Thursday, 12 May 2022

THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2022

THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Obituaries

Hon Dr Richard Worth

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 10 May 2022 of the Hon Dr Richard Westwood Worth VRD, who represented the Epsom electorate from 1999 to 2005 and continued to serve as a list member until 2009. During his membership of this House, he chaired the Regulations Review Committee and served as Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Land Information, Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand, and Minister responsible for the National Library.

I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): Next Thursday is Budget day. The Minister of Finance will deliver the Budget statement followed by party leaders opening the Budget debate. Urgency will then be moved. Earlier in the week the House will consider a motion to approve orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Legislation to be considered will include the third reading of the Maritime Powers Bill and the second readings of the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Noticing that the current Order Paper is somewhat light on legislation, can we expect that Budget legislation passed under urgency will only go through its first stage and therefore be referred to a select committee? That’s my first question. My second question for the Deputy Leader of the House is about the fact that we have received written question No. 13171, which is not yet public. It’s got five days before it gets published. That’s been returned written entirely in te reo, which is perfectly reasonable—it’s a language of New Zealand. Is it the Government’s intention to provide an interpretation in English alongside the te reo answer?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): In respect of the first part of the inquiry from Mr Brownlee, any perceived lack of quantity in terms of Government legislation will more than be made up for in the coming period, and the Government will provide further information next week about the precise nature of Budget night legislation. In respect of information that is provided in te reo, as the member notes, it’s an official language of New Zealand, and it wouldn’t be our expectation that we would need to provide a translation.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Deputy Leader of the House has had a chance to glance meaningfully across the room at the Minister for primary industries to see about progress on the Organic Products Bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): Naturally, after the member raised that issue with me the last time, I did, in fact, have cause to raise this issue with the Minister for primary industry, and he reports to me that good progress has been made in bringing that piece of legislation back to the House. I strongly encourage Mr O’Connor and Mr Shaw to sit together over a trim, organic, llama milk and chia seed flat white to discuss this matter in more detail so that Mr O’Connor can impart more detail to that member.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. Now, Mr Speaker, could I ask that you have a look at that question 13171, given the answer that the Deputy Leader of the House gave today? It does pose a problem that, if a question is asked in English and then replied to in te reo, there is a whole process that someone who is not proficient in te reo would need to go to to get that answer. That would seem to me a little bit of an impediment to the House seeking the information that it’s able to under the Standing Orders. So I wonder if you could have a look at that issue of whether or not there should be a dual answer provided.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m happy to look at it, but if I was the member, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. There are available a number of interpreters in the building if members feel that it’s necessary to avail themselves of it—in either direction.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Sina Yazdanshenas Shad requesting that the House urge the Government to entirely ban hunting in Aotearoa New Zealand.

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

CLERK:

Te Ariki Trust, audit reports for 2017 to 2020

Government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 19 and 22 April 2022.

SPEAKER: The report is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Health

1. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: [Signs “Thank you, Mr Speaker” in New Zealand Sign Language] Is the Government working to embed community voices within the reformed health system; if so, how?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Community voices will be heard in our health system through locality planning networks. This will be how communities, including iwi, work with health providers to have a say on what health services are provided for them and how they will be provided. A locality will be an area defined by geography and population and will offer a coherent basis to organise health services for the people who live and work there. Locality networks will be part of a collective of networks across the country that inform Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority on commissioning of health services, contributing to local plans that deliver for unique community needs and priorities within the national New Zealand health plan. The locality planning process will allow much greater coordination and collaboration between health service providers and communities to ensure the right mix of services are available on a basis suitable to the community.

Sarah Pallett: How will localities be determined?

SARAH PALLETT: There will be a range of criteria to help in determining how a locality is confirmed, including priority population groups, iwi boundaries, and local government boundaries. Once Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority have worked with communities to identify their localities, a locality commissioner or coordinator will be assigned to work with the community and providers to meet and talk about their priorities for local care. This targeted engagement will inform a locality plan that will be the basis on which local healthcare services are funded, and I expect all areas to be covered by July 2024.

Sarah Pallett: How will localities be set up?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We’ve established the first nine areas for locality prototypes. These are Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Hauraki, Taupō, Tūrangi, Wairoa, Whanganui, Porirua, West Coast, Eastern Bay of Plenty, and Horowhenua. The selection of these prototype localities had a strong emphasis on areas with rural, Māori, and Pacific populations. These are groups for whom services at present struggle to deliver on an equitable basis and they are a place to start as we continue to build back our health system better. More locality areas will be added over the next two years and, as I said in answer to the previous question, all of New Zealand will be covered by a locality by July 2024.

Nicola Grigg: What is his response to the chief executive of the New Zealand Rural General Practice Network, Dr Grant Davidson, who said, “We thought the situation was now so bad that the health of rural New Zealanders could no longer be ignored. We were obviously wrong!”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would say that Mr Davidson, in making those remarks—because the member hasn’t put a time on them—was talking about some time ago, probably more than five years ago.

Nicola Grigg: Why won’t he include rural communities as a priority population in the reformed health system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, the responses to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill resulted in submissions calling for roughly 20 different distinct plans. There will be one New Zealand health plan and a number of other strategies that will flow from that. But in the end, the most important thing at the moment is that rural communities who are completely shut out of any real voice in our health system will now have that voice in a much stronger way through locality planning networks. And that’s why the first nine locality prototypes we’ve set up have a very strong emphasis on rural communities.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “The short term challenge of inflation is significant”; if so, when does he expect inflation to return to the Reserve Bank’s 1-3 percent target range?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my statement in the context it was made in a speech for the Wellington Chamber of Commerce this morning. As I went on to say, global supply chain disruptions, ongoing localised lockdowns in China, and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have pushed inflation rates to higher levels. On the second part of the question, my expectation is that the Reserve Bank will fulfil the obligation under the monetary policy remit that I agreed with them to keep future annual inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term. I note that the Reserve Bank has forecast inflation to come back down over 2022 and back inside that target band in 2023.

Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders have confidence in his assurance that inflation is only a short-term challenge, when the Reserve Bank as recently as May last year predicted an inflation peak of 2.6 percent, which is less than half of the inflation levels New Zealand is currently experiencing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t speak for the Reserve Bank and the reason for their projections and forecasts—I’ve given them to the member today; she’s read out some other ones. Those are matters for the Reserve Bank to defend.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that the Reserve Bank’s latest forecast show that non-tradeable or domestic inflation will still be outside the target range in 2025, and, if so, why is he claiming inflation is a short-term challenge?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The balance between tradeables and non-tradeables will continue, I’m sure, to see a significant impact from what happens offshore in what we call non-tradeables as well. So, for example, we’ve had the issue around building supplies, which have a massive influence on what is a non-tradeable factor in inflation. With respect to where inflation goes from here, there are varying views from economists around the country and around the world. What we know is that inflation is at an elevated level, it is putting pressure on households, and we certainly understand that.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm his statement this morning on the impact of Government spending on inflation that, “We do need to be careful what we spend”, and, if so, why does he think now, with the highest inflation in 31 years, is the right time to be committing to the largest Budget operating allowance in history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve covered a number of times in this House, the operating allowance contains a one-off component to begin the major, needed reform of our health sector. Operating allowances will continue to trend down from there. As a percentage of GDP—i.e., being able to comparably look at the way in which our spending works—our spending is very similar to what the previous National Government did straight after the global financial crisis (GFC), and it is forecast to come down as well. It’s important to get a balance right in the Budget, and I note the member’s earlier statement that she made that the National Party would, effectively, be spending the same amount as the Labour Government is proposing to.

Nicola Willis: Well, can he confirm his view that, “The economy is experiencing significant capacity constraints”, and, if so, why is he planning to spend so much in the upcoming Budget that he’s had to delay the return to surplus by another year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The return to surplus, I note, as I have in the House earlier this week, is quicker than the return to surplus that the National Government did after the GFC. The thing that the member needs to understand here is that the Government has to balance a set of priorities. We have to invest in our health system. We have to invest in our education system. We are doing that in a way that means that we have debt that is far lower than most of the countries that we compare ourselves to, and that we are returning to surplus quicker than the previous National Government did—that is the kind of balance that we need in a Budget.

Nicola Willis: Well, is he concerned that according to BNZ “Our central forecast currently is that New Zealand’s growth stalls completely in 2023”, and doesn’t that show the Government urgently needs a better economic plan than spending more and taxing New Zealanders more to pay for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An economic plan that the member would propose, with untargeted tax cuts, would actually have all of the impacts that she’s talking about, and, in fact, would see us in deficit for longer than is currently proposed. With respect to the views of the BNZ, there are a variety of opinions out there among our different bank economists and forecasters—for example, the ASB say that New Zealand’s economy is in a strong position and has sound foundations, showing remarkable resilience and adaptability.

Nicola Willis: Well, does the Minister understand that inflation-adjusting tax thresholds would make the average income household $1,600 a year better off, and why does he continue to ignore the squeezed middle?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The problem for the member is she’s ignoring the other part of her tax policy, where those earning more than $180,000 will get thousands of dollars more while those on the minimum wage get their two bucks a week. It is all about making sure, in a Budget, that you get priorities right and you get a balance. Our view, and the view of the IMF, is now is not the time for major tax reform; now is the time to make sure we support low and middle income New Zealanders through this inflation spike and get on with investing in things like the health system and making sure we respond properly to climate change.

Question No. 3—Tourism

3. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports, if any, has he received about the appeal of New Zealand as a visitor destination following the Tourism New Zealand trade show in Sydney this week?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): This week, I led a delegation to one of our first major international trade events by Tourism New Zealand since the COVID outbreak in March 2020. The Tourism New Zealand Regional Showcase in Sydney followed the Prime Minister’s successful trade and travel visits to Singapore and Japan last month. The resumption of tourism and trade missions is crucial to our economic recovery as we reconnect with the world. Around 60 delegates from almost 30 regional tourism organisations in New Zealand took part in the two-day event with one common message, and that is, “New Zealand is now fully open for business.” Tourism New Zealand advised that there was a great energy in the room and immense interest in New Zealand from buyers as a business opportunity. Australian buyers have highlighted that New Zealand will be one of their priority destinations for the year ahead.

Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen of the value to regional destinations at the event the Minister attended, especially to Wairarapa?

Hon STUART NASH: Destination Wairarapa made a strong showing at the event, promoting the Classic New Zealand Wine Trail, covering the entire Wairarapa electorate. Barb Hyde from Destination Wairarapa said that it was “great to be back at a Tourism New Zealand event. Travel, trade, getting lots of incoming bookings and inquiry; exciting times ahead.” But not to be outdone, Visit Fiordland manager Stu Cordell was also one of the representatives at the event. He was keen on selling the idea of how easy it is to get to Southland and Fiordland. We’re only three hours away and it doesn’t have to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip. He further discussed that New Zealand is a cheaper travel destination for Australians than America and the carbon footprint was smaller. This is an important point because there has been a global shift towards considering the environmental impact of travel.

Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen about the value of the event to our cities?

Hon STUART NASH: The Tourism New Zealand event served as a springboard for Auckland Unlimited to facilitate an additional event called Auckland is Calling. Gavin Oliver, chair of Auckland Regional Tourism Forum, said, “It is fantastic to be getting offshore and promoting Auckland once again. … Previously, Australia was our largest visitor market for the city, so events like this deliver a vital link for the city’s wider business community, allowing us both to reconnect with former key partners and develop new relations, which in turn will start to see revenue again flow through our city’s visitor economy.”

Joseph Mooney: What appeal does the Minister think New Zealand will have as a visitor destination if tourism and hospitality businesses can’t open their doors due to staff shortages, given that accredited employer work visa holders won’t be coming until the end of August, at the earliest, and if only 337 working holidaymakers have entered New Zealand so far?

SPEAKER: I’m going to the let the Minister answer the question, but I will remind the member that he should go back and have a look at the very good point of order made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse earlier in the week.

Hon STUART NASH: Immense appeal.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the actions that this Labour Government is taking to rebuild our public health system and to address serious health inequities such as the fact that Māori, on average, die seven years earlier than Pākehā, and Pacific people, rural people, and disabled people are routinely excluded from basic healthcare. If we don’t make these changes, it will mean tolerating more inequity, more ill health, and more premature deaths.

Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote that $14 million had been spent over just eight months on the health reform transition unit, how many cataracts would $14 million fund to prevent people going blind?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The purpose of the health reforms is so that we get better health coverage, improved health coverage, right throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. We need to see a shift from the expensive end of healthcare, which is the hospitals, into better primary care into communities—especially rural communities—who suffer from poor access to healthcare.

Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote recently that $1 million had been spent over the past eight months on health reform PR, does he think the 36,000 people waiting to see a specialist will see this as $1 million of wasteful spending on PR spin while they wait in pain?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I think what New Zealanders expected to see is a health service, and, actually, a Government focused on a health service that delivers for all New Zealanders. It is failing at the moment because of years of under-investment by the previous Government running down buildings and underpaying nurses, and this is a Government determined to fix it.

Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote recently that half a million dollars had been spent on health reform directors’ fees over just six months, would New Zealanders rather have had their hip joints repaired?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think what New Zealanders wanted to see is a health system that is no longer sort of vulcanised through 20 different health decision-makers, and actually have a coordinated, coherent health system run cohesively so that it benefits all New Zealanders and delivers services where, currently, New Zealanders are struggling to get them.

Dr Shane Reti: Did Treasury’s recent D assessment for his leadership of the ministry take into account the spending of millions of PR spin—

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have to respect members here, but the assessment that the member is referring to is not an assessment of the Minister, and he does know that.

SPEAKER: I want an absolute assurance from the member that what he said was accurate.

Dr Shane Reti: In replying, Mr Speaker, I said “for his leadership of the ministry”.

SPEAKER: I want the member to confirm that that is what has been assessed in those words, because it’s—we’ve now had two cracks. The member has an obligation now, because he’s been reminded—it’s in the same area as personal explanations. If he’s wrong, it is a very serious matter.

Dr Shane Reti: Mr Speaker, I’ll reframe the question another time. Thank you.

SPEAKER: A further supplementary—no? Right.

Question No. 5—Health

5. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his Government not including a rural health strategy, for the approximately 750,000 New Zealanders who live rurally or remotely, in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes. The Government was pleased to see a wide range of submissions on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill earlier this year. It highlighted the level of excitement across Aotearoa New Zealand for improved health outcomes. On the question of different health strategies mandated by statute, there were nearly 20 proposals for distinct health strategies. I’m satisfied that the list of distinct strategies now provided for in the bill provides the necessary cover and that the needs of rural communities will be fully addressed, including through the locality planning process.

Brooke van Velden: Why does the health reform have a hauora Māori strategy, a Pacific health strategy, and a disability strategy, but not a rural health strategy, when rural health was mentioned over 80 times in the Health and Disability System Review and it was identified that people living in rural towns can have poorer health outcomes—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member, I think, had about four legs to that. I’ll let the Minister answer one or two of them.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the member will be aware, of course, that of the 750,000 people she referred to in her primary question—which relates to the second question she asked—of course, many are women, many are Māori, many are Pacific, some are disabled. So the strategies that have been identified for the purpose of the bill cover areas of a population, I think, where the failure to provide service has, in some respects, been egregious. But no one has been overlooked; there is a New Zealand - wide health plan, and locality planning networks will give rural communities way more say than was ever the case before.

Brooke van Velden: Can he guarantee that access to mental health services and midwives will improve for rural New Zealanders under his reforms, and, if so, does he have a strategy to reach for this improved access?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I am confident of is that with the system that will take effect from 1 July, subject to the legislation passing, rural communities will have a much better chance of seeing the services that they really need in their rural communities delivered in the way that makes sense to them and makes sense to the Government, who is funding it. So there will be a difference and it will be a positive difference for members of rural communities.

Brooke van Velden: How can he guarantee that localities will improve outcomes for rural New Zealanders when he can’t say how many localities there will be and rural GPs still have no details about how these reforms will create better access to faster treatments?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I think I said in an earlier question in today’s question time, there is a process for identifying localities based on some very broad criteria, and that is yet to happen right across the country. What we do know, though, is, from the nine locality prototypes that have been established—most of which have a strong rural community dimension to them—that it’s an opportunity to test how that works; to draw in the health providers in those areas; to draw on the community voices, including rural community voices, to make sure that they get the best health services they possibly can get in their communities.

Brooke van Velden: Why are rural New Zealanders so often overlooked and forgotten by this Government, and is this just the latest case of the Government ignoring the needs of rural New Zealand?

SPEAKER: No. Before the Minister answers, I’m going to invite the member to rephrase her question.

Brooke van Velden: Why are rural New Zealanders so often overlooked by this Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Rural communities are not overlooked; they’re highly valued by this Government. That is why the first nine locality prototypes announced for the new health reforms—at least seven of them have very significant rural communities attached to them. They will have a strong voice in the new process and rural communities will be better served with health services as a result.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made about the Immigration Rebalance plan?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker, yesterday the Government announced alongside the full opening of the border two months ahead of schedule a rebalance of our immigration settings. These settings will provide significantly simplified processes and support a higher-wage, higher-productivity economy. The accredited employer work visa will reduce the number of visa categories from six to one, resulting in a simplified system for both employers and workers. The Green List will provide a new streamlined pathway to residency for those globally hard-to-fill roles as well as a clear work-to-residence pathway, incentivising and attracting high-skilled migrants to New Zealand and giving more certainty to our businesses and migrants. More broadly, the rebalance will make it easier to attract higher-skilled migrants while supporting some sectors to transition away from their reliance on lower-paid migrant workers, which we know has become unsustainable.

Ibrahim Omer: How will the immigration rebalance provide support to New Zealand’s economic recovery?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: By making it easier to attract higher-skilled migrants and supporting some sectors to transition away from their reliance on lower-paid migrant workers, New Zealand is better supported on a path to economic recovery. New Zealand cannot return to the pre-pandemic trends that saw us overly reliant on growing numbers of lower-paid workers and resulted in the increased exploitation of migrants. COVID-19 has showed us that that is not a sustainable model. For the past decade, our immigration settings haven’t encouraged businesses to invest in people and technology, because it has been cheaper and easier for many businesses to hire low-paid migrants. The immigration rebalance will help lift working conditions for everyone, improve career pathways for New Zealanders, and encourage businesses to focus on increasing productivity and resilience as part of our plans for economic recovery from the pandemic.

Ibrahim Omer: What transitional supports will be made available to employers?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, we acknowledge that these changes cannot happen overnight. There are some industries that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, which is why the Government has agreed to temporarily exempt tourism and hospitality businesses from paying the median wage to recruit migrants on an accredited employer work visa into most roles. Additionally, new sector agreements provide access for specified sectors to lower-paid migrant workers, which is in addition to those employers being able to continue to access working holiday-makers at any wage. Finally, around 20,000 visa holders with visas expiring before the end of 2023 are being granted either a six-month extension or a new two-year visa with open work conditions so they and their employers won’t be affected by these changes and we can keep the skills that we need within the country.

Question No. 7—Police

7. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree that youth offending is driven by income deprivation, mental health challenges, and trauma; if so, how will $500 million for more police on the street reduce youth offending?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes. This Government is committed to addressing the drivers of offending, which requires an all-of-community response. It is important to note that while Budget 2022 sees a record investment into our police, this is not just funding for more police officers. Of the $562 million, $208 million is to deliver the firearms register, which will help us fill the 30-year information deficit when it comes to firearms in our communities. There is $94 million for prevention programmes, such as Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities, which will see police, the Ministry of Social Development, and other agencies working with communities and whānau to address the drivers of offending, and there is $12 million to provide more support for victims of serious crime. The additional funding through Budget 2022 is about having a strong enforcement capability available, while at the same time having smart prevention programmes in place.

Golriz Ghahraman: Is the Minister aware that approximately 90 percent of young people who are detained have what is described as a serious learning disability and, on average, have had at least two traumatic life events; if so, how will more police on the streets address this?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: To address youth offending, we need an all-of-community response, and police recognise their role in that. That’s why we’ve added 109 more police officers to work directly with our young people over the past two years. These staff are trained to deal with our most at-risk youth.

