows the Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare.

When we talk about this bill, we talk about the overall primary industry sector, which was about $50 billion, and that’s what this bill is seeking to protect. Now, we cannot risk this. We have heard from the member that resumed his seat, Joseph Mooney, and other Opposition MPs about how this Government and this bill is going to cost jobs, is going to cost many things, but the Opposition did not—I do feel like their views are very short-sighted, because to save $200 million, risking a $50 billion sector, because this is all about reputation, and that’s what we are aiming to protect.

The ban will have a transition period of up to two years, allowing stakeholders time to change business models. This shows that something has been cooked overnight. The Government has done the review of livestock export and trade in 2019 and responded to concerns that the trade could be a risk to New Zealand’s reputation. Now, we acknowledge that the objective of the review is to provide New Zealanders an opportunity on how we can enhance the welfare of the livestock being exported. Now, we acknowledge that the farmers do benefit from the trade; however, it’s a fluctuating trade and the economic benefits are not consistent. The Ministry for Primary Industries’ report acknowledged this impact but also the view that the impact is small in the context of the overall primary sector.

New Zealand needs to stay at the forefront of the game to maintain their reputation as an exporter with a high standard of animal welfare, and this was brought up during the free-trade agreement discussions with the UK and the EU. This legislation is sensible, it’s the right one, it looks at a long-term benefit rather than the short term, it’s something that’s been designed to protect a $50 billion sector instead of $261 million. So it’s sensible, it’s the right one, I commend it to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start this contribution tonight with a quote from a parliamentarian in this Chamber in 2015—and I quote: “[This] bill will go some way—some way—to strengthening [the] standards of animal welfare and protecting animals from ill-treatment. But it also represents a real missed opportunity to take our legal protections for animals a lot further and to be a world leader in the area of animal welfare. I am pleased, for instance, that there will be a new “low-level” [offending] for people who [want to] hurt animals, so [that we’re] not focused just on the worst offending. We need to be focused on all offending, and this bill addresses just that. I am pleased the new regulations will specify mandatory and enforceable animal welfare standards. I am pleased that the wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals will now be an offence that can be prosecuted. These were [some of the] issues [that] I raised with the Minister at the time all those years ago, so I am pleased that some of them are being addressed in this piece of legislation.”

I think that this is a really important reflection, on the Hansard, only several years ago, to bring to the Chamber tonight, because that contribution was of course from John Banks, the former leader of the ACT Party, who also in that contribution went on to say—and I quote: “Live animal exports need to be very closely monitored—indeed, if they are necessary at all, and I am not convinced.” This, of course, was during a debate in a 2015 amendment bill on the Animal Welfare Act, which was celebrated and introduced by the then National Government Minister Nathan Guy, and inserted what we now know as the welfares or the wellbeings inside of the Animal Welfare Act. That night, Nathan Guy said—and I quote: “I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Animal welfare matters to [all] New Zealanders. It matters because we know that animals are sentient—capable of having feelings, perceptions, and experiences.”

Referring to, I guess, the chronology of events that have led us to this tonight—and I want to acknowledge, as other parliamentarians have, the loss and devastation with a number of ships on live export routes sinking—it was in 2008, per concerns about animal welfare, that Aotearoa New Zealand initially banned live export for slaughter. Illogically, we did not extend that to live export for continued growth of those animals. It simply does not make sense to have a situation where we were comfortable, seemingly, as a Parliament and, seemingly, across parliamentary lines, to have a situation where we recognise that we could not control the animal welfare standards with regard to slaughter at the point of live export but that we were somehow willing to entertain continual enablement of live export for sake of live export, for sake of that continued growth and eventual slaughter—none of that animal welfare standard that we would be able to impose on other countries.

The main contributions from the Opposition to this legislation tonight have focused primarily on what the former speaker, Joseph Mooney, was alluding to as the so-called “ecosystem of the economy”. I’m so glad to be talking about the ecosystem of the economy, because this is a concept that the Greens have been banging on about for a really long time now. When we start to think about the economy, it’s really important that we ask ourselves “What actually is the economy?” Well, the economy, it happens, is all of us and the things that we create and the planet that we extract resources from and the relationships that we have with each other and with the planet. That former National Party speaker also went on to say that when you break one part of it, that you go on to break other parts. I think the point was that there are flow-on effects for actions that we in this House make in terms of the broader economy. To that effect, I would invite, again, National Party members to reflect on the fact that in so many areas of our economy where we’ve continued to see persistent inequality and extraction of our planet to the detriment of the literal life-support system that all of us rely on, that that ecosystem is very much out of balance, but not in the way that they would be seeking for us to entertain tonight.

They’ve also spoken about how this is, again, going to be detrimental to our economic outlook. To that effect, I would just again raise the point as put forward by the Minister and by officials that live export makes up 0.2 percent of New Zealand’s primary sector export revenue since 2015. It might also be worth thinking about the fact that European Parliaments in February 2019 voted on a series of changes representing a shift away from live export.

We have the primary piece of legislation which this bill is seeking to amend that has in it the wellbeings as initially put in by a former National Government Minister and with contributions from a former ACT Party leader, asking for it to go further and questioning whether there should continue to be the existence of live export, because it was questionable and dubious at that point in time. This cannot come soon enough. Again, I want to acknowledge the activists and the advocates who have spent so long in trying to draw the public’s attention to just this.

I also want to reflect on the Primary Production Committee report, which the Opposition has spent a long time referring to one perspective as raised at committee. But quoting from the select committee’s report it says—and I quote: “A number of submitters who supported the ban believe that it should instead take effect immediately, or as soon as possible.” Because the fact of the matter is that in that two-year phase-out period, we have continued to see dozens of ships with thousands of animals being live exported to countries with which we have no control over the animal welfare standards of at their point of arrival, let alone the questionable standards with which we continue to see some problems in that process of live export on those ships.

I also want to acknowledge my forebears in the animal welfare portfolio in the Greens, particularly Mojo Mathers—who I believe should have the honourable title—who has continued to have a lasting impact and legacy on this Parliament subsequent to her departure. She was calling for this a decade ago.

It would be remiss of me, too, to not acknowledge the incredible mahi of my colleague in the last term of Parliament and somebody who has continued to go on to advocate for animal welfare. That is of course Gareth Hughes, who accepted a petition back in 2019 from Save Animals From Exploitation from 30,000 New Zealanders begging the Government to just get on with it and phase out live exports.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that there are a number of submitters who were speaking to the reality that whilst this legislation focuses on live export via sea, there are still other types of live export—particularly those via air, which we continue to export our animals to other countries with which we do not have control over the animal welfare standards of. This, of course, was the rationale with which we ended live export for slaughter in 2008, but made the very illogical decision not to extend for live export writ large.

So again, referring to the contribution as made by my colleague in the Labour Party to those National Party MPs who continue to raise the fact that we could seek to maybe have some kind of discussions with these countries that we’re exporting to around their animal welfare standards. Once again, if you look at the Heron report, you will see very clearly—as I’m sure the National Party would understand, given their constant banging of the drum of their economic literacy—that we cannot regulate the markets internally, what’s occurring with regard to animal welfare standards in those other countries. Again, this is why we sought to do it in 2008. I’m hearing from the National Party that this is why we can seek to regulate. We can seek to regulate and licence those who are leaving our shores, absolutely. But we have next to no control over what happens when those animals arrive on that foreign soil. And that is the point.

The Greens agree with those submitters who ask for this to go further and faster, and with that I will end my contribution. Kia ora.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, gee whiz! What an absolute shemozzle—another ideological bill from the champagne and chardonnay socialists on the left. The Labour Government just loves to ban stuff. We’re in a cost of living crisis—find ever-increasing ways to kill off industry. This industry is worth $261 million last fiscal year, and we know, economically, it has a ripple effect—half a billion bucks, I wager anyone. This bill is purely ideological.

I also sit with my colleagues and the colleagues on the left in the Primary Production Committee. I heard multiple submissions in support of the continuation of this trade. So many submitters felt jilted. The conversation was one sided, and they weren’t being listened to. The process, they said to me, was disingenuous.

I wager anyone in this House that this is a complete departure from common sense. I am a farmer. I’ve used this trade. It’s brilliant. It creates a fiscal revenue stream for me. In the absence of anything else, I can see it being hugely problematic. It is predicated, as we well know, on the downing of the Gulf Livestock 1 ship. Tragic—we all accept there was a tragic loss of life and livestock. But this, however, has blurred the lines between the animal welfare standards in transit and the incident on that tragic day. Terrible loss of life—terrible loss of livestock. We’ve confused the lines between animal welfare and transit and the welfare at destination, and apparently the Green member, Chlöe Swarbrick, thinks that she should have oversight into foreign jurisdictions over what they do. Noted submitters, veterinarians, stakeholders, and farmer growers—it was seen by them as an erosion of all trust by Government.

If we’re not going to do it, who is? I think that’s the fundamental question. It’s not being asked. That production, Minister—you know full well—will be pushed offshore, and, by virtue of that, the animal welfare standards fall. The detractors of the trade can only espouse that. They don’t actually have an honest narrative. It spoke of our international reputation. Well, I wager anyone in this House, we are the number one farmers in the world, and our welfare standards are amongst that.

Significance was also paid to animal welfare and the sentience of animals and the five concerns in what animal welfare and the designation meant. We heard a lot of submissions. They spoke to significant mortality on farm compared to—well, no; I’ll rephrase that. They spoke to mortality being significantly less—I apologise—than on average percentage compared to farms here in New Zealand. How do you justify that? I can’t make sense of this.

It spoke to condition score gains—now half a condition score. I’m not sure if the members on that side of the House actually know what a condition score is—crickets. They don’t know. They actually don’t know. Have they ever been on a farm? This is the interesting thing. That speaks to weight gain, for the individuals on the other side of the House.

Investment in pre-departure conditioning: the tens of thousands of man hours that go into this trade every year to secure that reality. Rural communities and jobs—we heard from submitters—and the employment it created across rural New Zealand. This will totally erode that.

Notably—and I think the members on the right-hand side of the House would agree with me—there will be a glut on the bobby market. We absolutely know it. There’s going to be another 150,000 to 200,000-odd bobby calves going into the trade. Arguably, the left side of the House doesn’t care about that, but, hey, look, that’s their burden to contend with. Further overburden of the meat sector, that’s what we heard, and I think that’s what needs to be addressed.

Submitters noted conditions on board with purpose-built ships and the average age of the training fleet.

Now, I’m cognisant, and the people on the right side of the House are cognisant, there is the capacity to have a regulated gold standard. The Heron report spoke to the continuation of the trade, which we all canvassed in select committee, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We are in a cost of living crisis. This is not the time to shrink this trade. It absolutely speaks to localised, rural economies, and, arguably—I wager anyone—this Government is totally turned off to the rural sector.

The industry absolutely agrees there’s always the capacity to do more to speak to that gold standard. Changes on 1 June that were proposed, 2021: the Ministry for Primary Industries implemented a new minimum conditions code—and again, I reiterate that the left-hand side of the House doesn’t understand that concept. Have a minimum live weight of 200 kilograms—well, I spend a lot of time with livestock, and I can tell you 200 kilos is a yearling. The average size of these animals is significantly more than that. Decrease the minimum/maximum stage of pregnancy—well, anyone who’s farming understands the concept of in-calf cattle going offshore and the mitigations that would have to be employed in the process. The new requirements for drafting—fair enough, absolutely. This is the kind of facilitation and logic that the rural sector can employ when being challenged to improve.

The 1 November 2021 changes: bulls and heifers to be kept separately pre-export—well, gosh, anyone farming knows that concept. I mean, this is the reality, these are the challenges met, these are the mitigations that can be put in place—and recently mated heifers to be given an extra 15 percent on board by area—absolutely, damnably good stuff. The ability to self-regulate, work within a gold standard, and continue this trade, prescriptions on purpose-built ships, facilitation of purpose-built ventilation, specialised effluent disposal, increased bedding areas per square metreage in transit, and the animal production numbers needed to facilitate this trade forward, will only create further revenue to a depressed—and oppressed, by that of the left—economy. Adequate and increased food storage for considered delays that may happen during voyage and at sea—absolutely. This speaks to the gold standard this Government has totally overlooked.

ACT believes in the consistent principled approach of objectives to further improve animal welfare. We are the number one country that speaks to ruralists in determining animal welfare, and it can only get better with further oversight. ACT would absolutely repeal this ban as part of any Government. In a contracted economy, it is not time for an ideological, political, pontificating crew out of the left to ban this trade, and it’s a further beat-up of the primary sector. It’s absolute, total malarkey. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, amends the Animal Welfare Act of 1999 to ban the exports of livestock—cattle, deer, goats, and sheep—by sea. And it shows this Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards for animal welfare. That was most apparent in the over 600 submissions that the Primary Production Committee—

Nicola Grigg: You weren’t there.

GINNY ANDERSEN: —heard, in particular. But I do have the report, funnily enough. A number of submitters commented on the effect of the ban on New Zealand’s reputation. And submitters were quite concerned as to how New Zealand’s reputation for high standards on animal welfare would fare if we continued this practice.

In particular, submitters were concerned that this reputation is, in fact, being undermined by livestock export as New Zealand cannot ensure the welfare of those stock at the end of the line. That was made most apparent in that incident—that’s been discussed more than once in this debate around live exports who died—when the Gulf Livestock 1, with 43 crew members and nearly 6,000 cattle, capsized in the South China Sea after leaving New Zealand in 2020. We need to remember that because that is a risk that continues to happen.

But that’s not only what happened. During that submission period, we also heard about the conditions that cattle experience: inadequate ventilation causing heat stress and cold stress; water and feed troughs that are incorrect and can’t feed properly, they can’t get access to food and water during the trip; lack of facilities to handle animals for veterinary treatment, they can’t get proper medical treatment; inadequate effluent management systems causing effluent accumulation; inappropriate pen surfaces, such as concrete, causing skin lesions and lameness, and interrupting essential animal behaviours—these are not good aspects to be having in terms of our international reputation.

I commend the Minister for taking a stance to phase out live exports—he’s done a fantastic job. By having a good transitional period in place to give the sector time to adjust, we know that we can continue to be the clean, green country that we are, and have a good reputation to trade well at a great level internationally. I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill which seeks to allow this Government to ban the export of livestock, cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by sea—taking effect 30 April 2023.

Like many others, I do want to acknowledge the families who lost loved ones in the Gulf Livestock 1. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Bellerby family from Southland who lost their son and brother Lochie Bellerby in this tragic maritime accident. From the review that resulted from this maritime tragedy, there were two approaches that this Government could have taken. The first one was to continue the trade but with stronger regulations, maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relations. Now, National obviously agrees with that approach—a gold standard with changes to perhaps stocking density, increases in reporting from vets, increases in minimum fodder requirements, things that could have made a real difference to animal welfare. But instead of working with the primary industry on a complex issue to bring about workable solutions, this Government chooses to ban it. To shut off $261 million of revenue and the wider financial implications for the rural sector. I guess throwing away $260 million is nothing to a Government that wastes billions. So it meant nothing to them.

The issue here is that this Government has taken the lazy way out. They wouldn’t sit down and work with the primary sector. They wouldn’t try and work to save a source of revenue for this country, and they wouldn’t try and improve animal welfare by doing things that took a little bit more time. Because if we don’t do it here in New Zealand, we can close our eyes and it’s obviously not going to be happening anywhere else. So the Primary Production Committee ignored science, ignored evidence from cattle breeders, from vets, from experts in the export industry.

This virtue signalling isn’t new to this Government. Let’s have a look at the pork industry where such stringent animal welfare regulations have been put in place that now we import 60 percent of the pork that we eat in this country. Sixty percent of the pork that is eaten in this country is imported from countries that have lesser animal welfare standards than we do. So closing your eyes and saying it’s not happening here, it’s not a problem in the world anymore just isn’t the case. It is absolute nimbyism—“It’s not happening in my backyard.”

Last night we had the pastoral lease amendment bill, and when we started talking about the high country farming families, we heard laughing and scoffing from the other side of the House. They scoffed at any anguish that was causing to those high country farmers. Well, I want to read some excerpts from an email that was sent to me from one of my constituents. And I may not get it all read and I apologise to them. It goes: “Live exports, what it means to us. Here on the farm the ability to live export is important to us both financially and, more importantly, emotionally. Each year we sell about 70 jersey heifers and they go to China. Without this market, those very heifers have no future. Here is the choice for our spring-born surplus heifers: we could sell them on the bobby calf truck at four days of age.”—probably on the other side of the House they don’t know what bobby calves are, they are calves four days old—“We would get income less than the cost of the milk they drank in the four days. It’s horrific to think that animals of four days of age should be killed to save them from a life as a profitable breeding cow in a sophisticated operation in China.” I could go on, but obviously I haven’t got time. But we oppose the—[Time expired]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Jamie Strange.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): As much as I would like to hear more from the previous speaker, unfortunately we have, as you’ve indicated, run out of time, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. We have heard quite a bit in this debate around the topic of trade. As we know, as a small country at the bottom of the planet we are very reliant on trade. We need to be aware of the global perceptions that are changing. As a race of humans, we are continuing to change the way that we operate and there is a global change in terms of animal welfare. It’s important that we stay ahead of this curve as this change takes place. More and more people are expressing their concern about animal welfare. It’s important that we are a world leader in this area.

I’ve heard the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor talk about “volume-to-values”. We hear a lot about “volume-to-value”, but “volume-to-values”, whereby the values that we uphold are important for us to be leaders in the world. This is an example of us being a leader for the rest of the world; sensing the tea leaves, in terms of the global perceptions that are changing. This is an important piece of legislation as we lead the world in this area. I commend it to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. Look, I was very, very lucky to sit on a portion of the submissions on this bill and the members on the other side are right—there were, of course, people who submitted in support of the bill. As someone who doesn’t often sit on the Primary Production Committee I was surprised to hear some of the arguments in favour of the bill, which were, essentially, that not that many cattle died in the 14 or so days that it takes to transport the cattle from New Zealand to the overseas market. Given that the animals had to be in prime health to be put on board, I was surprised that any cattle mortality at all was acceptable. But what was never alluded to by those submitters was the fact that 14 days in a stall, crammed into a cargo vessel through the Tropics was in and of itself traumatic. The animal welfare issues there are significant. So it was good that even prior to the tragedy that we’ve heard so much about how this Government was looking at this issue and it was precipitated by that horrific tragedy.

So look, animal welfare is important. We do want to be world-leading in that area and our farmers, by and large, are outstanding at looking after the welfare of their cattle and other stock. This is just an additional piece of that puzzle so that New Zealand can lead the world in its farming practices across the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first wanted to mention this evening the loss of life on the Gulf Livestock 1 ship, particularly the human life, but obviously an awful maritime accident happened which saw a whole shipload of animals go down.

But having said that, and going through this process, I would have to say that this is probably one of the worst select committee experiences that I’ve had, and it is definitely the worst select committee experience I’ve had on the Primary Production Committee. I want to say that this is not a reflection on our chair, Jo Luxton—Jo is a very good chair of the committee. But what actually happened on this committee is that the members of the Government were sent to the committee without the ability to change anything.

So last night we were sitting in the House talking on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, and the Minister actually made a comment to the people on this side of the House and said, “Why are you putting up Supplementary Order Papers? Why did you not make an effort at the committee to change this piece of legislation?” Well I can tell you that—that wasn’t the Primary Production Committee, that was the Environment Committee, but I can tell you the opposite effect has actually happened on this committee. This [Holds up a stack of papers] is a pile of absolutely wasted submissions. And it was very embarrassing sitting there as a select committee member, watching good people coming in and making submissions, knowing that those submissions were going to make no progress because nobody was listening at the other end.

Now, we as a committee also heard some submissions from examples of welfare on some ships that needed to be improved, and none of us would disagree with that. There were some of those ships that shouldn’t be sailing with animals on it, and there were some of those ships that should not be allowed to continue. However, we saw some exemplar examples, and we heard from the industry about ships that were built for purpose—for animals, less than 25 years old, that could be used. They were talking about the amount of feed on the ship; the extension of five days extra feed in case there was a hold-up to make sure the animals weren’t going hungry. We heard from vets and we heard people working on those ships, and we know that this process can be done extremely well.

But of course, this Government decides that they want to ban it. Actually, this is despite advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries in the first instance, and maybe the two Ministers sitting over the other side of the House—Damien O’Connor and Megan Woods—should learn a lesson one from the other. Minister Woods actually decided that she was going to ban offshore oil and gas permits, and that resulted in a whole heap of Indonesian coal. Banning things is not the answer.

So if I look at the regulatory impact statement here, “Any move to prohibit the export of livestock would cause an economic loss to these groups, and make recovery from COVID-19 more difficult in the rural communities where livestock exports provide an additional source of income. For some individual businesses, that impact is likely to be significant.” And it wasn’t just the businesses we heard about; we had submitters come in from rural communities. I specifically remember Mark Cameron, a man from one of the communities up in Northland, that talked about the ripple effect of what would happen to those people in his rural community if these livestock exports were to be banned. Unfortunately, the Minister for Rural Communities, who is also the Minister of Agriculture, took no notice of that and it didn’t make any difference.