Golriz Ghahraman: Will more police on the street be counterproductive in keeping rangatahi Māori safe from harm and crime when young Māori are more than seven times more likely to be on the receiving end of police force and nine times more likely to be tasered by police than Pākehā in similar circumstances?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This is an issue that both the commissioner and I are committed to addressing. The police have developed Te Huringa o Te Tai strategy, which is developed in partnership with iwi Māori and addresses concerns and helps to reduce victimisation, offending, and injuries amongst Māori.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does she agree with the former Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, that remanding children and young people in police cells together with adult detainees is completely unacceptable, and, if so, will she divert the funding into addressing this breach in police cells?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I do agree, and police do take age into account when placing people in custody and do separate age groups where possible. Using a police cell for young people is the last resort. Specialised youth facilities operated by Oranga Tamariki provide a better environment for young people than police cells.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does she agree that the funding for more police on the street would be better spent, both for police and for communities, to boost the incomes of families living in poverty, given that social and income deprivation is shown to be the main cause of youth offending?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I would agree with is that our communities tell us that more police on the street means more visibility, which means they feel safer in their homes. I think the police are required to undertake their role as dealing with offenders, and that is the appropriate response for us.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has she seen any correlation between an increase in police numbers and an increase in proactive policing and, therefore, a decrease in people on a pathway to prison?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I have, and, on top of that, I have seen many programmes that police deliver that help to keep our youth out of offending, including Te Pae Oranga, which this Budget will increase by a further $8 million, and it will secure the 20th site which helps our young people stay out of the justice system.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on the impact of the Government’s half-price public transport scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In March, the Government moved swiftly to announce a reduction in fuel excise duty and road-user charges in response to rapidly escalating fuel prices brought about as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As a part of that package, we also funded half-price public transport fares across New Zealand to provide more options for commuters to get around. The response from Kiwis has been extremely positive. Auckland public transport use last week was 29 percent higher than the day before the fare reduction came into effect, reaching its highest levels since before the August lockdown last year. Wellington bus use is up 24 percent over the same period, and Christchurch is up by 21 percent. While there are likely to be a number of factors driving this recovery in public transport patronage, the early evidence is that half-price fares are supporting more people to give public transport a go, helping to reduce congestion and emissions.

Naisi Chen: What recent reports has he seen on the impact of the scheme on inter-regional rail services?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Inter-regional rail has seen strong increases over the last two months since the fare reductions were announced. Demand for the Capital Connection has increased 90 percent in April compared to March 2022. And everyone’s favourite inter-regional rail service, Te Huia, saw services over April nearly triple in demand, with the highest average number of weekday passengers on Te Huia—

Andrew Bayly: Three people to nine.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —ever.

SPEAKER: Well, that does come pretty close to misleading the House; just a bit of a warning to the member.

Naisi Chen: What, if any, are the benefits of half-price public transport fares?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only does the reduction in fares promote public—[Member cheers]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I don’t know why Mr Bayly is joining the rest of the “B”s in their noisiness. Can he just settle down, please.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only does the reduction in fares promote public transport as a more viable option for Kiwi families, it also takes cars off the road, leading to fewer cars on the road, cleaner air, and less noise and air pollution. Ahead of the emissions reduction plan released next week, it is more important than ever to have effective, reliable, and accessible public transport services in place. Our Government is committed to ensuring that public transport is supported, is funded, and is promoted to give Kiwis real transport choices.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Noa’ia, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context in which they were made. I also stand by this Government’s plan to fully reopen the border two months ahead of schedule. We are reopening under a rebalanced immigration system that is smart and simplified, that will give businesses better access to skills and improve working conditions for migrant labour. I also stand by the 2021 resident visa that will give over 190,000 migrants residency. Immigration New Zealand have advised that they are making good progress on these applications, with over 46,000 migrants having been made residents so far.

Erica Stanford: How can he stand by his statement on the Hosking show yesterday that partners of work visa holders would be better off under his new proposal, because existing work partnership visas require visa holders to work a minimum of 30 hours a week, when immigration instructions have never required these visa holders to work any set number of hours?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I think I made those comments this morning, not yesterday. As I said on the show, we’re giving more options to partners. They can either come to New Zealand and have a work visa, or come here and have a visitor visa. There’s been some skulduggery suggesting that partners of those accredited employer work visa holders can’t come to New Zealand—they absolutely can.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the question that I asked was addressed, around the disparity between his comment—

SPEAKER: Well, the member had a very specific part of the question, which was answered, and it went to the accuracy of the statement that the member made.

Erica Stanford: How can he now use the new Immigration Online system as a way to guarantee processing time frames of the 30 days for the accredited employer work visa, when he has now broken his promise to process 80 percent of resident 2021 visas in 12 months, which uses the same online system?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said in the primary answer, we’re still committed to making sure that we make 190,000 migrants residents still, and, as I say, I’ve been given assurances by officials that the investment in the new online system will make the process a lot more efficient.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it intended that migrants in lower-paid but essential sectors—such as aged care or construction—will never be eligible for residency, no matter how long they live and work in New Zealand; if not, what pathways to residency can the Minister guarantee for these workers?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member looks at the Green List, and those occupations that are straight to residence, there are a plethora of occupations in the building and construction sector.

Erica Stanford: Can he explain why a midwife or a nurse would choose New Zealand when residence now takes two years plus processing times, when Australia offers immediate residence pathways for both?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, because we’re giving them certainty about a streamlined pathway to residence they didn’t have before. Also, under the previous regime there was only one category of nurses that we gave a pathway to residence. Now, under the Green List that we announced yesterday, we have 13 categories of nurses to make sure we can fill the staffing shortages that we have in terms of nurses.

Erica Stanford: How can New Zealanders trust him when his own comments show he doesn’t understand immigration instructions, he hasn’t been able to fulfil his promises, and his policies will drive skilled migrants to Australia?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because I’m more trustworthy than that member.

Question No. 10—Climate Change

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Climate Change—

Hon Member: You need to cheer up!

SIMON COURT: —does he agree with economist—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member still addresses me. If he wants to have a cosy chat, he doesn’t need to do it at question time. Start again, please.

10. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with economist Matt Burgess, who said that “further policies are not necessary … Cap-and-trade schemes like the ETS effectively neutralise other emissions policies”; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Before I respond directly to the member’s question, I do want to note that Mr Burgess is a parliamentary staff member for the National Party and I don’t believe it’s appropriate to bring staff into parliamentary debate. However, as the member has asked the question, my answer to the first part is: no, and to the second: because he is wrong. I note that Mr Burgess’ boss, Nicola Willis, said earlier today in the emissions budget debate that, “We continue to believe that the emissions trading scheme will be a very important part of how emission[s] reduction[s] 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.”

Simon Court: Has the Minister received advice on how much the additional policies proposed in his emission reduction plan will cost the average New Zealand household, and, if so, what did that advice say?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, there are now three more sleeps until the—four more sleeps until the member gets to see what’s in the emissions reduction plan.

Hon Member: You give me a lot of confidence now!

Hon JAMES SHAW: I will give the member an example—sorry, I haven’t had a great deal of sleep at all recently, so I’m not really counting. I will give the member an example of how policies that get introduced outside of the emissions trading scheme actually reduce costs on households rather than increase them as he is positing. For example, the recent Clean Car Discount programme that was introduced by the Hon Michael Wood has led to a 300 percent increase in the importation of electric vehicles into this country. If you wanted to achieve the same result using only the emissions trading scheme (ETS), that would mean that the ETS unit price would need to be just shy of $600. The distributional impact of that on households in New Zealand is actually unacceptable. So complementary measures are a way of ensuring—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m sure it is of a lot of interest to the House, but there’s already been one debate today in this area. I’m sure we’re going to have some next week, and notwithstanding the broad invitation in the question, the limitations on length of answers aren’t waived by very open questions.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: had he received advice on how much his proposed plan would cost the average New Zealand household? I don’t believe he responded to that effectively.

SPEAKER: Does the member believe—did the Minister; well he went around the block on something else, or something close to it. I think he could probably give us an answer which was about one word long.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Mr Speaker, yes.

Simon Court: Can the Minister guarantee that the cost of additional policies under his emissions reduction plan will not add to the increasing costs Kiwi households and businesses are already dealing with?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I’ve just said, at some length, many of the policies that we’re introducing in order to reduce emissions actually have the effect of reducing household costs. For example, the home insulation scheme, which has seen tens of thousands of houses insulated over the course of the last decade or so, has reduced household energy bills dramatically and made those homes much more energy efficient. If you wanted to achieve the same result by driving up the electricity cost just through the emissions trading scheme, that would mean that actually many people just switch off the heating and freeze. I would ask that member whether he wants New Zealanders to freeze.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen any reports as to whether the ACT Party voted for or against—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

Hon David Parker: —the emissions trading scheme (ETS)?

SPEAKER: Order! The Minister might have been dressing it up, but he was inviting the Minister to comment on something for which he doesn’t have responsibility. It was a nice try, but we’re not going there.

Dr James McDowall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d actually like to hear the answer to that.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Dr James McDowall: I’d actually like to hear the answer to that question.

SPEAKER: Well, if the member was a bit more experienced, he’d be having an early Thursday, all right? So he’s had his warning.

Simon Court: To the Minister, does he agree with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policy which has returned billions in carbon tax refunds to Canadians—

SPEAKER: Order! Just—question, all right? Not a speech in the middle of the question.

Simon Court: —carbon tax refund to Canadians to help Canadians adjust to this new reality, and, if so, will he support ACT’s policy of giving a $250 carbon tax refund to every New Zealander every year?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No. I do not agree with the ACT Party’s policy. However, I will say that, actually, it is nice to see that the ACT Party is engaging with climate change policy in at least reasonably serious terms. On that, earlier today Mr Court waxed lyrical about Kenworth trucks—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Further supplementary? No? All right.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker. What reports has he seen supporting the Commerce Commission’s analysis of competition in the retail grocery sector?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Television New Zealand’s Fair Go ran a story on Monday evening canvassing some of the major problems New Zealand faces with competition in the retail grocery sector. In particular, the story reiterated the Commerce Commission’s finding that the major grocery retailers are taking in excess of $1 million in excess profits each and every day out of hard-working Kiwis’ pockets. There is a serious case for change when it comes to competition in the grocery sector and, on behalf of the Government, I intend to formally respond to the market study’s recommendations in the coming weeks.

Arena Williams: What changes have already been pledged in response to the Commerce Commission report?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The major supermarkets have already said they will commit to stopping the practice of land banking and restrictive land covenants. Supermarkets are also working to ensure pricing and promotions are simple and easy to understand, and that their loyalty programmes and data collection have clear and transparent disclosures, and supermarkets and other stakeholders are already meeting to progress a mandatory code of conduct.

Matt Doocey: You’ve told ’em!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These things were not happening before a market study and underscore some of the benefits of shining some sunlight on what is going on in that industry.

Arena Williams: Does he believe—

SPEAKER: No, before the member goes on, we’re going to have a withdrawal and apology from Matt Doocey.

Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Arena Williams: Does he believe the supermarkets’ recently announced price roll-backs on essential items will help consumers?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is a nice gesture from the supermarkets, but the price freeze does not address the systemic competition problems in the sector that have been in place for a very long time. This Government does not believe Kiwis should have to spend so much on the basics, especially when supermarkets are earning in excess of a million dollars in excess profits every day. Addressing the rising cost of groceries was a Labour campaign promise at the last election, and I look forward to formally responding on behalf of the Government to the Commerce Commission’s recommendations in the coming weeks.

Hon Stuart Nash: In terms of the figure of a million dollars a day out of Kiwis’ pockets, would they be taking more or less out of Gerry Brownlee’s pocket than they would out of the average—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just trying to work out whether my friend and colleague is going to have an early shower, but I think he will withdraw and apologise. He absolutely knows that he is out of order. If it wasn’t for the prevalence of such behaviour today in other parts of the House, I think the member would be having an early shower. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Stuart Nash: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident NZTA is meeting his expectation of “responsible and proportionate spending”; if so, is he satisfied that NZTA’s spending is giving taxpayers good value for money?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, overall, I do. At the same time, I continue to advise all agencies that I’m responsible for about my expectations around spending. However, on this side of the House, we are unapologetic about supporting Waka Kotahi to transition from an agency focused solely on building roads to one with a broader set of objectives around our climate resilience and safety ambitions. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) that we inherited did not have the resources to deliver on that broader vision, nor even to fulfil its basic regulatory functions. That’s why we have increased its resourcing, for example, to spend 40 percent more on the maintenance of regional roads around New Zealand; that’s why we’ve increased its resourcing to provide decent public transport in our cities; and that’s why we’ve increased its resourcing to run a fit-for-purpose and safe regulatory system in place of the broken one we inherited that probably cost at least one person their life under the previous Government’s system. There are a wider range of objectives we have for the transport system. We’ll continue to keep an eye on appropriate spending, but also we’re going to keep an eye on those objectives and not constantly be down just in the weeds.

Simeon Brown: Why has the number of communications staff at NZTA more than doubled from 32 in 2017 to 88 last year, and why does NZTA need twice as much help with communications under this Minister’s watch?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I note two points in response to the member’s question. The first is that Waka Kotahi is conducting more of that activity from within its own resources and actually has fewer external contractors doing that work than it did in the 2017/18 year. Secondly, what I note is that the agency is doing more. It is getting on with more projects to deliver transport outcomes for New Zealanders in the region, and many of those communications staff are not sitting in offices in Wellington; they’re actually out there in the regions communicating with communities like the Tauranga community about the Takatimu North Link or with the East Auckland community about the Eastern Busway.

Simeon Brown: How many of those 88 communications staff were dedicated to the Auckland light rail project, and how many staff are needed to tell Aucklanders that zero metres of light rail have been delivered in five years?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What Aucklanders expect of us is that we actually are serious about building a fit-for-purpose public transport system for their city after 50 years of neglect. We’ll continue to talk and engage with Aucklanders about those ambitions, and I think that Aucklanders support that rather than the big talk and no action on the other side of the House.

Simeon Brown: What value have taxpayers received from the $55 million spent on Auckland light rail for zero metres of light rail tracks to be delivered, and will construction begin before the 2023 election?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Anyone who seriously understands how the transport sector works will be aware that money needs to be invested in detailed planning, consenting, and design before significant projects are implemented and are built. Perhaps if the previous Government had put more of that upfront investment into Transmission Gully, it wouldn’t have turned into such a mess that we had to clean up.

Simeon Brown: What value have taxpayers received from two giant zeros to promote the Road to Zero campaign, or were they just built to advertise how little this Government’s actually delivered?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Considerably more than under the previous Government, which, over the five-year period between 2013 and 2018, oversaw a 50 percent increase in deaths in our road transport system.

Simeon Brown: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the member’s run out.

Bills

Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

Third Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a third time.

The Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill amends the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948. It aims to deliver improved outcomes for Crown pastoral land and to end the tenure review process. The bill aims to ensure that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) will administer Crown pastoral land in a way that maintains or enhances the inherent values of the land. Inherent values are defined as the ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage, and scientific values of the natural character of the land. These values are to be protected for present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of the land.

The changes include introducing a clear purpose and outcomes that all persons exercising powers under the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948 must seek to achieve, supporting strong and enduring Crown-Māori relationships and recognising the relationship of mana whenua with their ancestral lands, and providing a clear, more transparent statutory decision-making process with stronger accountability mechanisms and more opportunity for public input. The bill underpins the Government’s view that ongoing, sustainable, and responsible pastoral farming is the best way for this land to be managed. It acknowledges the value and the role of leaseholders in the stewardship of these iconic properties.

The bill also recognises how valued the high country is by iwi and all New Zealanders, and this is reflected in the Government’s decision to end tenure review. Tenure review was brought in as a voluntary process for both leaseholders and the Crown. It has resulted in 136 farm properties being able to freehold a total of 382,624 hectares of Crown land. On the other hand, it resulted in 340,887 hectares joining the Crown’s conservation estate. There has been public concern that farming intensification on some of that freehold land has resulted in a loss of indigenous biodiversity and a reduction in the inherent value of the landscape. By ending tenure review, this Government is affirming the Crown’s ownership and stewardship responsibilities with regard to this land. Doing this helps protect the inherent value of the landscapes. It also means that Crown pastoral leases will be available for future generations of farmers.

The Environment Committee considered the bill. It received 161 submissions. The committee held six hearings in the first half of last year and reported back to Parliament on 6 July 2021.

A number of valuable changes to the bill were made by the committee. The bill now provides more appropriate recognition of the Crown’s obligations to its Treaty partners and mana whenua interests. Some important provisions were added by the select committee to make operating under a high-country lease more practical. Two examples are broader provision for commercial recreation permits and clarifying what can be done in emergency situations. In addition, the Commissioner of Crown Lands can consider the economic benefits associated with a proposed pastoral activity in cases where the financial viability of the pastoral farming enterprise is at risk.

I acknowledge the conflict between allowing public access in a lessee’s land and enabling that lessee to have the right to farm that land in the way that they want and run their businesses as needed. Following feedback that the proposed public access provision could impact on a leaseholder’s property rights, an amendment to this provision was included in the Government Supplementary Order Paper 129 tabled in the House in February 2022. The amendment provision will require the Commissioner of Crown Lands to consider public access when determining whether to consent to the sale or subleasing of a Crown pastoral lease. If the commissioner determines that access requests have been unreasonably refused in the past, the lease transfer may be made subject to the condition that the current and incoming lessees must enter a negotiation process with the commissioner with the intention that access requests will not be unreasonably refused after the first transfer. This provision is intended to strike a balance between promoting reasonable access on to Crown pastoral lease land while respecting leaseholders’ property rights.

LINZ has recently taken a more hands-on approach to administering Crown pastoral land. This has involved increasing visits to pastoral lessees to maintain a strong and effective connection with them. I’m confident LINZ will continue to work hard to build close and constructive working relationships with leaseholders, iwi, and stakeholders. This will be an important part of implementing the proposed changes in the bill.

Specifically, I’m aware of the work being done in the development of the regulations and standards that are needed to give effect to certain provisions in the bill. I’m expecting that consultation material will be available soon after the bill is passed into law.

I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation for the time and effort by everyone who provided input into this bill in its initial development and gave feedback on the bill through the parliamentary process. I want to thank members of the Environment Committee for their diligence and ability to work through some challenging issues and tensions. I also thank officials for their servicing of the policy development and parliamentary processes.

These spectacular South Island properties are special places for all New Zealanders. This bill recognises the place of pastoral farming as a legitimate use of the land while protecting the importance of the unique values of our high country to New Zealand and all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

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

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party as our party spokesperson for Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), and also rural communities, to put for the record our continued opposition to this utterly, utterly ridiculous bill. This Government seemingly has no idea or, indeed, little care for the consequences that these changes will mean to these leaseholders. These are real people with real businesses and real families. These will bring real consequences.

Since the introduction of this bill, many, many members of the National Party have made a real effort to get out and visit as many of these high country leaseholders as possible. Just to name a few, I’ve been to Ben Lomond Station, Lake Heron Station, Muller Station, St James, and Lakes Station. What we see time and time again is sophisticated farming operations that put the ecology and preservation of the natural environment first and foremost. What we also saw was evidence of decades and decades, often generations, of hard work, care, and attention. This is a deeply traditional way of life, and the land is all the better for it.

What we also saw was neighbouring Department of Conservation (DOC) land run rabid with gorse, broom, wilding pines, rabbits, feral goats, and deer, and here is the rub: this bill has been very clearly written by bureaucracy that does not understand this very specialised system of hill country and high country management and the preservation of those local ecologies. This is a bill that is ideologically driven. It is devoid of any understanding of any practical, pragmatic implementation whatsoever. It is, as usual, a top-down approach, rather than grassroots driven.