So it said, likewise—and we hear all the time about “this is going to ruin our reputation”. Now, we teased that out with various people in the committee, including the Minister, and all anyone could tell us—we asked for evidence, we asked the Ministry for Primary Industries for evidence, for somebody to quantify that this was going to ruin our reputation. The only thing we heard from people was, “Well, the Minister said.” Even I think the Minister himself told us that it was his opinion, and he’d been talking to people. He had no facts, he had no statistics, and he had no quantifiable evidence. It was the Minister’s opinion that this was going to happen. So the Minister made a case that it was going to affect our trade. But on page 2 here, when I look at the regulatory impact statement, it said, “Likewise, if the trade was to be banned, we could damage our reputation with trading partners, especially in the countries where trade is used to help the importing country meet its poverty reduction or rural economic growth policy objectives.”

So I want to say what a shocking process this was. I do feel for those people who came in and made very, very, very genuine submissions, coming into that room to make a submission, thinking that they were adding value to the parliamentary process, only to be ignored.

What I’m also disappointed about tonight is: where are the members of the Primary Production Committee? The Government’s put other speakers up on this bill today. I will note that Dr Duncan Webb said that he had, in part, sat on the committee occasionally. But it almost seems like—are people actually not wanting to get up and speak about their decision, because they were actually put there to carry out the Minister’s instructions?

Livestock exports form part of a network of trading activities that create and foster relationships and a customer base that support New Zealand’s broader international trade objectives. We hear a lot, over the other side of the House, about how we can’t guarantee what happens to those animals when they get to the other side. People are paying mega-money for these animals. They are paying a fortune. For those animals, by the time they leave the country, they need to be travelled, they need to be in tip-top condition. Who in their right mind would take a ship of animals that the buyer at the other end was going to refuse to take? It just doesn’t happen. They actually pay very good money, and when they get to the other end, why would they not want to look after the animals, why would they want to abuse them, why would they waste money?

We asked a lot of questions, actually, about food security in the countries where those animals are being exported to, and particularly in this time now, even since we did this, the world has ended up in a different place around food security. We’ve got some awful things going on where Russia’s having a full-on attack with Ukraine. Ukraine actually has 30 percent of our wheat. We hear about canola, but also not all of that food that’s produced in those countries up there is going to humans; some of it is going to animals. There’s going to be quite a dire need in the Northern Hemisphere.

If the Minister really thinks that we can ban this trade, just like Minister Woods thought we could ban the exports and now we’re importing coal from Indonesia, if the Minister thinks that he can shut his eyes and think that if we ban this in New Zealand where we have some top-class exporters who work in with exporters in Australia, that other people are not going to do it, then he can think again. I remember clearly the Minister basing this on trade. Well, Minister, Australia still do this. Australia got trade agreements before we did. So where on earth did that argument come from? This is absolutely based on the Minister’s opinion. I honestly say that if the Minister, in future, is going to run a select committee where the submitters are going to come in and not be heard, then why have a select committee process at all? It’s absolutely appalling that the public and the farmers of New Zealand, and the cattle traders, would be treated in this way. It was the most appalling select committee that I’ve been part of in my whole eight years in Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote): Thank you. Good evening, Barbara. I am Zooming in—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! When a member refers to another member, they will use their full name.

ANNA LORCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good evening, Barbara Kuriger, fellow member of the Primary Production Committee. I’m Zooming in from Hastings, where I just attended the Hawke’s Bay Federated Farmers annual meeting. And I took the opportunity to talk to farmers about the fact that I was going to be speaking on this bill tonight. And unlike the continual negativity that I have heard from the National Party, talking about how the entire farming industry of the country is against this bill, I have to say that several farmers that I spoke to tonight agreed.

But if you needed a reason to actually realise why we are banning the live export of animals, I recommend to every New Zealander to read the last submission of the 640 that we heard in the Primary Production Committee. That was made by an anonymous submitter who—and I will read just a small bit from it, but I recommend you read it before you make any more comment: “The following submission reflects my recent journey in the last 18 months as an experienced cattle veterinarian on board a live export ship carrying thousands of cattle to China.” During this visit, this experienced veterinarian speaks about the harrowing ordeal that was experienced on the ship just recently. This ship was a container vessel, and these container vessels that were converted represent the most vessels that come into New Zealand. In fact, actually, it says here purpose-built vessels in the last two years were used 23 times and converted vessels were used 27 times. So the majority of these ships are converted container vessels. This vet talked about having to euthanise cattle, this vet talked about the conditions, the heat stress, and several things that had to be spoken about anonymously.

So I came into this select committee with an open mind. When you read submissions and you see the photos, you can see those members on the National Party, those members of the ACT Party, you’re only opposing this because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right. Order! Order! The member will refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate. And just while I’m at it, the sound level of this remote call is a bit low, and some of the barracking is drowning out, and I’m struggling to hear the speaker. Every person in this House deserves to be heard, so could we just turn the volume up or turn the volume down.

ANNA LORCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given people haven’t been able to hear my speech via Zoom because of the shouting from the National Party, I will let this submission that I have just talked about—which every single New Zealander, if you’ve ever had a doubt on why we are banning live exports should read, from an experienced vet in cattle who had to speak anonymously just to get the story out there. That is why I fully support the banning of this export. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare Amendment 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 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 June 2021.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must say, I thought to myself, “It seems such a long time ago since we considered this bill.” I was looking at the select committee report, and to see that we had such luminaries as the Rt Hon David Carter and Fletcher Tabuteau on the select committee at the time—so we’re going back a bit.

But, look, this is a really important part of the infrastructure around protecting consumers of banking and financial services. We’ve seen the Retail Payment System Bill proceed tonight, and this is essentially part of that but it’s much more around conduct. It’s flowed on from some of the troubling matters we saw come out of the Australian inquiry into banking where services were sold to customers quite unnecessarily, and some corollaries—not quite as egregious, but nevertheless some deep concerns—that sales and products were being given to consumers driven much more by commissions and profits than by need.

So the definition of proper financial conduct and the requirement around having procedures within a financial institution to make sure that the employees and providers of financial services understand that they need to put at the forefront of their mind the needs of consumers and not the needs of corporate banks—and to strike the right balance given the relationship of trust and the vulnerability of consumers who take these very complicated banking services and financial services—is really important.

So it’s good to see this proceeding a little bit further in the House today, and I look forward to the day where it’ll be passed into legislation and we can see another piece of the infrastructure of consumer protection in the financial services sector. I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Wow, that was pretty short. I think the member might have been struggling a little bit, like all of us, because this bill’s been sitting around for a while. The last note I have is from back in August last year. It’s probably worthwhile reminding ourselves what this bill stands for and what it involves.

This bill has come about as a result of a review in the Australian banking sector of unwelcome practices. The Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank conducted a similar exercise here in New Zealand. Whilst they did find some instances of practices that were unwelcome, the main and overarching conclusion of their review was that there was no systemic failure—as there was in Australia—and the failure that was found in New Zealand primarily related to governance structure and management of risk. The upshot from the review was that New Zealand was in pretty good shape. However, having a Minister, Dr Clark, who just loves the thought of regulation and a Labour Government that doesn’t understand business at all, they somehow came up with this wonderful Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.

National opposes this bill, and we oppose it for a number of reasons. I’m going to talk about some of those issues, but the core obligations of this bill are to implement effective policies, processes, systems, and controls to enable a certain group of financial institutions—and I’ll talk about them; but primarily registered banks, licensed insurers, and licensed non-bank deposit takers—to meet high levels and to treat customers fairly, including by paying due respect to their interests. These policies are going to be set out in a conduct programme. The issues with this are manifold, but the first thing is that it is a bill trying to come up with a solution looking for a problem. That is one of the principal issues that we have with this bill. This bill is an incredible overreach to some issues that were found but certainly were not systemic or widespread.

The implication of this bill is that how banks and other regulated entities have to manage their marketing aspects and operations through an intermediary are now subject to a great deal of scrutiny and oversight. The biggest strategic issue that’s happening—and I see it from this Minister—is that there’s been such an avalanche of legislation that’s been imposed on the financial sector. We’ve had, more recently, the credit contracts and consumer finance (CCCFA) legislation that’s turned out to be an absolute disaster—and it’s still subject to the Minister reviewing it. But we’ve seen major issues with banks and other financial institutions in the way that they now conduct and undertake lending, and there’s been a decline in the availability of finance and much delay in banks and financial institutions providing funding to hard-up New Zealand businesses, to individuals wanting to buy a house, and all of those sort of aspects. And that is a result of hastily imposed, poorly thought-out CCCFA legislation.

One of the things about the CCCFA legislation is that it requires institutions to develop a responsible lending code, which is subject to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Commerce Commission oversight. So MBIE will be the principal entity, but the Commerce Commission will have an oversight role as well. Under this bill, which is another piece of legislation proposed by Dr David Clark, institutions will also be required to agree a code of conduct—so very similar to what’s required under the CCCFA requirements. But this one will need to be approved by the Financial Markets Authority. So what we’re seeing now with this piecemeal, ill-thought-out strategy—if there is such a thing—is that over time, and over recent time, the Labour Government has put in a whole stack of regulations and pieces of legislation that are now potentially leading to quite significant conflicts. Where you’re talking about two sets of codes, now overseen by different organisations—who’s going to have priority? Which one should a financial institution be more responsible for, or to have greater regard for?

That is going to be one of the biggest issues that we will have to deal with when we get to Government—to try and sort out and try and put in place proper arrangements, because we do want to make sure that financial institutions are operating appropriately, but what we don’t want to do is put in conflicts.

So the first issue is this bill relates to financial institutions, and that has quite a defined meaning. It means registered banks, such as an ANZ or Trust Bank; licensed insurers, like all insurers that we’re well aware of; and licensed non-bank deposit takers. But there are approximately 1,500 registered financial service providers, which represent about 90 percent of the industry, who are not subject to this bill. In fact, they’re not subject to the other bill. So if we were to actually worry about people who might potentially be more likely to undertake unwelcome lending practices—the very group that we want to capture are not captured. It is an absolute glaring issue. They include instances of payday advance lenders, peer-to-peer lenders, other high-cost lenders, and shopping trucks. So that’s the first issue with this—the definition around it.

The second thing is what the requirements are on financial institutions, in terms of their practices they’ve got to worry about with their entities or intermediaries that might be selling their products. So if you are a bank, you might have many, many intermediaries. You might have fund mortgage brokers. In insurance, you might have insurance agents who are separately contracted companies. Those intermediaries in themselves might then have other agents or intermediaries that act for them.

What this bill requires is that the financial institution must then have regard for everyone in that chain of selling their products to the market. What that really means is that the difficulty around managing these relationships—and if you were a large bank, you might have many, many relations, and many, many intermediaries. They might be in the tens, dozens, 50 or so, maybe 100—I don’t know—and because you’ve got third parties beyond that, the difficulty of practically managing that is a really significant issue. So that is one of the things, the practicality of doing that.

There’s also issues with how the obligations relating to the intermediaries are going to be overseen by MBIE. So some of those arrangements and the clarity around how that process is going to take place leaves somewhat to be desired and is rather unclear.

I was looking at some of the submissions, actually, and they are just a swag of people saying, “Look, first of all, this bill should be delayed.” I’m just looking at those from the banking industry, I’m looking at those from the insurance industry, I’m looking at those from CUBS, which are, effectively, the credit union entity—all of them have this consistent recommendation that this is poorly defined, poorly drafted legislation, and the delay around doing this should be paramount.

But there’s some really significant clauses, which we’ll deal with during the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2022

(continued on Thursday, 12 May 2022)

Special Debates

Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill—Report of the Environment Committee

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Environment Committee on the Inquiry into the Natural and Built Environments Bill.

Very pleased, as chair of the Environment Committee, to start this debate on our inquiry into the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill, or the NBEA. So the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the cornerstone of our environmental law in regulating the management of land, fresh water, air, the coast, and our territorial sea. Its overhaul and replacement with the NBEA and a strategic or spatial planning Act and the climate change adaptation Act is the biggest change in our environmental law in 30 years. And even though the draft bill, which the Environment Committee considered, was only a very small slice of one of the two bills to be introduced later this year, it’s no surprise that our report last November ran to some 70 pages and with a revised bill attached after that.

I’d really like to thank the more than 3,000 individuals and organisations who submitted to the inquiry and the 301 people and organisations who presented to us and expanded on their submissions. The analysis and the thought, often unpaid, that went into those submissions and presentations helped shape our conclusions and our 37 recommendations.

Also like to acknowledge the members of the Environment Committee for a shared commitment to improving the bill, the Ministry for the Environment officials’ patience with seemingly endless Zoom meetings, Parliamentary Counsel Office for their insightful drafting, and our very capable select committee staff.

One of the former objectives is to make the resource management system less complex to standardise processes and to make them less costly. So the committee’s recommendations here included recommending that Government and officials really carefully consider the extent to which the new legislation should retain and accommodate existing RMA terminology, definitions, and concepts, especially where these are defined in case law. The intent here was to reduce the uncertainty, which will come with new legislation.

We’ve recommended a shift away from adversarial processes towards a more inquisitorial approach at both council and Environment Court level, and consideration of how to best support non-statutory conflict resolution processes, including tikanga-based processes on marae.

We wanted the use of digital tools improved, and central government, for example, could coordinate and fund an online portal to help councils follow Marlborough District Council’s example in fully digitising their plans and properly formatting those so that they’re easily accessible.

So the 25 clauses of the draft bill that we considered were its preliminary provisions such as the interpretation section, its purpose, elements of the national planning framework, environmental limits, natural and built environment plans, and regional planning committees.

So, talking about the bill’s purpose, as human beings our wellbeing is intimately connected to the health of te taiao. And the RMA’s purpose of promoting sustainable management and its effects-based regime haven’t prevented a decline in water quality in our rivers and aquifers, the ongoing loss of wetlands, or car-dependent urban sprawl. So we heard from submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who considered that the bill’s purpose clauses were not strong enough to prevent further degradation of nature and they’d be little improvement on the RMA. They suggested that much more directive and active language is needed, which prioritises upholding Te Oranga o te Taiao and protecting and, where possible, restoring the ecological integrity of the natural environment.

So the majority of the committee didn’t recommend any substantive changes to clause 5, which sets out the purpose of the bill, which is to enable Te Oranga o te Taiao to be upheld, but we did make considerable changes around other causes in Part 2. We also recognised the need for further conversations between the Crown and Māori about how te reo terms such as Te Oranga o te Taiao and Māori concepts are used in the bill, whether they’re defined, and what further direction is needed to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

So the changes that we recommended related to clause 5 were particularly around environmental limits. We spent quite a lot of time on that. We wanted to ensure that environmental limits are set for the purpose of protecting ecological integrity and/or human health, while noting that the National Planning Framework (NPF) and natural and built environment plans rather than individual consents are the major tool to achieve protection and restoration of nature.

We recommended that the bill express environmental limits in two ways: either as the minimal biophysical state of the environment, or the maximum harm or stress that could be permitted. To avoid a race to the bottom and to encourage improvement in the health of nature where it’s been degraded, the bill should enable the Minister for the Environment to set targets as a pathway for improvement.

It’s been widely agreed that a major failure of the RMA has been in implementation and the absence of national policy, national environmental standards, and national direction until relatively recently. Councils were just left to work out how the RMA should be best applied. So the National Planning Framework is intended to consolidate and build on existing national directions, such as the national policy statement on freshwater. Here, the committee recommended an expanded purpose for the National Planning Framework and that it would be mandatory rather than optional for the NPF to prescribe environmental limits on at least six environmental domains, from air quality to estuaries, as well as providing direction on matters of national significance.

We heard a strong desire from submitters to retain local democratic input and community engagement in plan making. So district plans, regional plans, and regional policy statements are all going to be scooped up into one regional natural built environment plan, which will be a massive exercise. Submitters sought stronger representation of councils on the proposed regional planning committees which will prepare and maintain these plans. So the committee recommended that the bill clearly set out a substantial role for local authorities, and I’m aware that the local government resource management reform steering group has made some further recommendations here.

Moving on to urban trees, more than two-thirds of the submissions to the inquiry—over 2,000 submissions—were about urban trees. Submitters reminded us that these trees are an essential part of a well-functioning urban environment, and they provide shade, reduce the heat island effect, and reduce soil erosion and stormwater run-off. The changes that the National Government made in 2013, submitters told us, had had a devastating effect on urban tree cover. So officials indicated that the issue of urban trees would be considered—because it wasn’t in front of us—but we’ve yet to see the results of that.

The replacement of the RMA and the introduction and passing of the Natural and Built Environments Act and the Strategic Planning Bill by the Parliament is a legacy project for the Government. I would encourage Government and the Ministry for the Environment to update the public on progress so that New Zealanders are better informed about the evolving shape of these two critical bills. This could include outlining their thinking on where the legislation is likely to differ from the recommendations in the Randerson review, how the regional planning committees will be structured and operate, what is proposed for urban trees, and how it is intended to ensure high-quality urban environments with the removal of the concept of amenity values, which has been part of the RMA.

This would give stakeholders and people time to absorb and consider the changes proposed and raised any potential red flags. The Government response to the select committee report, which the Ministry for the Environment released earlier this year, for example, provided no indication of whether any or all of the select committee recommendations would be progressed. Speaking now as a Green MP, the Green Party is also interested in whether it’s intended to respond to the evolving international discussion about the rights of nature and the growing campaign to establish an international crime of ecocide for harm to nature.

There’s been a large amount of public money, thinking, and parliamentary time which is going into the RMA reform exercise, with the expectation that changing our law will actually change the outcomes for the environment and human wellbeing. Transparency will help build trust, and building trust helps contribute to good policy and good law.

So it was a very substantial inquiry. Very grateful for everyone who contributed, and we look forward to seeing the two bills later this year. Thank you.

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

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been quite a while since we did the inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill, and this debate has been postponed many times, so it’s excellent that we are here today.

I want to start from the start, before we got into our inquiry at the Environment Committee, and that starting point is really about the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the problems with it. It’s an Act that this House has looked at many different times and has amended many different times. There’s been a problem with both environmental degradation and also troubles with getting development through, and by “development”, I mean all sorts: hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure—the works.

The problem has been really around the status quo of the RMA, so it’s hard to change what we’ve already got and to do better. So for these reasons, the last Government set up an expert group to review the RMA, and it had a very wide ambit. We’ve just heard Eugenie Sage, the chair of the committee, refer to that as the Randerson review, which I will do so as well.

What that Randerson review recommended was three Acts—not just one, but only one really to replace the RMA and two others—so I think it’s important just to briefly touch on those. One is to enable spatial planning. The Randerson review called it a strategic planning Act. So the idea here is to link the infrastructure funders with the planning decision-makers and to look at long-term planning, so that will help with climate adaptation and help with population growth—where do we want people to go and where do we not want them to go, and what infrastructure needs to go with that—and by “infrastructure”, I’m not just talking about roads; I’m talking about schools and hospitals, and everything that goes with it.

Another piece of legislation is one for addressing issues with climate adaptation. There is a real difficulty in the current legal framework that we have for existing activities that we know will be affected by climate change in the future, but we don’t necessarily know when, and there are a lot of equity issues about how decisions are made, what work needs to happen, and where it needs to happen. So that’s a separate piece of legislation.

Then there was the replacement of the RMA with the Natural and Built Environments Act. So this was to move the planning system to an outcomes focus, to move the energy in the planning system so that all the GDP activity that happened from consents at the end stage of the process to plans—so more at the start of the process—to actually recognise the built environment properly in the legislation, to have more of a role for mana whenua for them to be at the table rather than sort of just being consulted, and to enable better climate mitigation and a whole range of other things.

This is an ambitious programme. With these three Acts, the Government decided as a first step to have this exposure draft of the replacement RMA, the Natural and Built Environments Bill. So it wasn’t fully formed, but it was very much done so in the context of that Randerson report, and it’s an unusual process to have an exposure draft before we see the full bill. In this case we’re going to see two bills, both the Natural and Built Environments Bill and the strategic planning one, with the spatial plan.

This exposure draft process gave the select committee and all the submitters a real chance to feed into that bigger policy development that we don’t normally get as non-members of the executive, and I think that is was really useful. It was, of course, not perfect, because we only had part of the bill, but it was very useful, and we’ve heard from the chair a range of different suggestions for the things that we thought could be improved.

I also acknowledge the timing of this inquiry that we did. We were going to travel around the country and talk to submitters, but then there were some COVID lockdowns, so that didn’t happen, and it was on Zoom. Like the member before me, I would really like to thank all of the staff that helped us with it, both the policy staff, the drafters, and, of course, the staff of the committee, some of whom have changed since then. I know that some of them will be watching today, and I really want to thank them for the hard work in having organised the travel, and then it all being cut away. So thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a significant debate on a very important potential change to our legislative and regulatory framework that, really, forms the foundation stone of New Zealand’s natural environment, our planning legislation, what can be developed, what can’t be developed, where it can be developed and how, and also how our natural environment is maintained, protected, and enhanced.