On this side of the House, we pride ourselves in taking a real effort to apply a factual, scientific, evidence-based approach to policy. We are not caught up in maintaining tradition for tradition’s sake. We are not opposed to change for opposition’s sake, but in this case, this change will result in worse outcomes for everyone and everything, not least the land and the leaseholders involved.

While the bill does have heroic intentions—it seeks to provide “Stronger and clearer accountability and transparency of DOC’s administration of Crown pastoral land”—we on this side of the House agree with the leaseholders that these changes will actually lead to worse environmental outcomes to these precious parts of New Zealand—for example, this ridiculous new notion that a leaseholder would require consent to eradicate pest plants and noxious exotic weeds such as the likes of gorse, broom, wilding pines, crack willows, grey willows, but it would need to take up “no less than 90% of vegetation cover;”. How does anyone interpret that—90 percent of what? If we start to look at the average sizes of these stations—let’s say a 10,000 hectare property, for example—under this new rule, a farmer can control only 25 hectares of that 10,000 hectares in any five-year period. This is utterly nonsensical.

There’s also a new invocation that farmers can no longer maintain roads and tracks without consent. Well, let’s bear in mind that some of these roads and tracks were built by early settlers a century ago. They don’t appear on any LINZ record, so now a farmer cannot maintain them due to natural slippages, erosion, floods, high winds, and all of these severe weather systems that these parts of the land bring. Despite, though, the goodwill from the leaseholders and the evidence-based submissions they made, this Government seems determined to ride roughshod over their generations of knowledge and know-how.

The National Party opposes this bill because we do not believe it will in any way enhance or improve pastoral farming in the high country. We also believe that the provisions in it will fundamentally change the relationship that has existed between the pastoral leaseholder and the Crown for decades. It will change it from one of working partnership to one based on regulation and policing. It is punitive, it is pernicious, and it will bring an infringement regime that will do nothing but erode generations of goodwill between the two parties. Despite their best attempts, the Government has totally ignored submissions from the likes of the High Country Accord, which has said, “This law will create an adversarial system of management with rigid rules and complex processes that will increase costs, undermine the security of tenure granted by the 1948 Land Act, and will consequently undermine the incentives for enhanced stewardship of the land.” That is in direct contrast and contradiction to the intention of the bill.

On this side of the House, we have long advocated that the bill’s objectives would be better achieved by the Commissioner of Crown Lands and LINZ working collaboratively with the leaseholders—with the 150 contractual partners on legally binding farm environmental plans. This would be built on the current regime that is, unfortunately, being replaced today, and the many environmental benefits that have been delivered over the past 70 years.

It is clear to anyone that these rules are attempting to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, which fails to recognise the diversity, it fails to recognise different ecologies, different ecosystems, different topographies, and different weather patterns, and it will do nothing to deliver better environmental outcomes. It needs to take into account the inherent values in the diverse landscapes of this high country.

To finish my comments this afternoon, I say that the National Party strongly opposes in the most strident terms the introduction of a new infringement regime. We believe it is not only unnecessary but that it will significantly erode the trust and goodwill and the working relationship that has been enjoyed by all parties for decades. As one lessee said to us, “A Crown pastoral lease is a treaty between two partners which is now, under these amendments, being dishonoured.” Can you imagine the public outcry if the Crown were to continue dishonouring various other treaties?

I really do feel for the farmers we’ve met in recent months and, indeed, the past year. This is not how we do things in New Zealand, and New Zealanders will be worse for it.

This is the kind of bill that has become so typical of this Government. It is ignorant. It is arrogant. We oppose it in its entirety, and we will repeal it when we next form a Government.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. As we heard in the Minister’s speech before—and the way I would see this bill—obviously, it’s amending a number of pieces of legislation, and there are two main issues here in relation to what are commonly referred to as high country farms.

One is that the rules and methods that the Crown has as landowner are being amended. We do have an unusual situation here, a system where the Crown is the owner of the land, but the lessee does have 33-year rights of renewal and rights to exclusive occupation. So part of what this reform is trying to do is really say what can be done as of right and where some sort of approval is needed from the landowner, being Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

The second piece of this legislation is the removal of tenure review. So tenure review was a system created in the 1990s, where the lessee could gain some freehold title of some of the land and then some land might be released from the lease for conservation purposes. Now, there were some, I would like to think, unintended consequences from tenure review that led to intensification of some areas that led to a significant reduction in biodiversity. The previous speaker seemed to imply that all Crown pastoral leases benefited the environment, but we have seen that this has not been the case with tenure review.

The part of the bill that removes that tenure review is in clause 9, and it simply says that Part 2 is repealed. So that was the 1990s’ addition.

I’d like to, though, focus on this first issue of land management, and I’d like to spend a little bit of time talking about inherent values because, I think, we’ve heard from them in previous debates; we’ll hear from them in other speeches as well. Inherent values are a critical concept in this bill. They are defined in clause 6 in a new definition: “ ‘inherent value’, … (a) means a value that arises from an ecological, a landscape, a cultural, a heritage, or a scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource that—(i) is in or forms part of the land or exists by virtue of the natural character of the land; or (ii) relates to a historic place on or forming part of that land; but (b) does not include a pastoral farming activity”. Why there is that separation in the definition is important when you go back to the purpose of the amendment.

So the purpose, at new section 1A in clause 5, will be “(a) maintaining or enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations, while”—and I want to emphasise the “while” in that sentence; it’s an important legislative word, particularly for a former resource management lawyer—“providing for ongoing pastoral farming of pastoral land:”. So the purpose here is doing these two things: we’re wanting to enhance those inherent values while having the pastoral farming continue. That continues over into the outcomes that are sought by the legislation in clause 8, at new section 4, “Outcomes for decision makers”—that “while” is a key point.

Another important term in this legislation is that of “pastoral activity”, and, again, the scheme of the legislation is that there are schedules to this which say what sorts of pastoral activity require some consent and which are permitted. So if we go now in the bill to new Schedule 1AB in Schedule 2 of the bill, this is the classification of pastoral activities on pastoral land, and at clause 1 in Part 1 of Schedule 1AB, it’s those activities that are permitted.

There’s been some discussion on controlling invasive exotic pest plants. Now, we on the Environment Committee—a number of the speakers today—have heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on his recent weeds report, and I think we’re all very interested in the importance of controlling exotic pest plants. Many of the submitters that we heard from as well who are the farmers, the leaseholders, of these high country farms also are very committed to this control of invasive exotic pest plants. So, at clause 1, there are some rules that the previous speaker referred to, and they are really around where there might be a by-kill, and the by-kill is of indigenous vegetation. So there are some rules in clause 1 there. So controlling invasive exotic pest plants is permitted where “any associated by-kill does not exceed 200 m2/ha; and”—and there are some other factors in there as well.

But then when you look down to clause 2 in Part 1, what is also permitted is “Any other invasive exotic piece plant control that does not involve associated by-kill.” So what that means is that if a farmer sees a wilding pine and they’re not going to touch any indigenous biodiversity by taking out that wilding pine, then that is a permitted activity under this schedule, and I think that’s worth clarifying.

In conclusion, these changes to the legislative framework should enable better relations between the Crown and those leaseholder farmers to manage this land. We heard submissions from many farmers who care very deeply about their environment and also the related economics. We know that a lot of these farmers have fine merino wool that they export to the world. A lot of that is based on New Zealand’s clean, green image, and they certainly really felt very deeply about that and put a lot of work into improving their environments.

We heard from daughters in submissions. We heard from Jess Cox, who is still at primary school, and we heard from another Jess, the daughter at Branch Creek Station—not in formal submissions, but when we went on site visits—and we heard about the diversification, because of course not all these environments are easy to make lots of money out of and the farmers do have to diversify into other things. We also heard from the Kates—Kate Cocks and Kate Scott—who both are very committed to environmental protection of indigenous vegetation, particularly the beech forests, or Nothofagus.

So we’ve heard just now, as well from the Minister, that there will be a more hands-on approach from LINZ to help with the management of this land, and also the emphasis on the importance of improving that relationship. We’ve also heard that consultation is coming soon on the regulations and standards that go with this legislative piece. So, for all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we finally got to the end of that last presentation, from Rachel Brooking, and we did start to hear that farmers were people with names, with families. For the first part of that presentation it just seemed to be black and white documentation, as if farmers didn’t have any ability to control their own land and everything had to be black and white and on paper and we needed to do this to them. So thank you for at least admitting that there were families and farmers involved in this process.

Now, again, my colleague Nicola Grigg talked about evidence-based submissions, and too many times in the House this week we have seen evidence of people bringing evidence-based submissions to select committees that, at the end of the day, counts for nothing. People come along with ways of showing what they’re doing. They bring a human factor to the select committee, but at the end of the day, it seems to go back down to what’s on the paper and what’s black and white, and there is no trust by this Government of farmers.

It’s really interesting for me, because I was here for the first reading of this piece of legislation, which was started by a previous Minister, Eugenie Sage, and it is now being undertaken by Minister Damien O’Connor. When I heard the speeches in the first reading, you would have thought that those two Ministers, one who was the Minister at the time and the now current Minister, were coming from two different places. I was waiting at the time for New Zealand First to put their presentation up to see where they were going to go and to see if we would get three different answers, because it was done in the last Parliament.

It’s very clear that members on the other side of the House should understand that under Crown ownership back in the day, this land was neglected and it consequently eroded. Through permanent tenures on this land, farmers have been repairing it and tending it for generations and the Crown is repaying the farmers’ caretaking of this land now by eroding their property rights of the Crown pastoral leases, and this will not benefit environmental outcomes. It won’t enhance pastoral farming in the South Island high country.

It’s very interesting to me that when we were down there—and, as Nicola Grigg said, many of us have been down there to a number of these properties across a period of a number of years, led, particularly in the first instance, by the Hon Jacqui Dean when she held the portfolio—all we’ve seen is farmers and leaseholders doing their best. They are actually getting rid of exotic pest plants, and they know where indigenous species live next to those exotic plants. They’re not out to destroy everything around them; they’re actually out to get rid of those wilding pines that are getting in the way of nature, of their farming operation, of tourism, and of all of those things that have gone on down there.