And, of course, the Resource Management Act (RMA) as we know it today is cumbersome, it’s expensive to administer, it’s complicated, laypeople literally have no understanding of it and are required to use expensive consultants and lawyers to work their way through the maze that the original legislation from the early-1990s I don’t think ever really intended to occur. But the RMA in its current form has been amended something like 18 or 19 times significantly, it now runs close to 900 pages of black-letter statute, and it’s completely no longer fit for purpose. There was an agreement at the last election, across the Parliament, that, in its current form, the RMA’s time had come and that it was time for a new, fresh look.

So this Government has embarked upon a process that has led to this debate today. As the previous speaker, the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, has made the point, the concept of presenting an exposure draft for submissions and hearings to a select committee is a little bit unusual, but I think it’s been a useful process, if only to identify the holes that exist in the plan that was presented to us.

I think it’s important that people who are listening to this debate and who may not have had the benefit of participating in the select committee process understand that the exposure draft document that was presented to the select committee and to submitters for consideration was a very short piece of work in terms of the substance of it. It had some big concepts contained in it but there were more pieces missing and more questions asked arising from the exposure draft than there were answers. If I can make an analogy: we were presented, as a committee, and so were the submitters, with a document that, I think, from memory, ran to about 17 or 18 pages, might have been 20 pages, but had a significant number of placeholders in it; places where clearly the policy work was either not complete or had not yet been agreed by either officials, the Government, its Cabinet, or the Labour Party caucus. At the end of the exposure draft process, we were none the wiser for that. It was kind of like asking the select committee and the submitters to do a big jigsaw puzzle with many of the key pieces missing and to be wearing a blindfold at the same time as you’re trying to do the jigsaw puzzle with the pieces missing.

It would have been enormously helpful if the second piece of legislation could have been considered at the same time. It was originally going to be called the “strategic planning legislation”; I understand it’s now going to have the name “spatial planning”. But it would have been very helpful to have had that piece. We expect, I think, to have the adaptation piece, the third leg of the trifecta—we could have had that too but that’s clearly a work in process as well.

So our support, on the National Party side, for this process was conditional, in a way, in that we wanted to see what the primary piece of work was, and we weren’t given that. We weren’t given the certainty, the surety, that we were looking for, and nor were submitters, of whom there were some 3,000—and we heard just over 300 in person or via Zoom sessions. Those submitters, as the chair of the committee said, put in an awful lot of work; much of it, I fear, was kind of wasted work, because they too didn’t have the full complete picture of what the Government’s agenda is for the replacement of the RMA.

Now, the Minister has said, on a number of occasions, that he’s going to stick very closely to the report of the committee chaired by retired appeal court judge Tony Randerson QC. That report from that committee was a very extensive report; very detailed. If that is the road map that the Minister’s using, then we have some concerns on this side of the House because we think there is an argument for a different way of thinking; a different focus completely. The House needs to understand, I think, that notwithstanding the academic ability of the chair of that committee, his background and experience, or the members of that committee, it represents what is, effectively, very much 1980s’ thinking.

What is being proposed in the Randerson report has received almost no critical analysis or detailed work in any meaningful respect. It’s largely been accepted by the commentariat and officials and the Minister as being the guide and the road map to a future pathway. We remain unconvinced of that pathway, and we really wanted to see something that was more suited to this century rather than last century. And this process of reforming our resource management framework provides the Parliament and the people of New Zealand with a magnificent opportunity to update our thinking, to not use the blinked thinking of the 1980s and do what amounts to pretty much grand tinkering of the current scheme on a massive scale. I think that is a wasted opportunity.

So the National Party’s support for this process is conditional, and the Government needs not to take it for granted, because we are not convinced that this process, upon which he has embarked, is the right process, and I don’t want this to be wasted effort on behalf of officials, submitters, councils, and even the Randerson committee, ready to be tossed out by an incoming National-led Government, who are not satisfied with this legislation, who are not satisfied with the direction it takes, and who are not satisfied with the outcomes that it is potentially going to produce, because our reading of this, so far, indicates that so much remains uncertain, so many of the flaws with the existing RMA are just magnified and made potentially worse by the proposed exposure draft that we’ve seen.

So we’ll be looking for some significant change, and I think the onus is upon the Minister to actually think outside the Randerson report, be more bold, forward-focused thinking, and to think about a legislative regulatory framework that is purpose built and defined not for the 1980s but for the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s, and beyond, because what we are confronted with, at the moment, is a piece of backward-looking change that I don’t think potentially serves the future of New Zealand’s natural environment well—and I don’t think it serves the future of New Zealand’s built environment particularly well either. There is, for instance, in the exposure draft no voice from the entrepreneurial business development sector in this legislation—plenty of voice for other stakeholders, plenty of voice for all sorts of community groups, for submitters, all that sort of stuff—nothing that says, “We want to make New Zealand a better place, and we can do it in a way that is constructive and positive, while, at the same time, maintaining, enhancing, and looking after and protecting our beautiful, natural environment.”

So, as we go through this process, the National Party will continue to look very carefully at the legislation that eventually comes into the House later this year, and I’m pleased that the Minister has indicated that the two pieces, the Natural and Built Environments piece of legislation and the spatial planning legislation, will come in simultaneously. That’ll be a juggling piece of work for the select committee to do. It’s not beyond our wit or ability to do that—I’m sure we can do that—but the underlying message I want to send to this Parliament and to the Minister is: do not take the National Party’s support for this reform for granted; we want to see something far more ambitious, far less costly, far less cumbersome, and far less confusing than what has been put on the table so far. We don’t want to have decisions made by judicial activism and interpretation, because so much of what is being put into this legislation at the moment is ill-defined, unknown—words, phrases, and terminology that have no common-law tie. We made some mention of that in our report, but still the potential for, actually, the courts to be deciding what the framework for our natural and built environments should be remains enormously high in this area. We are utterly unconvinced that the pathway that the Minister is taking is the right one, but we are prepared to continue engaging, and we want to work with the Government constructively if we can.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT opposes the direction set out in this draft bill because it won’t solve the problem that it says it sets out to. That is, how do we enable thriving communities, a healthy economy, and to underpin that Kiwi way of life where we all share a love for the natural environment?

How can communities thrive when getting consents for even basic building materials like sand and rock are almost impossible? This week, McCallum Bros in Northland had their application for sand extraction declined. That means that the sand used in the Auckland Central railway tunnels and in the Central Interceptor waste-water project will come to an end; they won’t be able to get sand to make concrete for vital infrastructure. That’s going to add to cost, to delay in everything that gets built in Auckland.

What this Natural and Built Environments Bill will do is actually add to the cost of building, add to the cost of infrastructure, it’s going to add red tape, and it’s going to take longer to get consents to do stuff so that we can build New Zealand out of the infrastructure deficit that we’ve been left with.

It’s also what the Infrastructure Commission said. They said the current Resource Management Act has led to years of delays and cost billions in unnecessary consenting processes. There’s no evidence presented by the Minister that this bill will solve that problem.

ACT believes one way to reduce planning and consenting costs is simply to stop planning and consenting for things we already know how to do well to mitigate environmental effects. For example, a code of practice for common activities like earthworks and drainage would replace the need for thousands of consents that are required every year. It would save a huge amount of time and tens of millions of dollars in building costs.

This Government is squandering an opportunity—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to change the way we manage natural environments and the built environment. For reform to be successful, ACT believes some meaningful changes are required that are not included in this exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Act. Protect property rights and expand the right of people to use their own property for the maximum utility. Address the artificial scarcity of land caused by the lack of infrastructure required to service it. Remove gateway tests, which require developers to prove why they should be allowed to build something, rather than simply focus on how they manage environmental effects. We should reduce the range of activities which require consent by requiring simple codes of practice to be followed. And we should limit those who are allowed to object to private plan changes and consent applications to only those directly affected; we need to exclude the activists and the nimbies from being able to object to vital infrastructure and development projects. And, of course, we must prioritise outcomes so that vital work, like making concrete, is prioritised. And finally, we need to base environmental protections only on science, not cultural or social constructs. This will actually increase certainty for developers and local councils so they do not end up living in fear of the Environment Court and activist judges.

The proposed reforms advocated by the Minister will actually introduce less certainty, more cost, more delay at a time where we need to be agile and ready to adapt to our future. We don’t need to be telling people how the shape of their cities should look. We don’t need to be telling people how they should be developing their property. We should be enabling councils to focus on funding and delivering infrastructure because that is how you get the next generation to build so that they can live in affordable homes like the last one did.

All parties agree that resource management reform is necessary. But this draft bill is not the reform that we need. We do not believe it improves the status quo; that is why ACT does not support the development of this bill.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Mōrena. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak in the special debate on the Natural and Built Environments Bill exposure draft. There’s much to like about the bill in respect of its overall direction and recognition of tangata whenua and Te Tiriti. In saying that, there should be explicit acknowledgments of the articles of Te Tiriti, rather than the principles, and of our tino rangatiratanga.

The greatest challenge will be how the overall positive direction manifests itself in the remainder of the bill, yet to be drafted, and the operational delivery through new planning instruments. It is essential that hapū and iwi are positioned in meaningful partnerships with central and local government. Te Paati Māori notes that often the failure of the current system was not the Resource Management Act (RMA) itself, but rather the delivery of the RMA through councils’ plans. The RMA has been held up as all that is wrong with our environment consenting regime, when plans today still largely reflect the structures of the plans and mechanisms you can find in controls that existed prior to 1991.

Ensuring the purpose of the bill is carried through to all parts of the bill will be crucial. That means a consistent partnership approach to decision making and protection of the environment. It is critical that the “effect” clause means equal partnership in decision making. A partnership must have true meaning and not mirror practice that currently exists, where iwi and hapū may be invited to engage.

We support the precautionary approach; however, this should also apply across the whole framework and be aligned with Te Oranga o te Taiao as set out in proposed clause 5. Decision making at the national and regional level must include at least 50 percent tangata whenua to reflect the purpose of the bill in partnerships enshrined within Te Tiriti. Iwi must be able to make their own appointments that clearly reflect takiwā boundaries. The relegation of iwi to be no more than an “engaged party” appears too often in the words used in this exposure draft and various discussion documents. The aims of the reforms are not supported by the action of future decision-making as set out.

We don’t support the final decision for the national planning framework, resting with the Minister for the Environment, as this provides no check or balances on the executive. A greater level of scrutiny, we believe, is required. It is shameful that the 50 percent governance is not proposed for plan development. This is a huge failure and will undermine any support for the new reforms, leaving local government to, effectively, continue along the same line, or the same path, region by region, which defies the aims and principles we believe that are set out. The current mana whakahono system has provided no significant change for mana whenua in the resource management space. It is unlikely an enhancement of this redundant system will help. In fact, trying to enhance this mechanism looks like an additional window dressing to make it look like Māori are being given a clearer or greater role, but there is nothing in it to convince us of this. There also needs to be significantly more work done on clear signalling of when hapū and iwi may be consulted on, or notified for consents.

In closing, the Government still has a lot of work to do alongside tangata whenua to get this draft to a point where it can be progressed. Te Paati Māori are hopeful that we may be able to support this bill, as this is the most significant reform of environmental law in decades. But that is also precisely why we cannot get this wrong and urge that, as rangatira and kaitiaki of Aotearoa, tangata whenua must have our decision-making rights honoured. Anything less will fly in the face of our nation’s founding document—Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environments Bill inquiry. I didn’t spend all of my time on that committee when the inquiry was going on, but I did spend enough time to get a good flavour for it. And my colleague Scott Simpson, the Hon Scott Simpson, did make a very good point. It is a significant proposed change, albeit that there’s so many placeholders in the draft that we have no idea what it’s actually going to look like. I would like to thank all of those submitters that came in. Actually, as my colleague also said, there was some significant effort gone into those submissions that came forward, albeit that they also didn’t know exactly what they were submitting on. I think a lot of them pointed out quite clearly their fears of what they are assuming is going to go into those gaps, those significant gaps in the draft bill.

I think one of the things for me that I didn’t see, and it didn’t give me any comfort, that should be in there—the Minister’s there and, hopefully, he’ll take some notes, but one thing that all of us who are electorate MPs will hear all the time from constituents is how much the Resource Management Act—the current RMA—is a disabling piece of legislation. It’s supposed to be an enabling piece of legislation. It is sand in the gears of everything. Now, no one is suggesting for a moment that we should just have open slather on these things. But Simon Court, my ACT colleague, made a very good point. We could have things such as, you know, standards that we don’t need to run through these processes.

A lot of the people involved all the way through the RMA—it’s an industry now. They’re totally dependent on these applications going through really complicated and long processes. They make money out of it and, of course, they may not set out to do it but, in effect, what they do is build in a very slow and tortuous path through which anyone who has an application has to go through. And if I can give you an example, at the moment we’ve got a whole lot of renewable energy projects on the books, people wanting to get out there and get their renewable energy projects up. Everybody wants it—the Government wants it, we want it, New Zealanders want it—but they’ve got to go through this tortuous process. And actually a lot of those people are sitting back there and weighing up the costs and the benefits and the uncertainty in some of those projects that they are thinking about and thinking, “Well, actually, on all grounds, it probably should get there. But really, are we going to put our money up and put it at risk to run through this process where we’ll have”—and particularly the Department of Conservation; one of the worst, actually. They get in there and put in a submission against that, and then they run through a torturous process where they just delay, either just through their own bureaucratic slowness, or they’re hoping that the applicant will tire of the process and withdraw their application. I think we see that all the time. Every electorate MP will be well aware of it.

But I just wanted, with the time I have left, to note some of the comments from some of the submitters. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that the environment limits should be given more substance and that they need a lot more clarity. And I have to agree with the commissioner; he’s doing some fantastic work, by the way. I think he’s really on the money on a lot of things these days. The New Zealand Initiative said that the bill is so broad that it threatens uncertainty over what activities are legal. I agree; I can’t agree more strongly. And I think they pointed out also that they have concerns about clause 8. The key is how the trade-offs will be made between these outcomes, which will be determined by the Minister for the Environment through the national planning framework. This is sort of like a “Henry VIII” power going to the Minister, who is all wise of course. I think that’s, actually, just ripe almost for corruption. I think the Minister should be very worried about that. I’m not suggesting for a moment that anyone is corrupt, but it’s not just corruption not being done; it’s corruption seen not to be done. This bill is really stepping right on the line of this, and I’m really concerned about that and I think every New Zealander should be as well. It’s got to be a lot better than what we’ve seen. And I hope that this bill, when we finally see it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up. And before we take the next call, may I remind members that we are not to accuse anyone else of corruption in this House. The next call is Tāmati Coffey, who is connecting with us remotely.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call, albeit a short call, on the bill in front of the House at the moment. It did take a lot of conversations, but I have to say there was big support for the objectives of the reform, noting the 30 years’ difference between now and its inception, with many learnings in the process. Speaking of the process, there was also some support for the process too, the consideration of a draft report which was going to be tossed around by different submitters to be able to understand exactly what they thought of the bill. Some were frustrated with it, and earlier speakers said that obviously that was a frustration for some because there were quite a few gaps in there. It was prefaced on the Randerson report, so there was a lot of information that was put into there.

I took a specifically Māori lens to the submissions and I tuned into specifically those Māori submitters who came in the form of those iwi and those entities who have settled. There were marae, there were hapū, there were whānau trusts, and pan-Māori organisations like the New Zealand Māori Council and the Federation of Māori Authorities. All contributed as collectives into this conversation, and we also heard from Māori resource management practitioners who shared their experience too, but, by and large, we had a huge range of Māori individuals who took the opportunity as well, and I want to thank them all for their contributions.

One of the things that we talked about was Te Oranga o te Taiao, and this was raised by many, both Māori and non-Māori—the concept being around the taiao, the environment that we live in, and the oranga of the taiao being the wellbeing of the environment being of the utmost importance. When you look after the oranga of the taiao, then obviously we all benefit. But the thing that came through in some of those submissions for me, which spoke really strongly, was the concept expressing the intergenerational importance of environmental wellbeing to Māori, and centralising that relationship around decision making over natural resources with the input of hapū and iwi. The draft legislation enables Te Oranga o te Taiao to support the wellbeing of present generations without compromising the wellbeing of future generations. As a committee we thought that more clarity was definitely needed, and, obviously, for legal certainty as well. We needed to know what was required to be able to implement it, which isn’t such a bad thing, but we recommended that the Government continue to work with national iwi and Māori groups to further develop the concept.

Recommendations 10 and 11 centre around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Natural and Built Environments Bill will have a new Treaty clause which will be to give effect to the principles of both the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti of Waitangi. You see, for the last 30 years, Treaty clauses have come a long way, and as it stands the current clause is about taking into account the principles of Te Tiriti of Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. Many Māori told us that they were sick of being consulted and they wanted some stronger recognition in there as well. We believe that that’s a good thing so we have instructed the Government, through our report, to be able to do the same.

There were big conversations around infrastructure and making sure Māori had input at whatever level, and there are going to be planning committees. We heard strongly from Māori submitters that they wanted input into those planning committees, either as iwi or as hapū, but they definitely wanted representation and saw it as a right through our obligations as the Crown to honour our Treaty partnership.

We also talked—and this came through in recommendation 36—about the significance of mātauranga Māori, which is a new concept in our parliamentary House but is actually a very, very old concept. Some submitters said that mātauranga Māori shouldn’t be ignored and that we must have regard to it, and we as the committee also agreed that as well, to be able to help inform the technical advice that comes through, making sure that mātauranga Māori, where it exists, is adhered to and used for full information.

Any references to Māori terms do need to be clarified, because we wanted to be able to make sure that when we put it into legislation it absolutely had certainty for those people that use this type of legislation day in and day out. Iwi, hapū, mana whenua, mana whakahaere—all of those terms came before the committee and we believe that it’s on the Government to be able to really define those terms and work in conjunction with Māori right across the county to be able to do that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on this Natural and Built Environments Bill. Although I wasn’t on the select committee—it’s a long time since I’ve been on the select committee; I sat on it many years ago and was actually the chair, but anyway—it’s an opportunity to talk about this, particularly in relation to building construction, which I have a role in.

As my good colleague the Hon Scott Simpson noted, we will be supporting the bill but there are some serious concerns about the bill at this stage, and, hopefully, they will be addressed. The big issue, really, is that everyone in this House—and, I think, virtually, in New Zealand—agrees that we’ve got to have something that’s empowering, that can actually allow things to happen. We need rules that are simple to understand, simple to enforce, but provide adequate protection. When you have developers incurring an estimated cost of about $1.3 billion a year in terms of trying to get consents for new projects, trying to build new homes which are so desperately required, you know that there is something seriously wrong. Of course, this is the outcome of the Randerson Report that led to a suggestion of three bills—splitting into three—we were keen to do two. But this bill and this exposure draft that we’re discussing today obviously had some very serious limitations. As Scott Simpson noted in his speech, a 20-page report with glaring omissions and, just simply, areas where there is no detail at all. That’s obviously something that’s wrong, and many of the submissions agreed with that and said we should be looking at both this part and the second bit that the Minister’s going to bring before the House around the adaptation piece, which will be looked at and progressed separately but later. So without seeing the totality of the reforms, it’s pretty hard to see whether in fact they’re going to achieve the outcomes which we want. At the moment, there would be a great deal of concern that we don’t, actually, that we’re going to just end up making it more complicated, spending a lot of time and not achieving the outcomes.

So I found it fascinating when I was just looking through some of the notes. Even organisations around the Environmental Defence Society, the society has one paragraph of positive aspects—one paragraph—and 30 pages of outstanding comments and suggested improvements to the bill. What the dickens is that? That shows that Mr Parker has not been doing his work as well as he might—which is unusual—and not preparing this as he should, because if you’re going to put up a major reform, make sure you get it right so that people can understand it. Thirty pages of concerns! This is the Environmental Defence Society. This is not some right-wing organisation; this is something that is deeply concerned about the environment, as all of us are, including me.

Some areas of interest for them—purpose. They’ve got concerns with the purpose. Well, actually, I was looking at some of the other submissions, and I think everyone has concerns with the purpose—it was very unclear. The environmental limits, they’ve got concerns with environmental outcomes—well, gee, isn’t that what we’re trying to get to? National planning framework, content and plans, the relationship between the bill and other elements—these are just some of the key big headings that they’ve raised. That just shows you that we have got a lot of work to do on this issue.