The bill changes the relationship with the lessees, and the Crown, through Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), rather than having it being on mutual trust, partnership, and respect, it is going from one of trust to one of monitoring and policing. What I do notice in the legislation—and it’s something that I think is totally unnecessary—is that it is as if the Government and the Cabinet almost don’t trust LINZ. They have injected Cabinet into the legislation. Now, why would Cabinet need to be having a say on what goes on on these farms? Surely, there are enough Resource Management Act commitments and there are enough current rules around what people can and can’t do with their farms without having Cabinet injected. It’s just another piece of control—Cabinet seems to want to own the control and say over everything in New Zealand, as if they don’t trust anybody else.

There’s been no effort by this Government to work proactively with the leaseholders; instead, it has just chosen to put this bill through the House. In the last couple of years, while we’ve been under COVID, there have been programmes set out under Jobs for Nature to find jobs for people who have been displaced from their other employment. That’s OK in terms of keeping people employed, but what we’ve seen is evidence that these farmers have been doing jobs for nature for years and years and years, and that money’s been coming out of their own pockets. They’ve been looking after the land and they’ve been looking after the properties. They’ve had open access, they’ve had tourists coming through, and the last thing you would do if you didn’t have good intentions around a piece of land would be to open it up and let the tourists come through.

The tourists that actually come to New Zealand—these farms are used in publicity. Nobody coming to New Zealand from overseas loves a picture more than that of a high country farm, with beautiful merino sheep on it. They’re actually coming to New Zealand to experience what it is all about. We’ve seen some pretty exemplary examples of what goes on on these farms and so have the tourists, and these farmers have been a showcase window for our country. Unfortunately, under COVID that has slowed down, and that has also affected the income of these farmers along with various areas of the country, including Queenstown and other tourist populations.

There’s been really no consideration by the Government of these leaseholders. We’ve heard from others on the other side of the House that they are multigenerational. They are children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who have been guardians of the land for a period of time, and somehow this Government seems to think that the Department of Conservation or LINZ or someone else who can put a heavy hand over these generational farmers is going to come to a better outcome than what those people have already come to. It’s clearly an ideological move by the Government. It’s just a further grab of power—

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, rubbish.

BARBARA KURIGER: Those farmers—it’s not rubbish, Dr Duncan Webb. It is not rubbish. We’ve seen the evidence of how these farmers are looking after their land, and they certainly are, so why would the Government—

Dr Duncan Webb: They’re leaseholders—read the lease.

BARBARA KURIGER: —want to then go and inject—they might be leaseholders, but leaseholders look after land just like farm owners do. When those farms, Dr Webb, have been in those families for a period of time, a leasehold is not just a document, and I think that’s the thing that this Government needs to wake up to. So thank you for injecting that comment into the argument, because to those people, the leasehold is not a document and a piece of paper in a contract; it is a lifetime of what their parents and grandchildren have done and what their children and grandchildren are expected to do, and this Government tends to want to pull the rug out from under these people.

So we’re really disappointed with this process. National does not support this piece of legislation. As has been said, we will actually be withdrawing it in 2023 when we get back into Government and we’ll be putting things back to how they should be and how they were, because there’s one difference between the National Party, who will be the Government next year, and the current Government, which is that we trust businesses and people to get on with it and to make a far better job of doing what they’re doing than any Government regulation can enforce people to do. They only need enforcement at times when it’s essential.

These people actually have the vision, they have the heart, they have the generosity, and they have the family fortitude to do the right thing. It’s something they’ve been doing for generations and generations and generations, and all of a sudden we get a second-term Government in here—and I suspect the first-term Government wasn’t able to do this because they had a coalition partner that wouldn’t let them. Now they’re running loose and they’re putting in all sorts of bad pieces of legislation, including this. So you could say that a one-term Government of three years thinks that they can do this job better than multigenerational farming families who have been doing it for a century, and they are thinking that they know best. If that’s not arrogance, then someone needs to tell me what is. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this, the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. Whilst some might think there’s not too much farmland in the Rongotai electorate, there’s plenty for my Barbour gumboots on the Chatham Islands, and so it’s good to just be taking a short call on this and I’ve been listening closely. I want to thank the Environment Committee and those who have done the consultation with the farmers and those families impacted.

There are a couple of points that I wanted to just pull out, and that was this review carried out by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in 2018 which attributed much of the concerns to—and, look, I’ll just read it out: “unclear system outcomes, a lack of transparency and accountability, and a limited understanding about the cumulative impacts of the Commissioner’s decision-making over time.” So, look, I think these are a valid concerns, and 2018—that’s some years ago. The heart of this has been the concerns about the process of tenure review—and that’s been talked about—which has resulted in much of the former Crown pastoral land being freehold and then often subject to more intensive farming.

So I wanted to pick some of this up because I thought, OK, what does this bill do in terms of then clarifying things like LINZ’s responsibility to ensure that the goals are met and to make explicit those responsibilities in terms of recognising the relationship between ourselves as the Crown and tangata whenua, for example, and the need to provide for that in the relationship, picking up those transparency and accountability issues and then ensuring that decision making alongside increased public participation. So there’s been a review, or there’s been some issues that have been identified five years ago now. This process has come in and picked up some of those things, so that process has, therefore, pulled together this resulting bill.

I’ve talked to members on the select committee who said that these are small in numbers, but those families who are impacted have been there for a very, very long time—“intergenerational” is the term that has been used. But I know that this Government’s firmly held belief is that that ongoing and sustainable and responsible pastoral farming is the best way for Crown pastoral land to be managed and I’ve picked this up from the reading and from what others have told me in terms of talking to it. So I don’t think this is just any piece of legislation, as has been said, but it does seek to protect our whenua for those future generations. It’s doing things differently but recognising and enabling the need for ongoing pastoral farming.

I’m going to just say that there seems to be some legitimacy here. It’s been pulled through a process. Not everyone will always be happy, but I think the outcome based on what this Government’s beliefs are is commendable, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m very pleased to take a final call on the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill.

I think there’s been some fundamental misinformation offered by National MPs in speaking to this bill. They seem to be based in the 19th century rather than the 21st. They don’t seem to recognise that the Land Act 1948 is overdue for reform and that the Crown Pastoral Land Act was introduced and passed in 1998, and so the primary reason for this bill is to actually modernise the Act in relation to Crown pastoral leases.

Opposition MPs also don’t seem to recognise that the Crown actually owns these lands: 1.2 million hectares of, largely, the eastern South Island, which is 5 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand. As landowner, the Crown wants to protect its interests in these lands, for all New Zealanders. As the late Dr John Hayward noted, they have many interests. It’s not just their landscape values, their astonishing array of vegetation, the landscapes from the big river valleys of the Rangitata and the Rakaia, the matagouri shrublands—the much depleted habitat—but, as Dr Hayward noted, they’ve got huge economic value, particularly for water for downstream use, because it’s tussock grasslands, which are really good at harvesting fog and water. That water goes downstream. It’s used in horticulture and agriculture to provide drinking water. That and tourism are perhaps their greatest economic value. So the Government, in introducing this legislation, is modernising the regime to provide for better recognition and protection of the land’s inherent values—its scientific, ecological, cultural values—while providing for sustainable farming on an ongoing basis.

It’s partly because these lands in the high country have been subject to quite rapid and dramatic change over the last 60 years, and, again, Opposition members don’t seem to be aware of this significant change in areas like Lake Station, where aerial spraying of herbicide resulted in large areas of 200-year-old matagouri being killed in a second. Once that centuries-old vegetation is destroyed by spraying, it’s impossible to regenerate. So this major change that has occurred in the high country, the number of threatened and indigenous species—the massive change that’s occurred with agricultural intensification is one reason, and those forward-looking leaseholders do recognise the value of protecting indigenous shrublands and the remaining areas of tussock grasslands.

You only have to look at the Mackenzie Basin, where 22 percent of the indigenous vegetation on the basin floor has been destroyed in recent years—massive landscape change as that became more like the Canterbury Plains. That is what this bill is about—setting some very clear outcomes. It’s responding to the review that Paul Eagle noted was done in 2018, which highlighted some of the problems in the existing legislation: the fact that the outcomes weren’t clear, the criteria for decision making wasn’t clear, there wasn’t a lot of guidance, and there wasn’t accountability and transparency. So the bill actually looks to resolve those issues. It makes it clear how the Commissioner of Crown Lands will decide on applications for discretionary consents in terms of the process used. It supports a much stronger relationship between Māori and the Crown, and it recognises the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands.

The bill ends tenure review, because that had a very mixed bag in terms of its results. The public and the Crown did not always get a fair return when land was freeholded through that process. The Minister noted the figures: over 436,000 hectares of pastoral lease were freeholded and some 380,000 hectares became conservation land. But yet, by 2017, the Crown had paid out a net $57 million to leaseholders while disposing of more land than actually became conservation land, and some of those lands that were freeholded were around the margins of lakes like Wakatipu, Wānaka, Pūkaki, and Tekapō, and those lands were then onsold by their new freehold owners for considerably more than they had paid the Crown to purchase them. There was about a $275 million capital gain involved in that, so that’s one of the reasons that tenure review had to end—because of the major public concern about that.

Leaseholders had 20 years. If they wanted to go through tenure review, they could have done it. Those leaseholders that decided not to recognise that they would be staying with pastoral leases. There would be a change to the regime, it was likely to be modernised, and they recognised that it was a sound business decision for it to stay as a pastoral lease because of the very low rental that pastoral leaseholders pay to the Crown.

National MPs have also totally ignored the Government’s investment in the high country and in neighbouring conservation land in terms of pest and weed control. We’ve seen $100 million go into wilding pine control over four years—that’s much greater than the $16 million that the National Government put in—$27 million for wallaby control; innovative projects like Te Manahuna o Aoraki, where you’ve got leaseholders in the Mackenzie Basin working with Ngāi Tahu and working with Te Papa Atawhai on common goals of controlling weeds and pests and protecting those landscapes.

This Government and the previous one—the previous Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government—has invested in biosecurity, in pest and weed control, and in biodiversity protection. The major changes that the bill implements are all about ensuring that we have a much more sustainable regime in the high country. I would encourage National members to really read and to understand what the ecological loss has been in our high country over the last 30 years and what the benefit to indigenous species and habitat would be if we were to have a greater recognition of inherent values, and to read the Schedule of the bill and the long list of permitted activities there to enable leaseholders to get permission for things like post drilling to controlling pest plants and weeds when they don’t kill off a whole lot of native vegetation in the process, because it’s very easy with aerial spraying and saying that you’re targeting broom or gorse to also then clear matagouri, kānuka, mānuka, and associated native vegetation. That’s why there are some criteria around those activities.

So the bill is a modernisation. It sets clearer outcomes. It makes the Commissioner of Crown Lands more accountable with the statement of outcomes and through the monitoring strategy that has to be developed. Land Information New Zealand is more actively involved with leaseholders through visits on-farm. There are a lot of other economic activities that are happening now on pastoral leases, not just pastoral farming, but this bill does seek to protect the Crown’s interests as landowner in these lands and protect the public’s interest in them in terms of their values as landscape for supporting our indigenous species, for tourism, for water harvesting, and for that panoply of values that Māori hold in terms of their ancestral lands. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT opposes this bill, and should we have the privilege of becoming part of the next Government, we will work to repeal it. So we want the pastoral farmers of the high country to know that the ACT Party has got their back, and that goes for all farmers in New Zealand.

We have significant concerns about this bill. This is an erosion of property rights. Advice was tended—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s a leasehold.

SIMON COURT: —to the committee—Dr Duncan Webb. Advice on property rights was tended to the committee that a 33-year perpetual lease is akin to the right of freehold tenure—

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, go back and read your law book.

SIMON COURT: —whether it’s Crown land or not, and Dr Duncan Webb is not a legal expert in property rights, so we will defer to those who are.

We also recognise that even though there is a Resource Management Act, as flawed as it may be, there is still a pathway which requires pastoral farmers in the high country who want to carry out activities that require consents under regional plans or district plans to go and obtain those consents and demonstrate to the environmental specialists at their local council exactly how they’re going to mitigate the effects of pastoral farming activities that might cause erosion, for example, or they might be putting in a road and cause a bit of dust during construction phase. There is already a well-understood way that we address those effects: we write a management plan and then demonstrate to our communities and to local regulators that we can meet those environmental tests. That is why it is completely unnecessary to have the same set of tests vested in the Commissioner of Crown Lands and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), who are not people who are environmental specialists; they are simply administrators. They run spreadsheets and they manage property for the Crown.

So let’s have a bit of a think about what the Minister said. The Minister said that there’s going to be a more hands-on approach from LINZ. Well, I can tell pastoral farmers in the high country and any other farmers who are interested in what this Government intends for them that there is nothing more terrifying than these nine words: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” If you’ve heard that before, that was from Ronald Reagan, a former US President, and it applies as much today in New Zealand to pastoral farming and to people who own property—landlords, or anyone who owns anything in New Zealand, the Government is coming for you.

Then we hear about the public interest. Well, there is a public interest in how land is managed effectively, but the public doesn’t own this land; the Crown does, and the Crown has an obligation to the leaseholders it is in a contract with to actually respect the conditions of the lease and to make sure that where the leaseholders have an obligation to the Crown, they meet it. But the leaseholders can’t possibly have an obligation to the public. This is a fiction created by this Government, created by the Minister and the former Minister responsible for introducing this bill to the House. There is no public interest in how these lands are managed. In fact, the interest is that the pastoral lessees—the farmers—obtain an economic return and that they can make sufficient profit—sufficient profit; it’s a remarkable concept to the current Government and to the Labour Party and the Green Party—to pay for those things like pest control and weed control and fencing and enhancing the natural environment.

Then we come to decision making, and this is where it really gets concerning, because not only do we have unelected officials with a complete deficit of understanding of environmental management, who sit in the department, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands but this bill also gives decision making through sleight of hand to unelected iwi Māori representatives. There is a provision in this bill which says the Crown must give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when making decisions about farmers’ consent applications, about commercial activity applications, and about the number of stock that can be carried on the land.

Well, let’s be clear: the Crown does have a contract with iwi Māori; it’s called the Treaty of Waitangi. But there’s nowhere in the Treaty of Waitangi that talks about principles. In fact, what the Treaty of Waitangi says is that every New Zealander is equal before the law. Queen Victoria was the ruler then and Queen Elizabeth is our ruler now—that’s the law; “the Crown”—and if anyone tries to take your stuff, the Queen or her agents would guarantee your property rights. Now, what iwi Māori in 1840 and what the Crown pastoral lessees have in common is that they never realised that it would actually be the Crown coming to take their property rights—to take their stuff. But that’s what we’re seeing here today.

Look, evidence was tendered that Ngāi Tahu and other iwi sold their land, or divested it to the Crown, and they were paid for it. Now, whether that was an appropriate level of compensation is dealt with through a Treaty of Waitangi process, and the ACT Party supports that process. We understand that Ngāi Tahu and other iwi have had the benefit of a settlement and that was intended at the time to be full and final with of course progressive uplift based on other settlements that have followed, and that’s entirely fair.

So the effect of this decision-making intent in the bill which is allocated to iwi Māori in the specific clause is that it’s created a sense of anxiety for families and pastoral farm operators that unelected people from iwi Māori organisations may have a right of veto over consent applications and over commercial activities and the number of cows or stock units they might run. That’s completely unacceptable and it’s completely unnecessary.

Then the legislation talks about inherent values: scientific, cultural, and environmental values, as we heard from the former Minister who introduced the bill and the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage. Well, look, cultural values, or what someone thinks of the land that you farm because of their culture, their background, or how they were brought up, is completely irrelevant to the relationship between the Crown as landowner and the pastoral farmers. This should have nothing to do with decision making about how the land is used. What we should focus on are the scientific reasons why you observe different land management practices.

We heard about the water supply; in fact, it was quite helpful hearing from the Hon Eugenie Sage in her description of how tussock catches rainwater and fog, and how that water ends up in the ground, and then how it becomes available through aquifers and rivers downstream. Well, that’s a really important problem to solve—how we allocate water efficiently and to the highest value use—but that’s not a problem this bill tries to solve except by reducing the rights of pastoral farmers, lessees of high country farmland from the Crown, by reducing their rights to do stuff with their land and the water that comes with their land.

Then we heard about pest and weed control. Well, we’ve heard evidence from environmental scientists and farmers about the Mackenzie Basin. Part of the Mackenzie Basin, after a tenure review process, was handed back to the Crown and given to the Department of Conservation (DOC) to manage. They excluded farm animals—ruminant animals—that chew the grass from the DOC land. They thought that would allow the tussock to recover, but it turns out there’s some invasive weed species that have been introduced to New Zealand in the past couple of hundred years, and we can’t go back in time. There is no TARDIS that allows us to put all of these weeds back into a phone box and ask Doctor Who to take them back to another galaxy, another dimension. They’re here to stay, and the problem is if you try to take the land that has weeds and pests on it and return it back to a pre-human condition, you’re going to fail.

What happened in the Mackenzie Basin was that instead of the tussock recovering, a whole lot of different weed species outgrew the native tussock, and, in fact, the only way to manage it without application of all kinds of horrendous sprays was to allow the stock to graze. That was a great surprise to LINZ officials, and it was a great surprise to the Government majority. It was such a surprise they’ve conveniently forgotten that.

So there is a reason why ACT opposes this bill: we believe in listening to the farmers who live on the land and love their land. We trust farming families who live on that land and love that land, and that’s why we will repeal this bill should ACT have the opportunity to form part of the next Government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m actually very happy to be speaking on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, with my reason being that I found this a fascinating piece of legislation to work on. It took quite an amount of time to work through the select committee process.

I want to just acknowledge and recognise High Country Accord and the visits that we attended. We did our very best as a select committee to go to the community. We went to Christchurch and then we went down to Queenstown to directly connect with them, and then we were hosted by High Country Accord during the roar last year—was it last year? I think it was—yes, the roar last year. It was a magnificent time to be in the high country—an absolutely magnificent time. We had the most beautiful weather and we got to spend some really quality time listening directly to the farmers who had farmed intergenerationally, and we got to engage with them and spend real, meaningful time listening to their concerns.

So I’m really pleased to stand here and speak. Having come from the West Coast of the South Island and having also grown up in the North Island in Northland in a farming family, farming with beef and lamb, it was a lovely reminder of my childhood—even though, of course, not as grand.

So what we know about this bill is that the bill was managed in quite a good way, I must say. So I want to acknowledge Eugenie Sage, the chair, who was the chair for deliberations but she most certainly was not the chair for submissions. Rachel Brooking, the deputy chair, took over to do that, and that is in recognition of the transfer, with the Hon Eugenie Sage having been the Minister who first looked to introduce this legislation. I think that that was very sensitively managed and appropriately so, and I want to acknowledge the former Minister for that.

Clause 9 of this bill repeals the transfer of land that occurs, or the selling of land, that occurs under tenure review. So, essentially, tenure review is looking at land and almost doing a swap. It’s putting some land into freehold and other land going into the Department of Conservation estate. But the thing that’s really important to remember is that the existing land that we currently have in the tenure leasehold process is, essentially, owned by the Crown, and the leasehold relationship—the 33-year leasehold in perpetuity—is indeed a right. It is a right held by those farmers, but it isn’t the only right that sits on that land. So I just want to acknowledge that, and also acknowledge the kaitiakitanga, or the care, that those farmers bring to that land. Of course there are some leaseholds that are not owned by intergenerational families, and I also want to acknowledge those businesses, which do their very best as well.

So, finally, I think that this bill does a really clever thing, and part of the changes in this bill which I really like is the clarification that this legislation brings. So there are sort of three things: there are consented or permitted activities and there are those that are absolutely prohibited, and the bill outlines those. It’s really useful to have this. It makes things a lot more streamlined and a lot more useful for those on farm needing to know what to do. There’s a carve-out for emergency situations, because we’ve heard about emergency situations.