As my good colleague Stuart Smith noted, clause 8—which is a major piece of this proposed legislation—again has some major, major issues that need to be dealt with. Broadly, I was just looking at some of the other issues—“The bill is so broad that it threatens uncertainty over what activities are legal”. Jeez! That’s a pretty worrying statement. “The definition of environment in clause 3 is so broad that it encompasses almost any social, cultural, economic, and environmental outcome.” Wow! Mr Parker, you’ve got some work to do on this. Thank you very much.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Can I begin by thanking the Environment Committee for the work they did on the exposure draft of what is, essentially, the equivalent of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which is the heart of the more general provisions, as opposed to the processing provisions, really.

I might make just some introductory remarks as to how much has been done in civil society before we embarked upon this project. It’s roughly 30 years since the RMA was passed, and there is a societal concern that it hasn’t worked properly. It has certainly cost too much for people to work through. It hasn’t protected the environment adequately, and that’s so obvious in respect of climate-changing emissions, water quality, and soil loss. In addition to that, it hasn’t adequately seen to the development outcomes that we need as a country, including the housing space where there is agreement, at least on this side of the House, that constrained land markets have been one of the reasons why house prices have gone so high in New Zealand, because we haven’t been making enough land available for building opportunities. So it costs too much, it hasn’t protected the environment, and it hasn’t enabled housing. It’s a three-way fail. So we’ve been willing to take this on and try to improve things. The Productivity Commission gave us some learnings, so did some civil society reports from Local Government New Zealand, the Property Council, Infrastructure New Zealand, the Environmental Defence Society, and lots of others.

We then had an inquiry by a panel led by the Hon Tony Randerson. The panel considered the idea as to whether we should have a separate development Act compared with a separate environmental protection Act, and concluded that that would not solve the complexities, that it wouldn’t make things easier, and that it would probably make for worse outcomes because these things do need to be integrated and are not irreconcilable. The Randerson panel presented a template which we’re largely implementing. We thought it’s such a big piece of work that we needed to chunk down the consideration of it by select committee and civil society by putting the equivalent of Part 2 to the committee first, which we’ve done and we’ve had the report, which we’re taking very seriously in Government. We thank the select committee and the submitters to it for that report, and we’re proceeding to implement those recommendations of those select committee reports, as well as the balance of the Randerson report.

Can I respond to some of the issues that have been raised today by others in this debate, and I thank them for their comments. Unnecessary consents: I agree that there are unnecessary resource consents in the current system. We have already as a Parliament addressed that in a very significant way last year, with the upzoning bill, which enables tens of thousands of building opportunities, probably hundreds of thousands, to flow through the planning system in a way that will not require a resource consent to build a new house, in a way that currently does require a resource consent. That sort of principle will be baked into the new system, because we don’t see those issues as being inconsistent. I agree with Simon Court that there are too many issues where unnecessary resource consents are required by the system at the moment.

I also agree with the comment that he and Scott Simpson both made about there being too much uncertainty as to who should be able to participate in the system. One of the recommendations from the Randerson report which we will be implementing is to require plans to be clearer as to who is to be notified in limited notification applications, because there’s too much uncertainty around that, and, as a consequence, planning departments at risk of suit for getting it wrong, default to too wide a group of notification.

In respect of issues that are boundary disputes in the residential sphere that go to recession planes or an intrusion into a recession plane, the proposal is that those be notified just to the adjoining people who are directly affected and that those issues be resolved through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than through the courts. So I agree that those concerns are legitimate, and we look forward to work with other parties on those issues to try and make them better.

In respect of the point about codification of things rather than bespoke details of them in consent application and consent conditions, I agree with that as well. I think that it is absurd that applicants trying to develop have to specify, in a bespoke manner, sediment controls for major road works; they shouldn’t have to do that. There should be a series of standards for sediment control. It couldn’t really be much worse than what happened even with those bespoke controls on Transmission Gully, where there were terrible breaches of good practice up there, and a lot of sediment ending up in the Porirua Harbour. We should actually have agreed standards, and there could be standard A, standard B, standard C, and standard D. A new applicant might say, “We think it should be standard B.”, and the council might say, after having a think about it, “No, we think it should be standard C. There are some serious risks here, you need to follow that standard.” But it shouldn’t have to be specified in a bespoke way.

Currently, costs are far too high. They’ve increased, according to the Infrastructure Commission, about 150 percent, so that they’re now 250 percent of where they were about a bit more than a decade ago, and that’s just absurd—just absurd. How do we control that thing? Well, I’ve actually been around here for a while and I’ve come to the conclusion that we can’t control all of these things in Parliament through the legislation. The last Government with ACT and National tried to do that with a number of amendments, and they were well intentioned but it actually didn’t control costs. We do need to enable and push responsibility on to the councils to control excessive costs. Councillors ought not to be able to interfere in an individual planning decision but they should have to take responsibility for the control of the efficiency of their planning departments, and I intend to make that clear and, perhaps, give some more tools to councils so that they can keep control of the complexity and cost of the planning processes that are being operated through their councils. I can give some personal accounts, on another occasion, of where these things are going wrong currently; I think most of us can.

In respect of how you get the flow-through of signals to the private sector as to where they should invest, the spatial planning Act, I think, will make a big difference. The spatial planning Act will set out likely new infrastructure corridors that need to be released when you hit triggers of population growth. Those infrastructure corridors will be better protected through new designation rules and the associated activities, like intensive subdivision around those transport corridors, will flow through into Master Builder Association plans. In those sorts of situations, once that land is released or that corridor has started to be utilised, the development of those things will become permitted activities on occasion.

So things will be a lot more logical going through the spatial planning Act than the Natural and Built Environment Act. The number of plans will reduce from over a hundred to about 10. The first plans to put together will be quite complex. There’s no simple way to do that. We will be well advanced compared with the implementation of the RMA, because we will have in place a national planning framework which transitions all of the existing national direction and adds a bit more. The crucial bit that is being added, which I think members will want a briefing on from the Infrastructure Commission once the bill comes to the House, will be the piece that the Infrastructure Commission is leading in order to get these development rules clearer and to incorporate the likes of the standards or codification of codes that Simon Court mentioned.

The five objectives that we’re trying to achieve are to protect and, where necessary, restore the natural environment; better enable development with environmental biophysical limits—and I emphasise biophysical limits—including development of housing.

I’ll just divert a little bit on why we’re specifying biophysical. We agree that you can go too far with matters of taste rather than matters of environmental outcome. So we’re trying to strip out the excessive reference to amenity, which doesn’t mean to say that we want everything looking like Stalingrad. There is a place for decent urban form.

The third principle is to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and Tāmati Coffey has spoken to that. We need to better prepare and adapt to climate change and risks from natural hazards. We need to improve system efficiency, effectiveness, and reduce complexity, whilst also retaining appropriate local democratic input.

There is a concern amongst some in local government that this is Big Brother or Big Sister taking over plan making; that is not the case. There will be no Government representatives on these joint committees that are massaging together plans that will all be in the control of local government, with iwi participation. In respect of the spatial plans, there will be a central government representative that local government want because central government has to martial transport and health and police and the Department of Conservation in order to put together these plans.

So I look forward to the introduction of the full bill and, again, thank the committee and members for their contributions today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Environment Committee on the Inquiry into the Natural and Built Environments Bill.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

Climate Change Response Act 2022—Emissions Budgets

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That this House express its support for the following proposed domestic emissions budgets, which set out the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that will be permitted in each emissions budget period as a net amount of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are to be notified under the Climate Change Response Act 2002: 290 megatonnes (million tonnes) carbon dioxide equivalent in the first emissions budget period 2022-25; 305 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the second emissions budget period 2026-30; and 240 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the third emissions budget period 2031-35.

The challenge that the climate crisis presents also represents the greatest opportunity that we have had in at least a generation to build an economy that is much more productive, much more sustainable, and much more inclusive than the one that we have today. And that challenge is as urgent and as important as it has ever been.

Over the last few months we’ve seen firsthand the impact that the climate crisis is already having on our communities. We’ve had multiple floods in Tai Rāwhiti and Gisborne. We’ve had severe storm damage again repeatedly in Westport and Buller. We’ve had droughts in Southland so acute that the Awarua-Waituna Wetlands caught fire in autumn. The climate crisis is no longer something that’s happening somewhere else to someone else at some point in the future. It is happening here, it is happening to us, and it is happening now. Our lived experience has now caught up with what the science has been telling us for some time, which is that our best chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is our best chance to avoid the worst effects. And, to that end, last term this House passed unanimously the zero carbon Act amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2022.

To my knowledge, Aotearoa was the first country in the world to enshrine a commitment to hold global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees in its primary legislation. This temperature goal drives long-term targets which are also enshrined in the legislation, and those long-term targets are in turn broken down into a series of emissions budgets for stepping stones along the way. Each emissions budget establishes a total quantity of emissions that will be permitted in a five-year period, and it’s the first three of these emissions budgets that we are debating here today.

Now, in that sense, today’s debate represents a significant milestone in New Zealand’s climate change policy. We have never before had a binding domestic framework for cutting the pollution that we put into the atmosphere that causes global warming. And we put this framework in place to give New Zealand a much needed sense of certainty and predictability to future climate change policy. One of the main reasons that it has taken us so long as a country to get started on the path of cutting our emissions is because climate change policy has been so politicised and so subject to the back and forth vagaries of the political cycle. But it is a generational challenge. It requires a level of consistency across Governments and across decades. And the critical thing about this framework is that the imperative is set and the direction of travel is clear.

So, to that end, the independent Climate Change Commission recommended that we hold this special parliamentary debate on the first three emissions budgets. That would allow each party to put its views on the record and, at the same time, preserve each party’s ability to disagree on the policy prescription by which we meet those targets collectively. After all, the first three emissions budgets take us through to 2035, which will span the life of probably more than one Government.

Cabinet has now set these first three emissions budgets and they are as follows. The first, from 2022 to 2025, has been set at 290 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases. That averages out at 72.4 megatonnes per year, which is two megatonnes per year less than the five-year average leading up to this point, and 3.1 megatonnes less than our projected emissions for 2022 through to 2025.

The second emissions budget, from 2026 to 2030, has been set in principle at 305 megatonnes, which is an average of 61 megatonnes per year. That is 13.4 megatonnes or nearly 20 percent per annum below what we emitted from 2017 to 2021. The third emissions budget, from 2031 to 2035, has been set, again, in principle, at 240 megatonnes or 48 megatonnes per year on average, which is 26.4 megatonnes per year—about 35 percent less than 2017 to 2021.

The first emissions budget at 290 megatonnes is exactly what the commission recommended and two megatonnes less than the Government consulted on last year. Cabinet had proposed a slight variance to the commission’s recommended emissions budgets based on updated forestry intentions numbers. Now, there is considerable uncertainty around forestry projections, and so having reviewed the evidence, Cabinet chose to revert to the commission’s recommended first emissions budget. However, Cabinet has largely retained the modified second and third emissions budgets that were consulted on last year.

The second and third emissions budgets have been set, as I said, in principle. The commission will review the latest evidence and update their advice in advance of the Government of the day finalising the next emissions budget in 2024 and then the one after that in 2029. That will take account of not just more recent and firmer forestry projections but also account for uptake of new technology and scientific advances. Of course, the nature and the momentum of those changes will rely in large part on what we are able to achieve in our first emissions reduction plan, which I will publicly release on Monday, 16 May.

I know that there are those who will be worried that these emissions budgets do not go far enough. I’m one of them. There are also those who worry that these emissions budgets will be unaffordable or unachievable. To them I would say this: we established the Climate Change Commission as a politically neutral expert-led body to provide rigorous evidence-based advice on what we should and can do. Our agencies have tested their numbers, but the emissions budgets I have outlined today reflect the commission’s advice. These budgets are grounded in what the science says is needed and in a ground up analysis of what our economy can do over the coming 15 years. So don’t take my word for it; take the commission’s word for it.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s first three emissions budgets are the final piece of the framework that we have established in Aotearoa for bold, enduring climate action that reaches across Governments, across parliaments, and across generations. There remains a tremendous amount of effort required to meet those budgets, to meet our targets, and ultimately to do our bit to lower emissions and to limit global warming. This Government is committed to meeting our emissions budgets and achieving our targets, and as we do so we are committed to building a future that is more equitable, that is more prosperous, that is more innovative, and all within planetary limits. These budgets set out the path to a net zero Aotearoa. Our first emissions reduction plan will set out the actions that we take to get there and that we will do so in a way that benefits everyone—that takes everyone with us and leaves no one behind. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. The Hon Dr Megan Woods—five minutes.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nearly 2½ years ago, this House came together and, I think, displayed what it can do when it is at its best. We came together across parties to put into place the binding domestic framework that the Minister of Climate Change has just been talking about in his speech. We came together because we know the climate crisis that we face is intergenerational. No one Government will solve this crisis on its own. It needs to be a commitment from parties right around this Chamber that we do have a way to tackle a real and present danger and crisis. So when this House passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act with unanimous support, I think that was a very good day for what we can achieve as a group of parliamentarians.

The Minister of Climate Change has said to us as a group of Ministers that we are all climate Ministers. That is correct—each and every one of us needs to be considering climate when we consider our portfolios—but we are all climate parliamentarians. We must all be considering the climate crisis and how we meet that over the coming decades.

This Act is determining what our climate response will be in these first three emissions budget periods, and I want to reflect a bit on what these budgets will mean for us. These budgets are ambitious, and they should be, but—importantly—they are achievable. They put us on the path for what the science tells us needs to be done, and with the right commitment we will play our part in tackling emissions but, at the same time, we can also build our economic security.

Globally, New Zealand has an enviable environmental reputation. That means our products are in high demand. Moving towards a low-emissions economy is not only critical for our planet but it is also good for business and builds our resilience across multiple sectors, including energy and transport. We know that this will put us on the right path.

Today’s debate is not about these policies per se, but it is worth reflecting that we know we have effective measures available to us. What it takes now is the political will to put those measures in place. To meet these emissions budgets, we know that we will need to pull all the levers to continue to turn our pledges into high performance and to bring momentum to tackling this crisis. These are things that any responsible Government must take seriously and must have a comprehensive plan to meet.

The emissions trading scheme creates a price incentive, but it is alongside complementary policies like energy-efficiency standards, the Carbon Neutral Government Programme, and programmes we’ve put in place such as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (GIDI) that it all can work in tandem to enable the change that we need at the pace that we need it. GIDI, in particular, has shown us what can be achieved quickly when we do have ambition and back businesses to make the change. To date, I reflect on the $69 million that we have spent on that scheme across 53 major industrial projects. These projects are the equivalent of taking 134,800 cars off our roads. This is the kind of change that we need to see.

But we also have to have a commitment to this being a just transition, a transition that is equitable, and a transition that is inclusive, where no one is left behind. The pace here does enable this, and this Government is committed to delivering a fair and equitable transition to provide a future where clean, green jobs and cheaper electricity and energy become the norm. We must be thinking of people within this transition and how it is that we are prioritising this.

We need to do this, we have to do this, and we are able to do this. I want to thank the Minister of Climate Change for leading this work, and I commend these emissions budgets to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Madam Speaker, thank you for the time to be able to make a contribution in the House and to follow my colleague the Hon Megan Woods in commending the work and the leadership of our friend and our colleague in this Government Minister James Shaw and the Green Party, who have been a constant advocate for ensuring that we have justice equity—justice equality. And so this is leadership, and this is leadership in its finest. As my colleague Megan Woods said, what it takes to become a leader in terms of climate change is it requires all parties to come to the table. Thank you for corralling all parties in this House to get to a point where we can collaboratively agree to set the emissions budget under the Climate Change Response Act. And I implore our colleagues across the House—I implore all of our colleagues—we aren’t all just climate-change individuals, climate-change parties; we are climate-change parliamentarians, as my colleague said, and I implore this House to come together to collectively agree the route that we must take as a nation to ensure we reach that net zero carbon target.

Now, you’ve heard from my colleagues this is an incredibly special day for Aotearoa where we agree to set the emissions reductions budget. Today, in particular, though, I want to talk about just how critical it is that we take these actions through a two-tiered lens: the crisis of climate change and the crisis of biodiversity. These two are intrinsically linked. Not everybody understands the threat to biodiversity and how intimately connected these things are to climate change, but we only need to look at the wetland fires down in Awarua, the wetland fires up north, those carbon sinks, those incredibly important carbon sinks, to understand just how critical it is that we do our part to change behaviour to put us in a position where we can tangibly achieve a net zero outcome.

So, today, I want to acknowledge how things like the extreme weather events across the country—rising sea levels, rising temperatures—are putting increasing pressure already on incredibly threatened wildlife and wild places. There’s 4,000 species currently that we know of—there’s probably a whole lot more—that are in a threatened state or at threat of extinction, and we have to take action today on climate change to ensure those threatened species survive, that they thrive, and they are a taonga that we hand on to future generations. Climate change poses risk to nature and the very things that make this place, Aotearoa New Zealand, special. Many of our plants, our birds, our bats that my colleague Rachel Brooking’s wearing the earrings for—bats that are mammals and are not birds, but that’s for another day, that discussion on whether or not they should have been Bird of the Year. But, anyway, many of New Zealand’s plants, our birds, our bats, our insects, our reptiles, our fish—they cannot be found anywhere else in the entire world, and this is part of the legacy that we’ve inherited when we split off from Gondwana all those years ago.

Climate change poses many risks to nature, from entire habitats being lost during extreme flooding or fires to change in the range and distribution of pests. Iconic coastal, alpine, and wetland ecosystems risk being degraded, squeezed, and eliminated from our landscape if careful adaptation is not taken now—right now. We only need to cast our eyes up to places like Te Tai Rāwhiti or up to the coast to see that climate change is having a real impact on real people’s lives, right now. We’re seeing the erosion of those coastlines, and if we do not change our track, I am nervous that we will not genuinely be able to hand something on to future generations.

Look, I have to make mention of this: it was a one-time former leader of the National Party Judith Collins; she said she was in favour of glacial action, but on their zero carbon Act she said, “But New Zealanders do not want to be first, fast, or furious; they want a fair go.” We cannot give people a fair go unless we take urgent action, and this is what this plan sets down. We cannot hand on this precious place that we have to our future generations if we do not take action right now. So, to this House, we absolutely implore and commend these budget targets to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): The National Party supports the emissions budgets proposed in this motion today, and we do so based on our proud history of making responsible commitments to reduce New Zealand’s emissions in line with our global obligations. We were the Government that signed up to the Paris Agreement. We were the party that worked across the House to support the zero carbon bill and to support the emission reduction that those two agreements imply. We support the nationally determined contributions under the Paris climate agreement, and we support the targets set under the zero carbon Act. So the discussion that New Zealand is having as a country about climate change is not one in which we debate whether or not action is required. The debate we are having is how we best take action and what the steps are that will best achieve our emission reduction goals in a way that is both economically responsible and takes our people with us.

National can see the very clear moral and environmental imperative for global emission action and global emission reduction; we see that very clearly. We are all, on this side of the House, conscious of our children and grandchildren and the world that they will inherit, and we feel a conservative urge to conserve those resources which the world has today so that we can sustain our livelihoods into the future. We also see very clearly the economic and trade imperative for New Zealand to be doing its bit as part of these global efforts. We are very conscious that our trading partners are watching New Zealand to see whether our actions match the rhetoric and the declarations. And we know that in the future our farmers, our exporters, our tourism service providers will want to rely on an international reputation for New Zealanders having taken effective and concerted climate change action. And with all of those things in mind, we support sensible emission reduction.

I want to be very clear, however, that in supporting emission reduction that does not mean that we will support every emission reduction proposal that the members opposite put on the table. Because while we support the ends, in terms of the overall emission reduction that should occur in this economy, we will not always agree with the means by which others suggest that we get there. The “how” really matters, and I propose to members of this House an analogy. If we think about the significant reforms that New Zealand has gone through in its past, I would suggest to you that emission reduction, decarbonising the economy, is perhaps the most significant economic reform that our economy will have to go through in the coming decades.

We have experienced as a country in the past what happens when economic reform is done in a way that is too fast, that is too furious, that doesn’t take people with it. And what we have seen is that if we aren’t conscious to ensure that we are fair, that we are efficient, that we are effective, then in fact we can cause a lot of harm on the way. So we stand very proudly for a view that the way in which we reduce emissions must be done carefully and rationally. As with all Government policies and spending, we need effective and efficient climate change policies, and so while we agree with the goal, we will not always agree on the path. We have choices about how we reduce our emissions, and some choices will be better than others. We want to do what works and what works best for the climate. That means every climate change policy must be tested. We won’t sign up to climate change policies on the very basis that they make for a good press release and make people feel good, because we are focused on achieving goals effectively.

So while we may disagree with the emission reduction plan that is released next week, or elements thereof, that will be because we are committed to lowering emissions in the most effective way possible and in the most responsible way possible. That means, for example, that we’re not going to plant our way to net zero. National won’t stand by and allow the country to be covered in exotic pine forests out of a sense that this is the best way to reduce emissions. Clearly, it is not.

We actually have to protect future generations by reducing emissions but also by ensuring we can continue to be productive producers of food, because, actually, for the world, that makes sense. It makes no sense if our farmers are unable to produce food in a sustainable, low-emission way for the world because of emission reduction restrictions, and then we have that food produced by other countries with a higher emission footprint, or we have, actually, our global food stability imperilled. National wants to take a sensible approach to that.

We won’t, in good faith, support actions and policies that will raise global emissions by shipping jobs and production overseas, or any policy that is prohibitively expensive. We believe that New Zealand must play its part on the world stage by taking policies and actions that deliver genuine reductions in net emissions. Anything else, anything less, betrays future generations, actually, because it takes money from taxpayers today and in the future on false pretences.

Just like policies in every other area, emissions policies should be robustly analysed. How many emissions will they actually reduce, and is that the best use for the dollars that are committed to achieve it? We should have transparent measures for what they will achieve, and we should back them up with practical, credible delivery plans. Achieving these reductions in emissions will be challenging, and so we owe it to New Zealanders that we can assure them that where we are taking action, we are doing the things that will have the most impact and that will make the biggest difference.

We continue to believe that the emissions trading scheme will be a very important part of how emission reduction is achieved. We also acknowledge that there will be a very important place for complementary policies alongside the emissions trading scheme—for example, catalysing the market around networks such as in electric vehicle charging, and potentially in other areas. But, again, these things need to be done in a way that doesn’t spend excessive taxpayer dollars on things that the private market may be prepared to come on board with as well.

We would point to the example of National’s investment in the broadband infrastructure network, whereby we effectively used Crown capital and intervention to catalyse the investment in a very effective, globally world-leading broadband network. We want to take a similarly rigorous approach to investments in the climate change area.

We see a hugely significant role for investment in R & D. One of the best things that New Zealand could possibly do for the global future of climate change is come up with solutions that allow farmers around the world to reduce their biogenic methane emissions. So let us lead in the research and development, not lead in the wearing of hair shirts, because actually that won’t help stave off climate change for future generations.

We also believe in planning reforms to unleash further investment in renewable and other green technologies, and we do think that cutting red tape will be a big part of that. It does not escape us that the Resource Management Act today actually prevents and stifles investment in things such as wind farms. So we have to get serious about looking at the barriers that are currently in the way of good private sector adaptation and investment.

When we think about how we can do more in the future, we also see the need to extend the potential for carbon removal and offsets in the emissions trading scheme. Right now, the emissions trading scheme recognises removal by trees but not other technologies, including blue carbon, carbon capture and storage, carbon mineralisation, and robust offshore mitigation. In principle, we need to be willing to consider these forms of removals, regardless of the particular technology.

It’s very important when we talk about climate change that we have sincere political debates, and the sincere political commitment that National has made is towards meeting these targets and reducing emissions. We entirely reserve our right to have a very robust debate about how that is achieved best for New Zealanders, and we look forward to that debate in the coming weeks, months, and years. New Zealand should learn from its history. When you make reforms, you must take people with you and do it in a way that is efficient and sustainable.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court—a five-minute call.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If our nation aspires to be carbon neutral by 2050, then these emissions reduction budgets are the worst possible way we could do that. These budgets are nothing more than a fashion parade of green policy, which will cost New Zealand families and businesses billions. But they won’t do anything to reduce emissions any faster than the emissions trading scheme (ETS) already allows us to do. That’s why ACT opposed the zero carbon Act and why we oppose these totally unnecessary budgets. In fact, ACT was the only party in this Parliament to oppose the zero carbon Act. Every other party in this House believes that a Minister of climate change should have the right to direct your family as to what fuel they use to heat their home, what kind of car they should drive, how many cows or sheep you should be allowed on your farm, and what you should be allowed to do with your land. These policies have the potential to wipe out jobs, entire sectors in regions that depend on energy to support our economy. Yet this Minister claims his policies will create new jobs and lower your heating bills. Well, I can see the Tui billboard now: “Zero carbon Act equals lower prices. Yeah, right.”

There is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will allow us to grow a healthy economy and develop thriving communities. Don’t believe the Minister when he tells you how hard it is to reduce emissions. He only says that to his green fan base and to keep the Prime Minister onside with his policies.

It’s not that hard, and I will tell you why—there is already a way to reduce emissions and that’s the cap under the emissions trading scheme. This Minister could say, “I’m reducing the cap”, but he’s chosen not to. The emissions trading scheme puts a price on the emissions of every sector in New Zealand that uses carbon. For truckies, like the operator of a Kenworth logging truck, which uses around 500 litres of diesel a day, it means that at 20c a litre, which is what the ETS is currently costing them, that’s a hundred bucks a day they’re paying to mitigate emissions. If that truck works 300 days a year, that’s $30,000 a year they’re paying to combat climate change and mitigate emissions. So whether you’re running a family car or a logging truck or a business, there’s never been a better incentive to reduce your emissions under the existing emissions trading scheme. It’s a simple system. The incentives are clear. The costs are clear. That’s why ACT says that no other system is necessary.

But ACT has found a way to make it even better. The first thing we’d do is share the enormous revenues collected from New Zealand businesses and consumers under the emissions trading scheme with New Zealanders. We would give them a carbon tax refund out of the emissions trading scheme rather than spend it on vanity projects like climate Ministers. Between the last election and March of this year, the tax on a 50-litre tank of petrol went up by around $20. Much of that is caused by price rises under the emissions trading scheme. During a cost of living crisis it’s pretty rich for a Government to lecture us about emissions when actually it’s stashing the cash from the ETS in its back pocket to use on vanity projects. ACT believes that Kiwis would have far more confidence in climate policy if they were materially benefiting from it.

The second thing is we’d ditch the zero carbon Act. That’s the Act that allows climate Ministers and other Government Ministers to hand out money to pet projects. I give you an example. A few weeks ago Fullers ferries in Auckland invested in a new hybrid ferry that can range around the Hauraki Gulf. Days later, another Government Minister announced they were going to spend $24 million on two competing electric ferries and hand them over the Auckland Council to run in competition. Completely unnecessary; won’t reduce emissions. We would end those schemes.

The third thing we’d do is we’d allow New Zealand businesses to mitigate their emissions offshore. If a New Zealand company wants to invest in restoring the rain forest in Indonesia under an accredited scheme, we say they should be allowed to do that. If they can mitigate their emissions cheaper offshore than they can here, ACT believes they should be allowed to do it. That’s why we oppose these budgets.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—a five-minute call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. On 8 April—last month, actually—media around the globe carried the scientist headlines that we have 999 days to peak emissions. This means the world now has only 976 days. This is the stark new evidence provided in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on just how long we have to try and limit emissions under 1.5 degrees. While some might say we’re all climate parliamentarians, only some of us are active kaitiaki. We are well past time for inaction and clichés; well past time for delay. Papatūānuku is crying out for help.

Rawiri and I met with Minister Shaw and made clear that Aotearoa needs more urgent and transformative action on reducing emissions. Te Paati Māori does not support the proposed emission budgets—it’s disappointingly weak—as we believe that they should be tighter and more ambitious.

In particular, it is crucial that the budgets are updated to reflect the more urgent action that is needed on methane emissions. We are pushing for the Government on immediately putting a price on methane emissions, phasing out synthetic fertilisers by 2025, and putting numbers on cow numbers. Aotearoa has the highest per-capita methane emissions in the world—six times the global average. It’s humiliating. Annual methane emissions make up 42.7 percent of New Zealand’s gross emissions. Farmers need the support and incentives to transition to regenerative agriculture; not false hope that things can continue the way they are. Te Paati Māori would also establish a $300 million Mātai Ahuwhenua innovation and support fund to incentivise farmers to transition to regenerative and value-added farming practices.

In addition—we’ve spoken of policies aimed at reducing methane emissions—we would also target carbon emissions through ending new onshore oil and gas permits, withdraw existing onshore and offshore gas permits within five years, banning seabed mining permits nationwide, and withdrawing existing seabed mining permits. We would establish a dedicated $1 billion Pūngao Auaha fund for community energy projects—solar panel installations on marae, kura, homes, and papakāinga housing developments.

As Te Paati Māori spokesman for climate change, I recognise and stand in support of iwi and Māori forestry opposition of proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The Government has made proposals around forestry credits in the ETS disenfranchising a thriving Māori economy on whenua that is and has always been ours. Changes to the way pines are dealt with in the ETS means that Māori land owners—whether iwi, hapū, or trust—will lose revenue, further marginalising and discriminating against both our whenua and wealth potential, which, in the middle of cost of living crisis, is cruel.

We absolutely tautoko planting indigenous and natives and restoring our natural ecosystems; that lies at the heart of our vision for Aotearoa. However, natives are significantly more expensive and take longer to suck up the carbon. So what could have been announced by Minister Shaw is a plan to incentivise the transition, instead of negatively attacking those whānau who need the tautoko the most.

Te Paati Māori are supporting Māori land owners who are calling for incentives and support to enable a greater uptake in native reforestation. The Minister is giving predominantly Pākehā farmers a free pass while punishing Māori landowners through these changes; that is not a just transition by any stretch of the imagination. It represents a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A just transition will never be true if it ignores tangata whenua, and that is what you are doing. The fact that the Minister knows it’s weak is concerning. I feel real ahora for our Paati Kakariki, who know better.

In closing, the protection of Papatūānuku and a stable global climate cannot be achieved without indigenous leadership and knowledge of the recognition of indigenous rights. In Aotearoa, that means that whānau, hapū, and iwi must lead and the solutions must be our own. Nothing less will achieve the reductions in emissions needed to keep our mokopuna safe and well. Nō reira, tēnā tātou e te Whare.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fãiåk se’ea. Noa‘ia ‘e mạuri. It’s always an honour and a privilege to speak in this House, but especially on this special debate, on the Government’s motion on New Zealand’s first emissions budgets under the climate response Act. I want to acknowledge the climate change Minister, James Shaw, for his due diligence in terms of his leadership in channelling this very important issue into the House. I agree with Minister Megan Woods that it is achievable, the emissions budget is achievable.

Before I continue my speech, I just want to remind us what the budget actually is. So Minister Shaw tells us that the emissions budgets will operate as stepping stones that will keep us on track to get to our 2050 emissions reductions targets, first country in the world to declare 1.5 degrees Celsius to global warming. So Minister Shaw reminded us that in 2019, our emissions, in 2019, per year were a megatonne of carbon dioxide, equivalent to State house gas emissions of 77.2 megatonne, equivalent to greenhouse gases. The first plan looks at us reducing that to 72 and then to 61 megatonne. And in 2035, we are hopeful that we will get to 48 megatonne per year.

When we talk about megatonne greenhouse gas emissions, what does that look like? Well, actually, one megatonne is about 8.3 million one-way flights between Wellington and Auckland. So when we put it like that, it looks like that, and what we are trying to achieve it is massive, and it requires action. I want to acknowledge the leadership that we’ve heard today. It’s great that the National Government went to Paris and signed the agreement. We had no plan. So we’ve come a long way to now agreeing to this. So I just want to thank everybody’s leadership in the House.

I stand here today, it is the Rotuma language week, and I want to remind everyone in this House about their percentage of carbon emissions of the Pacific. Saber Salem writes about the Pacific as sinking States. When we talk about the Pacific, we talk about the Pacific in one word: “Pacific”. But actually, I want to put it to the record today that the Pacific is 14 countries. It is the Cook Islands, the federated States of Marshall Islands, Fiji, and in Fiji there we have Rotuma, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, PNG, the republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Last year, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and the Minister James Shaw announced $1.3 billion. We quadrupled our support to the Pacific of $1.3 billion for the next four years.

We talk about how finally our lived experiences have caught up with what the scientists have told us. Might I say my kāinga in Tonga and in the 14 island States that I have voiced in this House are only really only responsible for 0.03 percent of carbon emissions. Today I’m wearing, when we look at me and what I’m wearing today, it’s called a tēfui from Rotuma. It stands for the seven districts of Rotuma. The flowers represent the seven districts of Rotuma. The name Tuvalu represents the eight islands of Tuvalu. We all remember the Minister of Finance for Tuvalu standing in the ocean, delivering his speech, because that is the reality of Tuvalu. Everything we do in New Zealand is a stepping stone to the Pacific.

We’ve invested in electric vehicles. We are the market for second-hand vehicles. That second-hand vehicle will be third hand to the Pacific. So everything we do in New Zealand, every action in terms of leadership that we conduct in New Zealand will contribute to the Pacific. Might I remind everybody that we are in the Pacific Ocean and that our neighbours, our families are living, are dying. And I want to say we can go on and say with the other two parties “That’s not enough.” But I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Climate Change. Action is about leadership. We are finally taking action, and I look forward to all New Zealanders being climate change champions. Join the Ministers and we will all be champions. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Scott Simpson—five minutes.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): For the benefit of the last speaker, it’s not a bill. It is the endorsement of this House on the budgets as set out by the Minister. But let’s not get into the lack of detail from the previous speaker.

I want to re-emphasise the comments made by the National Party deputy leader earlier in this debate. The National Party supports these budgets. We support the process. We support the framework, as we have done for many years now. The history is important, because those on the other side sometimes choose to forget it. But it is important, because New Zealanders need to have the certainty and the understanding that notwithstanding the multiple changes of Government that will occur in the years to come, the decades to come towards 2050, the direction of climate action and net emissions reduction is set. New Zealanders need to know that, because that gives them certainty in the decision making that they undertake in their day-to-day lives, in their businesses, and in their communities. That certainty is important.

National is committed to the objective of net zero by 2050. We are committed to the zero carbon legislation, the framework, and the independence of the commission that advises the Government of the day, and it’s that advice that we are, effectively, debating today, because the budgets that have been accepted and promulgated by the Government this week are actually very close to those that were recommended by the independent commission.

But as the deputy leader of the National Party, Nicola Willis, said in her address in this debate, notwithstanding that we support the process and the pathway, we absolutely reserve the right, as it is right and proper to in a functioning democracy, to argue the detail—to argue the detail. Because not all emissions actions and policies are equal or the same. They have a variety of costs and impacts on people’s lives, on their businesses, and on their communities. Some will differ. Some will be more effective than others. Some will cost more than others. Some will have more impact than others. Some will potentially bend the curve faster than others, some slower.

But it’s the right of parliamentarians in this Parliament and future parliaments to debate the detail. In fact, it would be wrong—it would be utterly wrong—for any Parliament to merely accept, without question, without debate, without critique, the policies and initiatives and the levers and buttons that any Government chooses to use on this journey we are taking as a nation to decarbonise our economy over the next several decades. It’s a big job. It’s a big mission.

So Nicola Willis has set out the framework in her speech about the assessments that we will be making as an Opposition of the emissions plan that the Minister will release on Monday next. That’s likely to be a long list. We don’t have the benefit of knowing what’s on his list, but I’m suspecting it will be quite a long list. It would be wrong for aspects of that reduction plan to be nothing more than party political pet projects. If there are party political pet projects in that list that are questionable in terms of their cost, their effectiveness, or their emissions reduction reality, then we’ll call those out, and that’s right and proper for us to do so. On this side of the House, we’ll be looking for initiatives in that reduction plan next week that actually bend the curve fast, that are able to move us at a pace which is going to get us to where we want to be by 2050.

I implore the Government and the Minister to consider the comments that Nicola Willis made, particularly in relation to involving the private sector. There are terrific opportunities for a business and entrepreneurial sector within our economy who are dying to be involved. In fact, overseas experience tells us, actually, that in similar jurisdictions like the UK—where we largely did a cut and paste of their legislative and regulatory framework—actually, it wasn’t the politicians who were leading the action. It wasn’t the politicians who were leading the debate in so many of the initiatives that were being taken. It was business, and it has been business. In the UK they’ve actually been able to adopt more aggressive reduction budgets thanks to the benefit of business and the business community getting on board. So here’s an invitation to the Government: don’t discount the opportunities that the business community provides.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Marama Davidson—five minutes.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We who are here today borrow the earth from our mokopuna, and that’s a longstanding kōrero particularly heralded by indigenous communities around the world. We who are here today are caretakers of the environment that we also borrow from our mokopuna. We are caretakers today of the humanity we are nurturing for our mokopuna. This is the framework that we all need to adopt as we set pace for the work we need to do when we give our earth back to our future generations. We’re proud to support these emission budgets as another key milestone towards getting to a zero-carbon and a climate-safe future for our mokopuna.

I want to acknowledge the work of the experts at the Climate Commission and affirm that we will continue to be led by the best science and not shy away from taking the action needed to bring emissions down as fast as feasible. We know that the scale of change is daunting, absolutely, and there will be communities who need extra support to transition, and we are committed to a just transition for workers and exposed regions also.

I did want to pick up on the equity lens that will be needed as we progress this work. I want to pick up on how we’ve often heard particularly from the Opposition that we need to take people with us in this work, and we absolutely do. But let’s be mindful that we have already left behind, for generations, many communities, and many groups of people. So let’s not pretend that we are already all starting from the same point. Let’s not pretend that there haven’t already been privileges and oppressions in the economic system that far too many are actually still trying to protect. So I wanted to point out that a rebalancing of those privileges will be necessary, and a rebalancing will be necessary for those who have been consistently disadvantaged.

These emissions budgets carry us through to 2035. By 2035, my mokopuna—Raeya is three this Saturday, and Ariya will be 4½ months—will be teenagers by then, they’ll probably be taller than me, and they will have their own opinions about how the world should work. I fully expect them to hold us all to account for the decisions we’re making right now on climate change. I hope that we’ll all be able to look back and be able to say, “We did as much as we could to bring emissions down and keep global warming under 1.5 degrees.”

Absolutely we are all climate parliamentarians; what we also have to understand is the connection to our environment. As the fabulous Minister of Conservation, Ms Allan, pointed out to us today, we also have to understand that we cannot have system change without understanding the connection to people and to the care for people. People, environment, and climate are all absolutely interdependent on each other and the work that we do.

We do acknowledge the support of movements and advocates for stronger and faster action, and we agree that climate action needs to happen as fast as possible. At the same time, let’s remember we are dealing with around 250 years of an economic system that has continued to push climate emissions up. What we are doing right now in actually setting a plan to push climate emissions down is massive. This is historic that we even are turning in a direction of decreasing climate emissions. So let’s not underplay how important that significant change is. And, yes, when we get a future opportunity to review how we are going, I do hope that we will have absolutely set ourselves at least on the path and then can accelerate even further.

We must absolutely have a Tiriti–centred approach to all of this work. The fruits of the most enduring plans are—and I acknowledge Te Paati Māori and my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—in the leadership of indigenous people all around the world and, most certainly, tangata whenua who are already leading the way. As the Green Party co-leader, I uphold that approach for this work.

We have to remember that this historic moment is significant and that we need to all pull together to ensure that future Budgets are set with even more acceleration in mind. That is the biggest safety protection that we can give for today and for our mokopuna to come. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Following on from the earlier speeches by my colleagues Nicola Willis and Scott Simpson, National does absolutely support the emissions targets, including the net zero Paris Agreement. As with all Government policies and spending, we need effective and efficient climate change policies to deliver on these ambitious emissions targets.

While we support the emissions budgets and the targets, we will carefully evaluate each part of the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan when it’s released next week, because where we disagree—and we will have places where we will disagree—it is because we are committed to lower emissions. We need to make sure that every step that we take in this process around the policies that are put in place will lower emissions, and I want to just take a rural lens on this for a period of time and talk about New Zealand farmers.

New Zealand farmers are up for the challenge. We already lead the world in the production of low-carbon food and fibre products. There was a KPMG report out recently on an evaluation of 32 countries where New Zealand was ninth out of those 32 countries for zero carbon readiness, and our agriculture sector was at No. 1. Now, that doesn’t mean we can sit on our laurels and say that we’re the best. We have things that we need to do, and we definitely, as a rural community, are up for the challenge.

We need to be striving all the time to reduce our footprint if we’re to maintain our position at the front of the pack, but what we need to see in this process is transitions that are made sensibly, and this means ensuring that all farmers have the tools in the tool box that they need to successfully make the shift rather than simply becoming unviable, because that would be a terrible outcome not only for Kiwi farmers but for all New Zealanders. Where Governments have an important role in all of this is in supporting research and development but also ensuring that the right regulatory settings are in place, and it’s quite concerning for farmers at the moment that there are tools for methane reduction that are becoming available to other countries.

There are certain methane inhibitors at the moment where regulations in Europe have been approved, and here we are with close to, I think, 18 months in this country of having had that particular methane inhibitor sitting on the desk of the Environmental Protection Authority. So National doesn’t want any leakage in any of these processes and doesn’t want to have our food production transferred overseas by making our rules here rather harsh without thinking about how we’d progress the transition, but, equally, if other countries like in parts of Europe are able to use technologies that we have sitting on a desk here in New Zealand that our farmers cannot use, that puts us at a disadvantage.

So that’s where you’re going to see National step in and look for transitions that absolutely do work. We do need to make sure, as in the current discussions, that we’ve got the debate going on between short-lived and long-lived gases, because there clearly is a difference. Yes, agriculture is responsible for a proportion—a large proportion—of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, but agriculture is not responsible for half of what is contributing to warming, and, at the end of the day, stopping warming is what this is all about.

So what we want to see in policies under the Emissions Reduction Plan is for them to be transparent about the true costs in the emissions reductions that will be achieved. We must be able to fairly assess the costs and the benefits of the Government interventions so that we can make informed decisions as we work our way through this process. National wants to lower emissions. We need sensible policies, sensible transitions, and sensible ways to do it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its support for the following proposed domestic emissions budgets, which set out the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that will be permitted in each emissions budget period as a net amount of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are to be notified under the Climate Change Response Act 2002: 290 megatonnes (million tonnes) carbon dioxide equivalent in the first emissions budget period 2022-25; 305 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the second emissions budget period 2026-30; and 240 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the third emissions budget period 2031-35.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I move, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill responds to a Supreme Court decision in the matter of Attorney-General v Taylor and in that decision the Supreme Court determined that the senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has been able to issue declarations of inconsistency since 2001, but only in respect of the right to be free from discrimination. The effect of the declaration by the Supreme Court is not to invalidate the legislation in question or render ineffective, but to indicate to the executive branch of Government and, importantly, to the House that there is a substantive issue. And given that the Bill of Rights Act requires courts to give legislation a rights-consistent interpretation, if one was available, such declarations will not be made lightly.

The Supreme Court’s decision raised a question of what should happen after the senior courts issued a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Currently, there is no mechanism which ensures that the executive or the House will give serious reconsideration to the legislation in light of the judicial comment. This bill provides a process for that reconsideration to occur. By doing so, the bill strengthens the protections of the rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I want to thank the Privileges Committee for its expert and diligent consideration of the bill and those members of the public who made submissions. Submitters included individuals with significant expertise in constitutional and human rights law, and the changes made to the bill will create a stronger framework for the executive and this House to consider and respond to declarations of inconsistency and the issues that they raise.

As introduced, the bill required the Attorney-General to notify Parliament about the declaration of inconsistency six sitting days after the declaration becomes final. The bill amended both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act so that declarations about the consistency of legislation with those Acts are treated in the same way. The bill, as reported back from the Privileges Committee, now requires the Government to also respond to the declaration of inconsistency within six months of a declaration being brought to the attention of the House. This deadline can be varied by the resolution of this House. It may be desirable to extend the deadline if, for instance, a longer period is required to respond to a particularly complex policy issue. The Government response must be presented to the House by the Minister responsible for the legislation to which the declaration of inconsistency relates.

The notification by the Attorney-General to the House would also trigger a parliamentary process which would be included in the House’s Standing Orders. This process would include a declaration of inconsistency being referred to a select committee allocated by the Clerk of the House, select committee consideration of the declaration and reporting on the declaration within four months—unless the Business Committee determines a different deadline—and a debate in the House on the declaration, the select committee report, and the Government’s response to the declaration upon the presentation of the latter.

The Privileges Committee consulted the Standing Orders Committee on the recommended parliamentary process, which will be adopted permanently in the House’s rules when the next review of the Standing Orders takes place. The Privileges Committee also agreed that a consistent approach to declarations of inconsistency should apply between the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The process recommended by the committee provides a clear framework for dialogue between the branches of Government to consider and respond to declarations of inconsistency and the issues that they raise. And this is the aim of the bill: to facilitate consideration of the judiciary’s declaration of inconsistency by the legislative and executive branches of Government. It is important to note that the bill does not propose that either the legislative or executive branches be required to respond to a declaration of inconsistency in a particular way. Under our constitutional arrangements, that is properly a matter for each branch of Government to determine on its own.

This is an important constitutional development. It responds to the Supreme Court decision in Taylor in a manner that preserves the sovereignty of Parliament, but also creates a means for Parliament to review whether any limits on rights in an Act are justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) (remote): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. I want to join with the Minister in thanking officials and those submitters who were very, very supportive of the Privileges Committee in its consideration of the bill. I’m no lawyer, but I’ve been around for nearly 13 years, so I’ve passed a few bills as Minister and considered lots of bills in select committee, and I think this one has been quite intellectually and cerebrally challenging—not so much because the bill itself is that complex but because its impact on our constitutional legal framework is significant.

As we were considering this bill, I was thinking about two things: one, was this a constitutional red herring; is this something that’s very rare and is unlikely to have effect very often? Secondly, is there a risk that Parliament might pay lip service to the declarations by the courts, which would be, I think, a real shame? I think, as far as the second point is concerned, and I’m confident that—certainly as it’s come out of the Privileges Committee, but probably in the shape that it was going in—there is a determination to make sure that we do listen very carefully to the courts, while maintaining that very important constitutional separation of the legislature and the courts. The second one was, “Well, is this going to be a bit of a red herring, one that we don’t see so very often?” And when we first got the bill, I thought that would be the case. I’m not so sure now, because of some of the legislation that’s been passed in the last couple of years—particularly in respect of COVID regulations and laws. And there have been a number of those laws passed where the Attorney-General has said that, “Yes, they may be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), but that restriction on New Zealanders’ freedoms is justified in the circumstances.” And I think there will be a situation where that might be challenged in the future. Indeed, it’s not only COVID legislation that has had that. We have had a number of laws passed in the last couple of years which many say restrict people’s freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of worship. Where the Attorney-General has said, “Yip, that’s reasonable in the circumstances.” The courts may in the future disagree with that, which will behove the Parliament to come back and have a look at that.

Now, the case that gave rise to this bill is known as the Attorney-General v Arthur Taylor. It came out of a challenge to a piece of legislation, passed in 2010, which restricted the rights of sentenced offenders who were serving a period of incarceration of no more than three years and removed their rights to vote. What’s interesting about that, of course, is that the Attorney-General did issue an NZBORA vet, which said that the bill that had passed was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and such a restriction could not be justified. So Parliament already had a good look at this. The select committee really thrashed it out. It was quite a controversial piece of legislation, although I would point out two things actually: Arthur Taylor would not have benefitted from this had the law not been passed, because his period of incarceration was longer than three years and anybody serving a sentence of four years or more at the time of an election would not have been eligible to vote. So this was a contentious point, the fact that somehow this egregious restriction affected the rights of New Zealanders serving prison sentences of less than three years but not for longer than that. And so it’s equally possible that, although the Attorney-General wasn’t asked to consider that, he or she in the future might consider the current law as it relates to serving prisoner sentences of longer than three years to also be an unreasonable restriction.

In any event, the senior courts have decided that they do have the right to declare an inconsistency, and the question, then, before the Privileges Committee and the Government was: what do we do about that? The Minister has just outlined the changes to the bill as recommended by the Privileges Committee, which I support. I think they’re a pragmatic response to a situation that does behove Parliament to take the courts’ declarations seriously. In fact, I was also a member of the Standing Orders Committee. The previous Minister of Justice, in introducing the bill, thought that—looking at Hansard—the Privileges Committee would also look at the Standing Orders, but we had this slightly interesting exchange between the Privileges Committee and the Standing Orders Committee, of which many of us were members of both, to ensure that what we were actually doing was understood. The Standing Orders Committee has come up with, I think, a very sound process for considering matters that are referred back to the House.

Here’s where I think there’s going to be a distinction, and I think the Taylor case is an important one to have a look at in that regard. There will be two scenarios in the future: one where Parliament has already been advised by the Attorney-General that, in his or her view, a restriction on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act freedoms is not justified under section 5 of that Act and, therefore, there has already been a serious consideration of that issue by the Parliament and, arguably, by the Government if it’s a Government bill. If, in its collective wisdom, Parliament decided that that bill should be passed anyway, then I think that’s going to trigger a slightly different response to the second scenario, which is where the Attorney-General did not issue such a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, it was believed that those restrictions didn’t exist—whether or not they were reasonable—and the courts come along and say, “Actually, no, they are an unreasonable restriction.” So, in fact, there are two scenarios within that: one is there is a clear New Zealand Bill of Rights vet; the other one is that the Attorney-General does see a restriction in human rights but that is justified and the courts disagree.

Now, I think Parliament would have to take a different approach to those situations where, effectively—this is a poor way to describe it—the Attorney-General and the courts have a different view. If the Attorney-General had the same view as the courts, as in the Taylor case, and Parliament already thrashed that out and decided to pass the legislation anyway, I think going deeply back into that is probably not necessary—that’s not to undermine the view of the courts or to diminish their role in our constitution. But it’s going to be a quite different process, I think, if the Attorney-General and Parliament did not think that there was an unreasonable restriction and the courts did. I think that’s a reconciliation that would need much more thought and, therefore, more time.

So when the committee was considering this in putting a six-month limit on the report back to the House, it gave Parliament or the Business Committee the ability to extend that, because I can foresee a time in the future, if that scenario does come up, where these could be quite complicated issues that will take longer than six months. We struck a six-month time frame to say, “OK, there is an expectation of a timely and expedient response.”, but, actually, for complicated cases, that could be unrealistically restrictive.

So, in summary, this has been a very interesting journey. I think it’s important to make sure that we get it right and that—the committee was very clear about this—we really protect the constitutional separation between Parliament and the judiciary. I think we’ve done that. National will continue to support that, and I look forward to the bill’s passage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A real pleasure to speak on this bill. As I think Mr Woodhouse and others have noted, it’s a really fascinating bill that gets the brain cells working about the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament, and that we have to be very, very careful indeed as to how we tinker with that relationship, particularly through legislation.

The thrust of this bill is that when the courts say that there is an inconsistency in legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it’s appropriate for it to be taken very seriously indeed, not only by Parliament but also by Government. The Attorney-General has a role to bring it to the attention of Parliament, but most importantly, what the Privileges Committee—and I was very privileged to sit on that committee—said is, “No, we need more. We actually need a substantive response from Government.” So the committee suggested to this House that it adopt certain rules so that a select committee consider these questions.

I just note, as an aside, that these questions are very important, and I know that there’s litigation in train in respect of the voting age to make it 16, and that is going on, I think, to the Supreme Court. Look, if that is a declaration, in that respect, that is absolutely something we need to look at very closely. A select committee is a great vehicle to do that. The Government can then respond on the select committee advice to this House in the last statement, which are all in the Standing Orders—because legislation isn’t really the appropriate place, but proposed Standing Orders to have a debate in this House to explain and expand on why the position has been taken and whether it should be adjusted by some part of the Government’s programme, whatever Government that might be.

So I think real improvements on a very well-advised select committee, but another part of the kind of constitutional jostling that goes on between Parliament and the judiciary. But I do think the constitution, the flexible constitution that we have here in New Zealand, is much the better for it. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Like others, I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to wrestle with these large questions for our constitution, and I acknowledge the contributions made by others, including, of course, starting with the Minister. I did also enjoy, and thought very helpful, that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse set out some of the background in terms of the different bodies within Parliament that have considered these, which Duncan Webb has noted, perhaps with an element of tautology, as privileged to be on the Privileges Committee.

So I think we can take it as read that the House agrees—or certainly at least a majority of the House, and speaking certainly on behalf of National—with the principle that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) contains important rights and freedoms. These should be protected in any way we reasonably can. So allowing that is a reasonably obvious statement to cap off with.

I do want to use my contribution to note the tensions that have been raised again, as I say, by Mr Woodhouse, in relation to those different branches of Government, and to explain how my conscience is assuaged to someone who does believe, as a starting point, in parliamentary sovereignty that the bill is right to go as far as it does, but also to explain the reason that it does not go further than it does.

So if I can start by setting up a number of principles to which I think all parties in this House probably ascribes to, certainly the major two from whom we’ve heard so far. We have separate branches of Government. There is a good relationship between those whereby they don’t tread on each other’s toes, so to speak—often referred to as comity. We have an avoidance of tyranny by avoiding the concentration of power, too great an amount of power in a single branch, perhaps to be dominated by the brunt of a few people, an absence of checks and balances and so forth. So a major aspect of that is parliamentary sovereignty—which is of course the body that is Parliament, the legislature—is able to make laws. And, of course, the reason that we can justify that is not being tyrannical, it is that, of course, we are subject to the will of the people every three years at general elections, and, of course, in other important ways that do not apply—for example, to the courts.

So parliamentary sovereignty is important for that reason of democratic accountability. I think it’s worth noting, at the risk of creating a diplomatic incident, that I think New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements in this regard are superior to those in many other jurisdictions. For example, with all due respect to our American friends, I think that we’ve seen in recent years a number of different instances of difficulties that a system encounters when a court becomes not only a body for adjudicating specific instances in front of it but with a view to those determining policy. And, of course, where policy goes, politics can readily follow; indeed does follow, inevitably so. Of course, I don’t wish to comment in any more detail than that except to say I think it’s positive in this country; we don’t have that sense of partisanship infecting our court system. We don’t concern ourselves with the vagaries of individual judges’ life expectancy and so forth. So I do want to note for the record that I think we already have in this country a very good system and I’m determined, as I think everyone else in this House is too, that we don’t undermine that by going too far with such legislation.

But I think it’s also fair to point out that our system is not perfect, which is to say it does have some anomalies in the way that we treat the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and questions of its inconsistency. So, for example, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports under section 7 of that legislation, made to Parliament by the Attorney-General, who, on the one hand, is an officer providing legal advice, but he or she—“he” currently, of course, Mr Parker—is also a member of this Chamber and of the executive and therefore the Government of the day. So I don’t see a way around that, but suggest, for example, that the Attorney-General should be an Officer of Parliament as opposed to a member. But I do note that it is at least worth recording, I suppose, that there is not a perfect, clear system that we have currently whereby Parliament considers questions of NZBORA consistency, such that we could say, well, therefore we don’t need the courts to have a second look on any occasion.

My second point under the heading of “anomalies with the New Zealand system currently” is of course that Parliament can legislate contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I regard that as a feature, not a bug, of the system. As Mr Woodhouse has pointed out, it feels as though there is a distinction to be made between the scenario in which Parliament understands, through the advice of the Attorney-General, that draft legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but chooses to do so anyway, as compared with Parliament perhaps not having turned its mind to the question, or perhaps having received a report from the Attorney-General at the time that suggests that it is in fact consistent.

So, of course, the question of consistency isn’t in itself a clear-cut matter. It’s a legal fiction to suggest, I suppose, there’s such a thing as a bright line between consistency and inconsistency. So I think it does behove us legislating in this space to bear that in mind. If anything, I suppose it might be an argument in favour of such legislation, because it says that the Attorney-General shouldn’t necessarily have the last word, or even the only word, I suppose, outside of Parliament itself. We will allow the courts to come in and provide an opinion, essentially, on the matter as well, in the way that providing a second opinion, or obtaining a second opinion, is often beneficial to good decision-making.

The other point I suppose I would make and, at the risk of making a gratuitous mention of the work of the Regulations Review Committee—far be it from me to do that and I gain support across the House from various others who may do so in similar contributions—but secondary legislation is, roughly speaking, outside the ambit of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration. That’s not completely true, I take a bit of a liberty in saying that, but I think it is fair at least to say that they are not the subject of section 7 reports under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act before they are made, they’re not scrutinised before they are made in that kind of way. So I think, certainly, there’s always a good case for courts to be invited to scrutinise Executive action—that is, the making of orders, notices, and so on, which we can call together secondary legislation—in a way that feels as though it might be a bit different from Parliament passing primary legislation where we have always had the benefit of a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report or, at least, a so-called BORA vet, where the advice is that such rights and freedoms aren’t engaged even to the extent that a report would be needed.

I think I should note, I guess by way of slight nervousness about a scenario in which we invite the courts to provide to Parliament direction about matters of human rights consistency, that not all have equal access to the courts. Of course, that shouldn’t be the case but I think it’s fair to note that we do risk establishing a way of agenda-setting, political agenda-setting via the courts in a scenario where not all have equal access to the courts. Most obviously, that relates to the huge financial cost often incurred in court proceedings, but, more generally, economic, cultural, institutional advantages enjoyed by some more than others. Of course, it should be the work of every diligent parliamentarian to reduce those barriers to justice, but the reality is that—at least so far as we are presently concerned, and probably always to some extent—there will be more opportunities for some than others to access the courts to promote the idea that the law should be changed on the basis of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistency.

So I think, having had a bob each way—or perhaps several in each direction—I think it’s fair to summarise my contribution as saying that, like others in this House, I’m anxious to promote the idea that laws should be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that it’s appropriate that we currently have a scenario whereby the Attorney-General provides their advice on that question initially, but we don’t wish to preclude the courts from making such a declaration. Of course, they’ve already taken it upon themselves to do that on occasion, as has been mentioned, but to add now, as we’re doing, that the Government and/or Parliament should be required to respond in some way to that. So we think that’s appropriate as far as it goes.

So parliamentary sovereignty ultimately is maintained but modified. This House retains control of the outcome of legislation but not entirely now it’s process. So on that slightly nuanced basis, I note we are making a significant move but it is a move that goes only so far, and I think that’s appropriate. So, along with others in the National Party, we continue to support the bill as we spoke to at the first reading, and we look forward to engaging this important debate further for the remainder of its passage.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, as my colleague Chris Penk from the Regulations Review Committee spoke about, he mentioned what other democracies are doing in this space, and he mentioned the United States. I think, last week, a few of us felt a shiver down our spines as we received texts about a leaked document suggesting that a 40-year-old precedent of Roe v Wade was soon to be overturned. Democracy shares strong common values of representation, accountable leadership, and rights-based architectures, but each is forged in its own crucible. It’s often only where these balance of fundamental rights are tested that the unique aspects of each distinct democratic architecture—with all its nuances and all its history—are questioned, and then we find those echoed through front-page news stories.

And really fundamental to the alchemy that happens in the constitutional crucible for each distinct democracy are two questions. Firstly, where our collective imagination will agree the lines of decision making between the three limbs of Government that colleagues have spoken to—so the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Secondly, the process that should govern tensions between those lines. I think that in the bustle of the legislative agenda, it would be easy to see this bill as routine, but it’s not. It holds really earthy democratic significance. It concerns the second of the two questions—how to manage the tensions between our limbs of Government.

Paul Rishworth talks in an article that he wrote for Britomart Chambers about the idea of a declaration of inconsistency essentially being a bridge between judicial authority and parliamentary supremacy. And he says, “With declarations, Courts can express their conclusions in a formal way, with the gravitas that a considered judicial opinion implies, but it lies with Parliament to choose whether and how to respond.” So this bill essentially acts as that bridge to close the gap, creating a pathway between a declaration itself and active consideration by Parliament of that declaration, while still maintaining Parliament’s ultimate supremacy in terms of lawmaking. It does that, as colleagues have spoken to, by requiring the Attorney-General to notify Parliament when these declarations are made, but also requiring a Government response within six months.

As much as this increases the presence within our conversations of key judicial reflections, to my mind it’s also confirmation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty as essentially the locus of power within our system. This is a significant step in our story of democracy, and I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I speak in support of this bill as a member of the Privileges Committee. I do want to thank my colleagues on that committee and congratulate the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, who is our chair, for their courage to bring a bill like this to the House in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor.

I do want to hold that decision engaged: the fundamental right of New Zealanders to vote and whether or not there was discrimination in that regard. So these are the types of fundamental issues that engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is the case that every Parliament can explicitly breach those rights, but to say that citizens who’ve gone all the way up to the Supreme Court of our country to find that their rights have been breached could have no response at all by Government, or respective Houses of Representatives as we come through, is—I think—something that would shock most New Zealanders. I think that the expectation of the public is that a bill like this would exist; that there would be a requirement for Parliament and for the Government of the day to respond appropriately—not that an unelected court would overrule the other elected branches of our Government, but that if we are to say that access to justice is important and that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act both respectively hold our fundamental rights, that there would be a response.

We worked really, really hard on this in committee, and we did hear from some incredible constitutional law experts. We heard from the Human Rights Commission, the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, and we heard, importantly, from the architects of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, from Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Sir Ken Keith, who came along with handwritten notes from back in the day when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was being drafted. They told us their intentions and their understanding of how that piece of legislation would operate to secure fundamental rights in New Zealand. They told us that the expectation was always that the Standing Orders would be amended to require a reaction to inconsistencies, to section 7 reports; that that was never done; that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was relegated to this position of relative impotence; and there was palpable and justifiable anger at that.

They did lay at our feet the responsibility to give effect to this piece of legislation now that the Supreme Court has told us what is needed. So when the legislation came to us, it was already exciting that we were going to as a Parliament—and it began last term, but then renewed this term—and say, “Yes, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can go up to the higher courts and there can be these declarations.”

But it was also, at least for my part, anxiety that we wouldn’t necessarily prescribe a process in the bill that would give effect to the type of reaction and the type of response that the Supreme Court had intended for us to do. And so those submitters really crystallised what was needed. So I do want to acknowledge that, and I do want to thank both the committee and the submitters for actually looking at this closely enough and saying, “What is the balance?”

So we have a democracy and we have the elected members responsible for lawmaking who are supreme and can presumably breach rights, but that the judicial branch of our Government, who’s responsible for ruling in individual cases and interpreting the law, is also part of this equation, and that members of the public have a right to have their rights made effective if they have had recourse to the courts. We worked hard on that.

And so I think the balance is struck here, and I think this is an incredible and exciting constitutional development for New Zealand. I think we’re going to see some interesting cases come before us and some important ways that we as lawmakers and Government—and Governments and parliaments after us—are going to be engaged with questions about the way that we make law and the way that we respond to popular sentiments, like taking away the right to vote from prisoners, which is what that case engaged. But that means something in terms of weakening or strengthening human rights across the board in New Zealand, and that slippery slope won’t be so easy for Governments and parliaments to fall down. So I do commend the bill to the House and congratulate the Attorney-General and the Minister for bringing it.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m rising today in support of the second reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party.

We are a democratic country and we should be very proud of that, and we should be proud of the rights and liberties we’re afforded under being a democratic nation. All New Zealanders elect representatives on their behalf to come to this House to create laws for them. The Government passes new laws all the time for the people of New Zealand and, in turn, the Government and elected representatives here have a duty to New Zealanders to act in their interests with the laws that are written. It’s also true that we have long-established rules and rights under the law about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and what are our duties and freedoms under the law.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act says that there are a number of categories of rights that all New Zealanders have and that those fall into having life and security of a person, democratic and civil rights, the rights to non-discrimination, the rights against search, arrest, and detention, and the rights to justice. These are very important, fundamental rights that we are lucky to have, because we are a democratic nation.

All laws that come into Parliament must be seen by the Attorney-General to see whether they are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act before they are introduced and passed into statute, and the Attorney-General informs Parliament of any inconsistencies he sees in the law. Some of these can be justified. If you take a small example of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your age, we say that people under a certain age shouldn’t have a driver’s licence or they shouldn’t be able to drive an automobile. I think that’s the right thing to do, because does anybody want a toddler getting in a car and driving down the street? So there are justifiable limitations to rights.

However, sometimes the Attorney-General also states that some of the rights that have been changed under law or are inconsistent are not justifiable under law, and that the limitation on somebody’s right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not justifiable. The most recent example that we’ve seen of this was when the Attorney-General stated that the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill was not consistent. He said that it was not consistent because it discriminated and it was a discrimination based on race. He said that it limits the freedom from discrimination and that it cannot be justified.

So there are times when this Parliament creates laws that do restrict people’s rights and they can be seen as a justified limitation, and there are times when they are not a justified limitation, and so the scrutiny of those laws is extremely important. We all have rights, and the limits should be scrutinised very, very strongly.

Under our current arrangements, New Zealanders can take a matter to the court and seek to have a declaration. So they can seek for the courts to scrutinise the law and the limitations that those laws have on their rights—the declaration of inconsistency—but that’s where the matter stops. Nobody even needs to know about it. Nobody needs to know that the declaration has been issued, and that’s where this law comes in. This law would give more accountability. It would give more scrutiny and transparency to the laws that this Parliament passes, and that sounds like a good thing, because this means that the law that the courts have determined is inconsistent with people’s rights and freedoms and cannot be justified will be known to Parliament, and that will give all New Zealanders greater protection of our basic human rights.

I think this law change would make the Government and members of Parliament think differently and carefully about the laws that they are trying to pass. I think the Government would put more due diligence into the drafting of their legal documents. I think the select committees would do more work in a select committee, not to just rubber-stamp what the Government of the day wants to put through without looking at any analysis, but to actually go and deep dive into legislation to see whether these rights are being trampled on.

Now, the ACT Party believes that our laws should be more democratic and that they should be more accountable to the people. We have a different way of looking at our laws. We’re supporting this law at the second reading, but we believe that they could be better in general, not by seeking these declarations, but by making sure that we have regulatory standards in place so the laws never end up getting to that point in the first place. If you take, for example, David Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill, that went in some way to addressing the same issue that the Government wishes to address in this law by making sure that the laws are justified in the first place so that people don’t need to seek a declaration, and that’s because, quite often, what happens is the Government and elected officials are creating laws where regulatory impact analysis has not met the standards that we would actually require of a law.

We need better-quality laws, because if we are limiting people’s rights, it’s very important that we’re not doing it unnecessarily. We need to make sure that we are getting the laws right, that they are consistent with the rule of law, and that we’re not unnecessarily diminishing the rights and liberties of New Zealanders unless it is absolutely necessary.

So we would say that we should have codified in law basic standards of what all laws must pass before they can pass this House. They have to answer a basic test of: what is the problem that the Minister is trying to solve, do other laws already solve the problem, can this problem be solved without a law, what are the costs, who pays the costs, what are the benefits, and do the costs outweigh the benefits or do the benefits outweigh the costs? That is how we would raise the standard of laws being made by the Government and being passed through this House. People should be able to then go to court and seek a declaration that those basic standards have not been met, because if we’re making sure that those basic standards have been met in the first place, there would be less laws being found inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

So, yes, we need more democratic accountability for people in New Zealand to know that their basic rights and freedoms won’t be trampled on by Parliament unnecessarily, so that we can have faith in our legal institutions and we can have faith in the Government to act with good intention, because those are the rights and duties that all New Zealanders have. We all elect representatives to come to Parliament to act on our behalf and to pass good laws that will keep us peaceful and secure and will provide stability, but we don’t want to see it being unnecessarily burdensome.

So the ACT Party will be supporting this bill because we do think it goes some way to addressing the issue of accountability and transparency, but we think there’s more that could be done in the first place. Let’s put in place regulatory standards so that bad laws don’t get passed in the first place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I really enjoy these debates. It’s quite good to have these robust discussions on how those healthy tensions between executive, judiciary, and legislature work in practice. I think this bill, which responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General v Taylor, is a great example of how we can improve that transparency which is so vital within our democracy.

In that decision I mentioned, the Supreme Court determined that senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s decision raised the question of what should happen after senior courts issue a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Currently, there is no mechanism which gives that surety that ensures the executive—or the House, for that matter—will give serious public reconsideration to the legislation in light of that judicial comment.

So this bill provides a pathway forward. It provides a process for that reconsideration to occur. By doing so, the bill strengthens the protections that already exist in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and also those freedoms within there.

I think that it’s important to note that there is already a process in place for declarations of inconsistency made by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and this bill also amends the Human Rights Act to align this process with the process for responding to senior courts’ declarations. I think it’s important to note that when we see senior courts making a declaration of inconsistency, there is just no process for bringing that declaration to the attention of the House of Representatives to have debates such as the one we’re having now. This means that lawmakers might not have the ability to fully consider and give attention to the declaration, and the breaches of rights may potentially not be addressed. So clearing up that inconsistency and providing a clear pathway forward is important.

The very purpose of this bill is to provide a process for Government and the House of Representatives to consider, and, if we think fit, to respond to a declaration of inconsistency made by the senior courts or even the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has been able to issue these declarations since 2001, but only in respect of the right to be free from discrimination. When the Human Rights Review Tribunal makes a declaration of inconsistency in this space, the Government is required to respond to that within a 120-day period.

Look, I’ll leave it there, but I’d just like to note that there are some changes in there. One, I think, of interest, worth pointing out is that changes have also been recommended to the Standing Orders to provide for a parliamentary process that follows once the Attorney-General has been notified of a declaration of inconsistency, which includes a select committee referral.

To conclude, today, ensuring declarations of inconsistency are brought to the attention of this House will promote greater transparency and it will also encourage more active consideration of potential inconsistencies, therefore strengthening the democracy we have here in New Zealand. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just remind members that when we have a hybrid House, when there are loud conversations, it actually interferes with those who are trying to hear on the Zoom.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take a five-minute call for the National Party on the second reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. When I rise to speak I’m conscious to bring any member of the public who may be viewing or listening in, on the journey with us. This is the second reading. The first reading was on 27 May 2020. Almost two years later now, we’re here for the second reading after the bill has been submitted to the select committee for scrutiny.

The debates have been interesting this morning, and important, because this is about the constitutional framework of Aotearoa New Zealand. By way of background, what is a declaration of inconsistency? It is a formal statement granted by a court as a remedy as legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The declaration informs the public and Parliament that, in the court’s view, an Act or legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights.

It’s important also to clarify that a declaration of inconsistency does not affect the validity of the Act or the law or anything done lawfully under the Act. However, currently there is no explicit power in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to issue declarations of inconsistency. There’s been much discussion around that and I’m just going to come back to the process.

The Privileges Committee considered 43 submissions from the public and heard oral evidence from 10 submitters. The key messages that arise out of the consideration of this bill before it passes to the third reading are that currently the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides no procedural mechanism by which declarations of inconsistency can be reported back to the House. So when the bill was before the Privileges Committee, the select committee that examined the bill, the committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed but with amendments that have been agreed to unanimously.

In summary, those proposed amendments are that the Attorney-General is to notify Parliament of a declaration of inconsistency, and that with that, the Attorney-General must present a report to Parliament—the select committee has proposed instead that the Attorney-General notify Parliament. Another recommendation from the select committee is the requirement for the Government to respond, and it’s recommending that the bill be amended to require such a response. A further recommendation is that there be a six-month deadline—that the Government’s response is to be presented to the House within six months of the declaration and that it’s important that the statutory requirement to respond contains the default deadline, which leads on to the next recommendation, and that is that the House is empowered to alter the Government’s deadline. The select committee proposes that the House be empowered to do so by making a resolution specifying a new deadline.

So in the one minute I have left, I note that it’s significant that this is an issue addressing the constitutional framework and there’s been debate and the sharing of views in the House about that separation of the powers between the executive, the judicial, and the status of Parliament as a sovereign body. This bill will come to the House for the third reading, and in doing so it’s interesting to note, as one of the speakers has addressed, that there is an issue before the Māori Affairs Committee, which I sit on, where we’ve received a report back from the Attorney-General with a view that, in particular to the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, the assessment at that time, based on the information available to the Attorney-General, is that it was viewed that there was an unjustifiable limitation to the rights outlined under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds in time. On that note, the National Party commends this bill to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (remote): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the call. It is a real privilege to be able to take a short call on this particular bill. It’s also a privilege for me to actually sub into the Privileges Committee for the hearing of evidence and consideration of this bill, so I’d like to actually, at this point, acknowledge all the submitters. I can comfortably say, I think, in the room at the time that we were hearing the evidence, we had the who’s who of constitutional and public law here in New Zealand to submit on this bill, including, as the previous member Golriz Ghahraman has said, the architects of the first New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Sir Ken Keith. We also had renowned academics Claudia Geiringer, Andrew Geddis, and Dr Dean Knight from Victoria University. So there were plenty of fans, both sitting with the public and also with some of us who were around the select committee table.

So, as already covered by previous members, this bill does respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General v Taylor. Basically, the Supreme Court determined that the senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but actually there was no mechanism which ensured that executive or the House gives serious public reconsideration to the legislation in light of that judicial comment. This bill is really important because it now provides a process for that reconsideration to occur, and the committee of the whole House stage of this bill will be really important for all members of the House to be able to take part to both ask those questions of the Minister but also we need to think ahead for what the process will be. Because one of the key considerations that the Privileges Committee considered was whether any of the parliamentary process should be specified in statute. The Privileges Committee concluded that it shouldn’t be. We concluded that the House has exclusive cognisance over how its proceedings are conducted, and this exclusive right to control its own operations is one of the House’s privileges.

So I’d like to conclude my short contribution by just encouraging members at the committee of the whole House stage of this bill to be active in participation. This bill is really important, it also gives us an opportunity to really set the process for future declarations of inconsistency. So I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a Wellingtonian, proud of this great city’s heritage, I was reminded, as people were speaking, of those once spoken words by the late Alan Martin of L V Martin, an appliance store here, who said, “It’s the putting right that counts.”, and so that’s what we’re doing with this bill. We’re making sure now that it is possible to put things right in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We’ve heard today from my colleagues, but I did want to acknowledge Ministers Parker and Faafoi for their work, the Privileges Committee, and, of course, those submitters who have come in. It sounds like from the previous speaker that there was certainly a high calibre of thought and input into this bill.

I wanted to reinforce a few things, and that is what we haven’t had up until this point, a mechanism that allows the executive to properly and publicly consider the existing legislation in light of the court’s finding. This bill seeks to put that right.

In terms of what else the bill can do, and as the Minister noted when he opened, the Privileges Committee has done an excellent job in considering the bill and hearing submissions and changes that have been coming out and provided us with an even better piece of legislation, including those aforementioned time frames for the Government’s response. I’m not going to repeat that, but I do want to just finish by talking about some practical effects of this, and that is that there will be a clear process and mechanism for this House and the Government to respond in terms of a declaration of inconsistency, and what that leads to, and really, a transparent right and proper opportunity for consideration to be given to the issues raised by the New Zealand public so they can be confident that this House is taking those issues seriously. I commend the bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. This bill is to help provide a mechanism for the executive and the House of Representatives to consider and, if they think fit, respond to a declaration of inconsistency made by the senior courts under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the Human Rights Act 1993.

A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement granted by a court as a remedy that some legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The declaration informs the public and Parliament that in the court’s view, an Act is inconsistent with fundamental human rights. A declaration of inconsistency does not affect the validity of the Act or anything done lawfully under that Act. However, currently there is no explicit power in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to issue declarations of inconsistency.

I’m just going to touch very briefly on branches of Government for those watching. So the Constitution Act 1986 recognises that the three branches of Government are the legislature, which is the Parliament; the executive, which is the Cabinet, Ministers outside Cabinet, plus Government departments; and then the judiciary. Each operates independently of the others, and this is important for our constitutional framework. This is known as the separation of powers. There is, of course, what is often called the fourth estate, which is the media, whose job is to apply sunlight, effectively, and hold the three other branches of Government to account for the public to make their decisions on their effectiveness or otherwise.

The independence of the judiciary in these arrangements exists to ensure impartiality in judicial decision-making and is fundamental to constitutional balance under the Constitution Act 1986 and to the principle of legality that underlines it. Judges, when judging, should be subject only to the law. Independence of the judges is secured by ancient guarantees of security of tenure and salary, and by constitutional conventions which prevent the executive directing the judiciary. An important constitutional convention in this context is also that the Attorney-General acts independently of political considerations in recommending judicial appointments.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a very important part of New Zealand’s framework, having been in force now for many years. The bill that’s before the House this afternoon formally recognises the jurisdiction of the senior courts to make declarations of inconsistency. The bill follows international jurisprudence that the affirmation of rights may require substantive protection but also procedural protection. The bill does not alter the law substantially with regards to the jurisdiction of the senior courts but brings New Zealand into line with many overseas jurisdictions having a formal reporting mechanism.

The bill will effectively give the senior courts a louder voice when dealing with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act matters and will make it harder for Parliament to ignore these declarations of inconsistencies. An important point here is that in terms of the separation of powers, the legislature—Parliament—has an important role to play in considering issues such as these that the Supreme Court will bring to it, which is different from the executive, which is the Cabinet and Ministers outside Cabinet, although they will make their own determination. This will not, however, change parliamentary supremacy.

That is an important issue here, because the judiciary has an independent role to play in assessing laws, in this case against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it may provide declarations of inconsistency, but they don’t have to report to the public in terms of their position. They are independently appointed—that is, independent of political considerations—which is an important part of our constitutional framework.

The executive and the legislature—Parliament—however, do have to report to the public, and the public can, ultimately, effectively, kick us out of power or out of our political positions if they don’t think we’re doing a good job, and that’s a very important separation of power in that sense. So parliamentary supremacy will still be upheld in respect of this, but they will have to pay closer attention to any declarations of inconsistency made by the senior courts.

The Privileges Committee examined the bill and it recommended that it be passed. They recommended all amendments unanimously. The Attorney-General must notify Parliament. The bill, as introduced, states that the Attorney-General must present a report to Parliament, bringing the declaration to the attention of the House. The select committee has proposed that—sorry, I’ll move on from that, Madam Speaker.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is one of the most important pieces of legislation in New Zealand for the promotion and protection of human rights. That’s certainly something that’s been at the forefront over the last couple of years where there have been some limitations on human rights in New Zealand, and it has certainly raised some deep concerns in parts of our communities. And it’s important that there is an outlet within our legal and political frameworks for those concerns. This is an important aspect of providing a ventilation of those concerns, in that cases can be brought before the senior courts and in respect of any legislation that is currently in existence, including historical legislation but also more recent legislation. And if the Supreme Court decides that it is inconsistent, then it can be reported to the House. So a declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement granted by the court as a remedy, if legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights protected by the Bill of Rights Act.

I would just take this opportunity to also reference what the dissenting judges put in Taylor v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment that confirmed that senior courts have the power to issue declarations if legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Those dissenting judges said that a declaration of inconsistency simply hangs in the air. There is no formal mechanism to prompt a political response. Being a lawyer myself, I agree that if it hangs in the air, so to speak, there is a risk, in the public mind, that a formal order of the court may simply be ignored with a consequential danger of erosion for respect for the integrity of law and the institutional standing of the judiciary. This bill remedies that problem and enhances confidence in the public that a decision of the Supreme Court will be taken into account in a formal way by Parliament, which is a very important remedy.

It took the senior New Zealand courts almost 30 years to grant the first declaration of inconsistency to the effect that an Act unjustifiably breaches rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The courts do not make such findings lightly, and it is hoped that these declarations will be a rare occurrence.

In summary, this is a very good piece of law and it is one that I am pleased to see before the House. It enhances the public’s confidence in both the judiciary and maintains that separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, but ensures that there is a very transparent process in terms of the declaration of inconsistency being reported to the House and being taken into account while maintaining the fundamental separation of powers between those bodies. So with that, I recommend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank the very considered contributions from other members of the House, from every party that has spoken and every party who—and they all have. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, when he submitted to the select committee on this bill, said that this is the most important change to our constitutional settings in a very long time, perhaps since the passage of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the first place.

I had the privilege of chairing the Privileges Committee, and although other members have referred to the length of that select committee process, that was deliberate on the part of select committee members and me in that this consideration went over two parliamentary terms. It arrived at the select committee shortly before or in the months before the 2020 election. We didn’t just want to force it through. We wanted this to have full and due consideration of all parties and civil society so that we could form a consensus around it as a Parliament, so that this would endure and that people understood the importance of what it is that we are doing by this bill.

Members have said that this is in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision; that’s not quite correct. The genesis of this legislation goes a lot longer. It’s been an issue that’s been important to me and colleagues, I’m sure, on other sides of the House for a long time. The constitutional review committee some years ago recommended what was called the halfway house under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which this is. In order to stop breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, effectively being able to be ignored by either the executive or the Parliament without much notice, I then got it into the Labour Party policy before the 2017 election, and it was in our policy to introduce this legislation.

Now, we all share responsibilities in this House for upholding civil liberties. As the Government part of that, those responsibilities are essentially shared between the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General, and I’m the Attorney-General. So Andrew Little, the then Minister of Justice, and I brought a Cabinet paper to Cabinet to seek Cabinet authority for the proposition that we introduce this legislation, and that legislation has now come back in the form that it is.

I want to endorse comments that were made by Chris Penk and Vanushi Walters, who both made reference to the fact that we’ve got to be very careful that we don’t give up the settings in New Zealand which we think in this House are superior to a lot of other liberal democracies, who we none the less respect but we don’t think their constitutional settings are quite as good as ours. I think at this point in the history of the world, we’re very, very well served with our settings in New Zealand, where we have a parliamentary democracy with real power invested in the executive controlled by the Parliament, which is controlled by the people through an MMP system that has a lot of checks and balances and can throw us out after three years if they’re sick of us. And within that three-year term the executive, working through Parliament, does actually have the power to effect change.

Now, that system has stood us in good stead in New Zealand. We’re one of the longest, unbroken democracies in the world. Nowhere in South America, virtually nowhere in Asia or Europe—there’s a couple of exceptions there being Great Britain and Switzerland—virtually nowhere in Africa has an unbroken democracy as long as we have had in New Zealand. During that period we’ve been able to sort through some really difficult, controversial issues. Whether it’s the criminal code, whether it’s abortion laws, whether it’s the rights of minorities, be they sexual or racial, or whether it’s Treaty issues, we’ve been very flexible as a country as we approach contentious issues, and we can duck and weave and we can go back where we make a mistake and we can revisit things where we don’t quite get it right and we can get things across the line that require a conversation. We’re not constrained by a written constitution, such as they have in the United States, although we have many written parts of our constitutional framework.

I think at this point of time in the world, when we see some of the more constrained arrangements, where they’ve got so many checks and balances under their arrangements that they can’t effect any change or they can’t effect a lot of significant change that is necessary, or at least it appears so from the outside, we can be thankful for our settings. Now, in those written parts of our constitution sits, most importantly, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which enshrines certain civil liberties, freedom from torture, right to vote—a lot of very important human rights that are incredibly important, but they don’t extend to social rights or environmental rights. This is an issue that I’m going to come back to, because I think we should take great care as a Parliament not to extend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to those sorts of rights, because the decisions that would then become the courts’ become increasingly political in their focus, rather than the protection of core human rights that are protected by the Human Rights Act.

The problem that we’ve had to date is that until the Taylor decision, there was uncertainty as to whether the courts could make a declaration of inconsistency. As Joseph Mooney has outlined, one of the reasons why that was a controversial proposition was that although a declaration is made that Parliament has done something wrong, there is no remedy. The declaration is made, but there is no substantive remedy other than words. Therefore, the concern was expressed in earlier court judgments that that sort of expression of discontent with what Parliament has done, without a way for reconsideration, would somehow lead to friction between the courts and the Parliament. Now, the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision said, “No, they did have jurisdiction.” And to a certain extent that, in time, overcame the bill that was in gestation for granting expressly the right of making declarations of inconsistency.

But the more important part of this bill is what happens when a declaration of inconsistency is made. Because until this bill passes and becomes law, the answer is sometimes nothing, and that’s wrong. Where a senior court makes a declaration of inconsistency, the executive and the Parliament ought to consider it. The courts, as other speakers have said, don’t make these declarations quickly. Indeed they’re going to have to be a bit careful that they reserve them for the important rather than overused declarations of inconsistency, because that would undermine comity between the branches of Government. But I’m trusting that they won’t, and that has been the experience of New Zealand previously. But when they do, we do need mechanisms to ensure that what the courts have said is considered by both the executive and Parliament.

Sometimes the mistakes of Parliament are made in the heat of a political moment, which by the time these things have gone up through the courts, is long past. The people who were invested in those particular issues have sometimes left Parliament and the political moment has moved on. And I think in those sorts of situations, where the courts then opine that we have gone too far as a Parliament, sometimes we can sit back, we can de-personalise these issues, and we can try, and where appropriate, fix our mistake.

But that doesn’t mean to say the courts will always be right in a declaration of inconsistency. On occasions, I can see that this Parliament will say, “Well, look, we’re seriously considering the declaration of inconsistency.” We in Parliament have a choice as to whether we amend that legislation, whether we repeal that legislation, or we leave it as it is. Those are the decisions for Parliament, and we retain sovereignty to make those decisions under this bill if it passes. But there should be a process that enables us or forces us to give that due consideration, and that’s what this bill does.

The amendments at the select committee stage leave some of the mechanisms to ensure that that’s done to the Standing Orders. But in essence, as others have described, the Attorney-General has to bring to the attention of the House the declaration of inconsistency. The House then will, through the Standing Orders, refer that to a select committee. I would quite like that often to be the Privileges Committee because I think it would be quite good to depoliticise some of these things. There were mixed views on that amongst submitters and amongst committee members, and we in the end agreed that that should be up to the House to decide, and that sometimes it will be appropriate to go to the Justice Committee or maybe the Regulations Review Committee, or maybe sometimes the Privileges Committee. I commend this important bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Hazardous—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Order! I understand that the Minister is required to seek leave. Does he have those words?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): There you go.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement—one more thing I need to do—is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Madam Speaker, thank you, and thank you for your assistance in respect of that issue that we just dealt with.

This bill improves the way chemicals are assessed or reassessed—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Sorry, just one more—

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill improves the way chemicals are—[Applause]. Thank you, it’s a high-wire act! This bill improves the way chemicals are assessed or reassessed by the Environmental Protection Authority, the EPA. Can I thank the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and other members of the committee for their thorough consideration of this bill, and the submitters who made thoughtful and helpful written and oral submissions to the committee. The bill had broad cross-party support at introduction and through the select committee process, and I think this reflects the importance that people attach to the good management of chemicals in our country, which is needed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens as well as the environment.

We rely on literally tens of thousands of chemicals in New Zealand in industrial processes, in agriculture, and in many other aspects of modern life, including cleaning products in our own homes. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted recently in a report about chemicals management in New Zealand, the rules about how a chemical can be used or shouldn’t be used ought not to be static. We need to be able to adapt as new information comes to light. As he noted and, I think, many of us know, there have been chemicals that are in use in New Zealand for decades that have not been subject to close scrutiny. There are also many substitutes for those chemicals that are used overseas that are not registered for use in New Zealand, in part, because we are a very small market and the regulatory barriers to registration can sometimes stop the owners of the rights to those chemicals applying for registration of a new chemical, which may be better and less harmful than an existing chemical that is being used.

Our chemical reassessment processes for existing substances and our assessment processes for modern are slow and expensive, and this bill will help to speed up those assessments and reduce those costs by making it easier for the EPA to make use of information from international regulators. Now, I for one and, I think, most members of this House realise that there are some very good careful regulators overseas—not all jurisdictions would be on the list, but many would be—and some of those countries go through very, very expensive and thorough processes to consider the pluses and minuses of existing chemicals or new chemicals and bring out determinations that are very, very well reasoned. The purpose of this bill is to enable that work done in other countries to be more easily adopted in New Zealand, rather than us repeating it here or rather than us—actually, more often the case—not repeating it and being stuck with the status quo, which can be worse than improvements that could be made if the EPA can consider that overseas information.

So the Environment Committee considered the bill, and they’ve reported it back with some amendments, and I’m pleased to report to the House that I accept the committee’s commentary and the proposed amendments. The amendments that the committee has recommended include the express power to amend the notice on international regulations, which makes it clear that the EPA can amend the notice at any time whilst following the correct procedure. And there are other amendments to improve the clarity or transparency of the bill.

To conclude, I think this will result in environmental and business improvements in New Zealand. I, again, thank the members of the committee, acknowledge the advice from the EPA and the ministry, as well as the work of Parliamentary Counsel Office and advisors to the committee. Thank you.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister’s very accurately summed up the committee’s report back in this second reading in his legislative statement, and I appreciate his comments on it. I recall, in the first reading introductory speech that I made on this bill, that I sort of classified it as dull but worthy. Nothing that occurred in the select committee process has caused me to change my view on that—dull but worthy—but sometimes this Parliament needs to pass dull but worthy pieces of legislation because they have a practical implication that is actually common sense, that is pragmatic, and that is sensible. So we, on this side of the House, are supporting this legislation and will continue to do so.

We’ve got a sort of a quirky cultural conditioning that occurs in New Zealand too frequently, in my view, not just in relation to matters to do with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), but across so much of what we do as a society. That is that we have this view that we must always come up with a uniquely original, bespoke Kiwi approach to everything, and that anything we do should start with a blank piece of paper, and that our position on any kind of subject of the day should be a Kiwi New Zealand solution, and that we should completely ignore the work and effort and science and information that is available from jurisdictions similar to our own.

That’s not always the case, of course, and I’m kind of exaggerating, but essentially the way the Environmental Protection Authority was set up, and the legislation under which it operates and the regulatory environment under which it operates, has precluded it from taking on board and examining the oftentimes very useful scientific chemical information, the data that is available, from other jurisdictions similar to our own. So they’ve had to spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, resources, money on often replicating work that has already been done in other jurisdictions. And I’m not talking about jurisdictions that we might consider sort of—now, I’d better not upset the diplomats—fringe jurisdictions, but jurisdictions where we would recognise the credibility and the substance of their scientific data and information from similar bodies, such as our own EPA. It just seems to me to be eminently sensible that the EPA should be able to take into account the work, the data, the science that comes from those sorts of jurisdictions and other similar bodies, when they are assessing the worth and practical application of the literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals that we ask them to keep an eye on, on our collective behalf.

One of the reasons that this has been a problem is not just the cost and the effort that’s required to come up with our own bespoke solutions and science around all these chemicals, but it’s actually that in some cases the time taken to do it has actually prevented some really good environmental outcomes from occurring. And that delayed process has actually hindered some of the good things that could have been done by use of modern new chemicals and science that has not yet been tested under the previous rules that the EPA had to operate under.

So this is a piece of legislation that we are supporting. It provides, as the Minister said, a simplified process for the EPA to update hazard classifications of substances and corresponding controls. And, just to give the House and people who might be listening to this—the EPA is responsible for providing that kind of advice on something north of 150,000 separate chemicals. That’s a very big portfolio, by any measure. So if we can provide, as a Parliament, a level of greater efficiency for them to their assessment process and also their reassessment of chemicals as they are required to do for hazardous substances from time to time, then, on the face of it, the rationale for this piece of legislation seems to us to be very worthwhile indeed.

Currently, the assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances in New Zealand is time-consuming and it’s very resource-intensive. Our EPA is actually a very small agency by comparison to the environmental protection agencies and authorities in other parts of the world. And I think there is an argument for actually—notwithstanding the constraints of prudent use of taxpayer money, but I think there’s an opportunity actually to have a wider discussion that goes beyond this piece of legislation about the role and the shape and the future and the extent to which the EPA could actually benefit us and be a more useful organisation in an expanded form. That’s a discussion and a debate for another day. But I want to indicate to the House and to the Minister, who I see is nodding, that that’s a conversation we’d be up for at some point, and I think that that would be probably appropriate.

The EPA was established under a National Government with quite a narrow purview, in terms of what it was supposed to do, but actually a very big workload that goes with that narrow purview. And it’s an agency that needs to be funded, resourced, and equipped to do the job that we are asking of it in its current format, let alone any kind of a different or expanded role. So these proposals would, effectively, give the EPA the flexibility and the discretion in the decision making that they make to consider science, technology, information, and data from similar jurisdictions to our own that are credible, reliable, and trusted. I think that that will add enormous efficiency to the work that they do, that we ask them to do on our behalf.

The Minister, I’m pleased to see here, has accepted the recommendations that the select committee made. I think this was an exercise that actually quietly and sort of under the radar represents the very best part of the parliamentary and select committee process where the diligent, careful attention to detail is applied by the select committee and the submitters, and a good result is achieved. And as a result of that, the legislation has been improved a wee bit, and that’s a good thing; that’s part of the process. And I, too, want to commend those people that made submissions for their time, diligence, and effort, also to the select committee members, the secretariat who helped guide us through this legislation. National has no problem in supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. We’ve had some big discussions in the House this morning. We’ve been talking about how to reform the whole resource management system, climate budgets—how do we decarbonise our country and society—and then we’ve had the constitutional issue of parliamentary sovereignty with the legislation for the declaration of inconsistencies. There’s been very good debate in the Chamber this morning, in my opinion, about these really important issues.

But now we come to an amendment bill on hazardous substances. As the former speaker just said, “I think it’s dull but worthy.”, and I concur with that assessment. Even in the title of the bill, we have hazardous substances, which is the bit we’re talking about today, and new organisms. New organisms—that gets people excited. I had dinner with a number of members last night with the Royal Society and mentioned we’ve got a bill coming up on hazardous substances—or HSNO, hazardous substances and new organisms—and they were very excited that we might be doing something around new organisms. But in fact this bill is about making the regulation of those hazardous substances, the chemicals, better.

So as we’ve heard, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Authority, is the regulator of hazardous substances, of these chemicals that we’ve been hearing about. The purpose of this amending legislation is to enable that EPA, the regulator, to use information from international regulators. So this is for the assessment and reassessment of whether or not chemicals should be in New Zealand and how they should be used.

We heard from the Minister the “why”—why do we want the EPA to be able to use this information from international regulators? It’s because there can be benefits from regulating new chemicals. It may be that there is a new chemical, rather than one that’s currently regulated, that has fewer environmental impacts, or it may be more economic, or there might be fewer health risks. Currently, it is a fairly slow and costly process. In 2001 to 2019, the EPA did 51 reassessments, and at 2019 there were 39 remaining in the queue. That goes to the Minister’s comment about how we’re a bit stuck with the status quo, and hopefully this will be a prompt to change things.

Very quickly, I just want to go to clause 11 of the bill, which has a new section, 76E. This is a key provision about the role of these—how we’re going to use information from the international regulators. So, first of all, it’s good to note, or important to note, that there must be a notice in the Gazette to say whether or not an overseas body is one of these international regulators. We heard just then from the Hon Scott Simpson that we want to avoid what he termed “fringe jurisdictions”, so this is the part of the bill that deals with that.

Then there are some criteria for what those international organisations might be, and they include that “the body operates in a manner comparable to the Authority”—that’s the EPA—“in regulating hazardous substances;”, that “the legislative regime regulating hazardous substances in which the body operates is comparable to this Act;”—to our HSNO legislation—and that “the information from the body is readily accessible by the Authority.”; the EPA.

At the Environment Committee we had 28 submissions and 12 oral submissions. The changes being made or recommended by the select committee, that the Minister has just said that he agrees to, they were all unanimously in support across the table, which is always a good thing. It means that you come into the House, speaking after the Hon Scott Simpson, and agree with what he said.

Hon Member: You do anyway!

RACHEL BROOKING: Ha, ha! So, like the Hon Scott Simpson, I do want to thank the submitters for taking that time out to explain to us the issues that they have and why it’s so important that particularly the chemicals that they might use in agriculture or manufacturing or extractive industries or science—that the regulation of that is timely and is cost-efficient as well.

I commend the EPA for the work that they do with us and note that they are an important part of our Public Service.

Like the Minister mentioned—he talked briefly about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment having a recent report on chemicals, and so I look forward to that coming to the Environment Committee and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to actually speak on the bill. I didn’t sit on the Environment Committee on this, the hazardous substances and new organisms amendment bill—I won’t go through the whole name—but it is really important. I think that this bill will make life a lot easier for people and improve the availability, by either making it available or not available, of hazardous substances in New Zealand.

We are a small market, and drawing from my past life I know the difficulty of getting new chemicals into New Zealand that can be utilised in the wine industry is a long and torturous process. The costs are enormous, and the chemical companies see this as a very small market. The hoops that have to be jumped through to get chemicals which are accepted in markets that we would align ourselves with—like Australia, for example—are often very difficult to get into New Zealand, or other markets like the US or Europe. And so those hoops are very hard to get through, expensive, and it simply doesn’t happen. And we’re all worse off because the chemicals that they are replacing are often much more invasive or dangerous to the environment, and do a better job at controlling whatever it is that they’ve been brought in for. That’s the reason we do bring in new chemistry, because that chemistry is offering a service or an end that we want.

So it’s great that this allows the Environmental Protection Authority to adopt research and validate the claims that are from other similar jurisdictions, as my colleague said, albeit that there’ll be select jurisdictions—not just anything goes. I actually hope this is a sign of things to come, because the genetic engineering (GE) subject is something that we all need to have a discussion about, and perhaps we could come through with a cross-Parliament bill like this that we could end up having that conversation—I think it would be very timely. Given that we’ve all talked a lot about climate change today, that’s absolutely apropos to that GE discussion. So it’s good to see that that’s on the radar of people across the House.

The select committee—as I said, I wasn’t there, but I note that some of the things it’s doing are really quite important, like requiring the authority to publish their decisions, and when it gives its decisions in writing it’s to also notify every person who made a submission. I think that’s a very good thing. I wonder why we don’t do this anyway—I think that’s a very sensible thing to do. If people have taken the time to go to select committee and contribute to the process of approving or not a particular chemical, they should have the courtesy of a notification that it’s either been approved or disapproved.

This is a very iterative process. I notice that clause 4 is to require the authority to develop a work plan, and to give priority to certain hazardous substances that are either prohibited or restricted during a reassessment under section 64, amended by clause 24A, and that it will be made freely available on the internet—I think that’s a great idea. But I think the whole purpose of this is to allow chemicals and substances to be assessed, and if they are no longer appropriate to be used in New Zealand they are dealt with very quickly. If they are chemicals and substances that will be coming in and substituting other ones, and we’ve got good science for it, we make that simple and easy—I shouldn’t say “science”; I should say evidence or data, because science isn’t something we’d be looking for; it would be actually evidence and data. Scientific evidence and scientific data, but not “the science”—because that’s a nonsense term. But I think this is a very appropriate piece of legislation, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise and take a call on this bill—it’s a long name—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, which actually amends the primary legislation of 1996, which is the hazardous substances and new organisms bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon David Parker, and the Hon Eugenie Sage, our chair of the select committee.

People have talked about this being a dull bill, but nevertheless a practical one. What I would say is what sits behind it is a huge body of incredibly passionate people who really are interested and concerned about the uses of chemicals in this country and what we do with them. So while it is quite a dense piece of legislation—and lots of foibles are attached to it—I think as New Zealanders, as Kiwis, we’re all pretty interested in this area and making sure we’ve got the best system we can have in the world to ensure that our country has a good reputation and we’re safe.

So the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) have roughly 3,500 approvals, and again under those approvals there’s also another set of approvals which are like the group standard approvals as well. So I went and had a look—because this is quite a complex area—on how to get a chemical approved, and so you basically go into the EPA website and you work your way through the system to find your chemical. It’s highly complex and it’s quite technical, but it is actually quite a useful and workable system. I understand there’s about 150,000 hazardous-type substances in New Zealand, so this is a really complex huge area. But also, it’s an area that most of us probably don’t think about on a day-to-day basis.

So this bill just makes some technical amendments to change the chemical assessment process for the EPA. Part of that is, essentially, around making it faster, cheaper, and more streamlined, really, which you will note that it is unanimous across the House, that we all agree with this legislation. The member Rachel Brooking spoke to this really well and I always hate following someone who’s very technically competent in the law. She spoke about 76E, which is around making better use of information from overseas. There’s a whole series—we discussed this in great depth and at great length in the select committee process—around who we could use, which countries were appropriate, which regulatory systems were appropriate, for us to borrow the knowledge of and speed up the process.

So we worked and crafted this really carefully to ensure that the EPA, when selecting these similar jurisdictions, that they need to go through a process publicly, first and foremost, so that is they need to publicly notify that they’re considering this regulatory regime from another jurisdiction. They need to give those interested parties reasonable time to make a submission, and they also have to consult, actively go out and consult. So I think that’s a really safe place to land, in regards to finding those overseas jurisdictions.

The second thing is they can’t recognise those jurisdictions unless that jurisdiction’s operations are comparable, that the legislative regime is similar to our own, and finally that the information is easily found and accessible. So that jurisdiction publishes or is publicly available or available in a readily accessible form, and that way it means that there’s no secret squirrel about this stuff; it means that, actually, they are going to be able to find the information easily and readily. That’s important for the speed and also for ensuring that there is a real transparency.

So while this bill has been called dull, I would disagree. It is quite an interesting area, and I’m just going to stand up for the little piece of highly, highly technical but somewhat fascinating legislation. I commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m pleased to take a short call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. This was an interesting bill in terms of submissions—particularly appreciative of submissions from the horticultural sector and Onions New Zealand, for example. Apparently, New Zealand is one of the best countries in the world to grow onions. A lot of our onions are exported and the sector is in the process of positioning itself as the premium grower of onions internationally.

So the concerns that a lot of growers have, and others have mentioned this too, is that because we’ve got a very small market for chemicals, where there are alternatives to existing chemicals which may have much reduced environmental impacts, it’s often not worthwhile for the companies to seek the regulatory approvals for their use here. So this bill is quite important, as others have also mentioned, in streamlining the process and enabling the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to rely on information from trusted regulators overseas. And, as Onions New Zealand noted, particularly in the EU, the European Commission is proposing to reduce the overall use of pesticides, or current pesticides, by 50 percent by 2030. So a lot of the growers here will need to meet those targets if we’re wanting produce to market there. They see that as a great opportunity rather than just a challenge, and I think the bill, in allowing the use of trusted regulators, will certainly assist here.

Some submitters suggested that the EPA should rely much more on the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency as trusted regulators because their decision-making processes are much more hazard-based than some perhaps elsewhere, and they’ve got a much stronger focus on the toxicity of the formulations that are being assessed. So would encourage the EPA to look there.

In terms of the streamlining of processes, there were others like the Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility, who remain really concerned that in Aotearoa New Zealand we’ve currently got more suspected carcinogens being emitted into the environment than in Europe or the USA, and many of the chemicals that we are able to use here in Aotearoa aren’t authorised for use in the European Union. So ensuring that that assessment process through the EPA is well resourced is critical. That’s not something the bill deals with, but the EPA for a number of years has not had any increases in its funding and it would be able to do a much better job if we recognised its importance as an independent regulator and it was properly resourced by Government.

The bill, through select committee, we didn’t make any substantive changes to it—but would encourage the EPA to look at particularly the submissions of Ngāi Tahu, because the EPA has a Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao body to provide advice in terms of Te Ao Māori. But the concerns of Ngāi Tahu were that this wasn’t adequate in ensuring that a Te Ao Māori perspective was adequately reflected in the assessments, and the EPA having a duty to really encourage applicants for new chemicals to engage properly with Māori to recognise the concerns that they may have in terms of impacts on Papatūānuku or just their whole perspective.

So the bill is a small improvement, but we need to go much further in improving the regulation of hazardous substances in Aotearoa. And note also that a number of submitters sought changes to the legislation to allow the use of gene editing technology, like CRISPR. That is another whole debate. It’s not within the scope of this bill, and that is for the Government to pursue elsewhere. So the Green Party supports the bill and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m.