So I think this bill lands in the right place. It is going to ensure that we continue to protect Crown land and also work in partnership alongside these leaseholders. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill in this, its third reading.

This spectacular part of our country—1.2 million hectares of our land—is 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land area. Under Crown ownership, we know that historically this land was neglected and eroded. It’s only been under permanent tenures on the land that our high country farmers have been able to repair it and tend to it over generations. Contrary to what this Government promotes about farming, farmers are conservationists, farmers are environmentalists, and farmers are genuine in their concern for animal welfare, but this Government does not trust farmers.

When we started looking at this legislation, as my colleague Nicola Grigg said, many of us went to visit several high country farms. One area that I’ve been familiar with for many years is around Tekapō. I spent a lot of time there when I was in the territorial army, and so I was pleased go back and visit the station around there.

This is magnificent land and we were there on a magnificent day, with the big blue sky and the bright sunshine and the crisp air. We were shown the wonderful vista of the stations along this high country area, and, as we were looking, my eye was drawn to the left of the vista and I thought, “Oh, my goodness, here’s one of our high country farmers letting us down badly.” Here was land covered in wilding pines, with gorse and broom next to this pristine farmed and well-managed pastoral land. I asked, “Whose station is that to our left?” The answer was “That’s DOC land.”, and the contrast could not have been more stark. The boundary was where it went from being well-managed, sensibly stocked carefully managed farming pastoral land to land that was being left to wilding pines, to gorse, and to broom, and it was an absolute eyesore.

This bill is about an ideology of whether the Crown knows best how to look after this important part of our country or whether it’s experienced intergenerational farmers who have looked after this country, and I can tell you that as I stood there, the answer was clear. These precious parts of our country are, by far, better being looking after by farmers who understand the nature of how to look after these pastoral areas.

The Crown is repaying farmers for their hard work and their caretaking of this precious land by eroding the property rights of their pastoral leases. They will not improve environmental outcomes and they will not enhance pastoral farming through this legislation, but as I listened to our Green Party MP speak about this, I don’t think she mentioned farming. She mentioned tourism and she mentioned water, and so, ideologically, it is very clear that she does not see a future for farming on this land. That is a sad day for New Zealand, because anyone who has driven through our central South Island will know how—

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

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fãiåk se’ea. Noa‘ia, te Mana Whakawā. It is a privilege and it’s an honour on this Thursday afternoon to make a short contribution to the debate on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. As a committee, we examined this bill and recommended by majority that this bill be passed.

I want to acknowledge the Ministers that have shepherded this bill through the House. As the Minister has said, the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill amends the Crown Land Act 1998, which is 24 years old, and the Land Act 1948, which is 74 years old.

As the Minister said, the bill aims to ensure that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) will administer Crown pastoral land in a way that maintains or enhances the inherent value of the land. The Minister further defined that inherent values are to be the ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage, and scientific values of the natural character of the land. I learnt, as a person who is not a farmer and who does not associate with farmers that much—unless, of course, I’m watching Country Calendar—that the Crown owns approximately 1.2 million hectares of Crown pastoral land. That’s about 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land. This land is primarily in Te Wai Pounamu—the South Island high country—and most of this land is leased by the Crown to farmers for pastoral farming.

I want to acknowledge that the farmers hosted us in the high country, but I wasn’t there—that’s why I made reference to Country Calendar. It’s a beautiful place to be, and one day I hope to visit it.

I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and the partnership and the leadership of the committee in that she handed some of their roles and tasks to the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking. I would like to acknowledge the 161 submitters, made up of groups and individuals, who have made submissions to the committee. I want to acknowledge the stories I heard from farmers of decades of their connection to the land, and I want to acknowledge the passion and the emotion shown by the many farmers from whom I was privileged enough to hear their story.

I want to refer to the submission of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. What I remember from their submissions: (1) they wanted Ngāi Tahu to engage in communications about pastoral land in the area; (2) they wanted the Treaty principles to be included in any plans or frameworks that were there for kaitiaki of the land; and, (3), Ngāi Tahu also stressed the fact that they would like the reference to iwi removed and they would like Ngāi Tahu to be considered as a Treaty partner, not a stakeholder. So those submissions are reflected on page 7 of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 129 in new section 5(2) in clause 8.

In terms of the reference to iwi, I learnt that Ngāi Tahu is the iwi of majority of Te Wai Pounamu. The relevant iwi in that area—I want to read it out just for the record—are: “(a) Ngāi Tahu Whānui as represented by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu in accordance with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996: (b) Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō: (c) Ngāti Kōata: (d) Ngāti Kuia: (e) Ngāti Rārua: (f) Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu: (g) Ngāti Toa Rangātira: (h) Rangitāne o Wairau: (i) Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.” The reason why I make reference to that is that this bill is different from any other bill. It makes that reference so that when we speak about iwi, we know who they are and they are named in this bill.

To conclude my contribution, I want to go back to what some of the changes were. Most of the submissions that I have heard, I’ve seen in the SOP, so I understand some contributions weren’t reflected in the SOP, but some of them have been, and I want to just remind the House that what this bill does is it protects the unique values of our high country to New Zealand and all New Zealanders. The bill is extended to enshrine best practice and to streamline some day-to-day farming activities, and it clarifies what activities are permitted, discretionary, and prohibited, and who the iwi, Treaty partners, and stakeholders are. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to oppose the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill at this third reading. National opposes the bill in its entirety. It is our view that the provisions contained in this bill fundamentally change the approximately 73-year-old unique contractual relationship between the Crown pastoral leaseholders and the Crown through Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). This is becoming a pattern for this Government. It is undermining confidence in the farming sector. It is undermining confidence in property law rights.

There are currently 171 Crown pastoral leases covering around 1.2 million hectares of the South Island. The majority are located across Canterbury, Otago, Marlborough, Southland, and Westland. The leases are located in the South Island high country.

In my electorate of Southland, I have high country stations in northern Southland, Glenorchy, Queenstown Lakes District, and Central Otago. They are all different. One size does not fit all, and this is an example of an unworkable piece of legislation that the Government is becoming known for in rural New Zealand. This proposed reform of the law overseeing South Island high country pastoral leases will not lead to better environmental outcomes.

New Zealand has a proud farming history, and the farmers of the alpine regions of the South Island occupy a special place in New Zealand’s heritage. These beautiful alpine lands known as the high country are a unique landscape of expansive grassland plains, river valleys, and mountains. The land is generally prone to climatic extremes of hot, dry summers and winters that bring heavy snowfalls. It takes a special kind of person to live and make this their home, and it’s our high country farmers—approximately 150 to 160 families—that protect these regions for all of New Zealand.

The high country is, typically, a much more extreme environment than the general farmland of wider New Zealand. The land is diverse, it’s remote, and it’s challenging. Many aspects of the high country are not tameable because of the scale, topography, altitude, and weather realities that all frustrate domestication. A management style has arisen within the high country that adopts strategies for dealing with snow and droughts and that has an overall attitude of resilience.

High country farmers are very aware that a balance must be maintained with the landscape and the biodiversity of the landscape to ensure the survival of ecosystems and to produce high-quality stock. There is a need to ensure adaptability and diversification of current farming practices in response to changing climatic conditions, markets, and consumer demands.

Through living and working in the high country, farming families have developed a deep attachment and sense a belonging to the land that often stretches across many generations. The unique culture and senses of identity of high country farmers is derived from that deep attachment to the land.

Within the high country, there’s almost a spiritual affinity with the land, the mountains, the rivers, and the lakes. High country farmers’ attachment to the land is both physical, material, conceptual, and emotional, and it is certainly something that I and other members saw when we visited many high country farms and farmers. We saw the deep emotional connection that they had to this and the genuine emotional difficulty that this bill was posing to them. Some, in fact, were almost in tears discussing this.

The Crown pastoral lease lands at the heart of the process have been leased from the Government and used for grazing by farmers since the mid - 19th century. Prior to the 1948 Land Act, there was a deterioration in the lands—a tragedy of the commons, in effect—as leaseholders had not been provided with sufficient security of tenure to justify their continued investment in the long-term infrastructure and environmental management required. Rabbits, feral pigs, goats, deer, and weed plants such as gorse had become an issue, and it was acknowledged that a long-term solution was needed.

I note that the Crown purchased the high country from Ngāi Tahu in the 1840s and 1850s, in the time of early European settlement. By the time of purchase, extensive deforestation had already occurred due to earlier fires, and with the exception of high-altitude tussock areas, the vast majority of the land remained impenetrable and unsuitable for even minimal pastoralism. Some hardy folk made this their home and worked the land, but over a period of time it became clear that the existing framework did not work effectively and there was, in effect, a race to the bottom as a number of farmers sought to exploit the land, in effect. This led to some serious environmental problems that the Governments of the day recognised and it led to the Land Act of 1948 some 73 years ago that formed this contractual relationship that is being changed today by this Government.

The Land Act 1948 brought about significant change to the management of Crown land. It abolished the distinctions between different land classifications and reduced the number of tenures in which Crown land could be held from approximately 40 to four standard tenures—namely freehold, renewable lease, pastoral occupation licence, and pastoral lease. This, effectively, gave leaseholders a degree of certainty of tenure and, therefore, the incentive to invest in the future protection of the land, and this is exactly what has happened over generations. Families have invested in the land and they have improved the environmental outcomes very significantly. In fact, if I turn to one station in my electorate across the Wakatipu lake, Mount Nicholas Station has over 160 years of farming history, but only 16 percent of that land has introduced pasture and regular fertiliser applications—83.9 percent of the station is in indigenous vegetation.

This is actually quite common among many high country stations, in fact, across the South Island. A lot of the land cannot be farmed and, in fact, it must be conserved and protected. As farmers have this deep connect where they remove the exotic plants, they remove the noxious animals, and they’re motivated to do so because they have that security of tenure and that incentive to invest.

A submitter who made a powerful impression on members of the Environment Committee last year in Queenstown was a young 11-year-old, Jess Cocks, from Mount Nicholas Station, who really highlighted the multigenerational connection to the land. She spoke of how much she loved it and loved going camping on it, and talked about going spraying with dad to kill bad weeds like gorse and nodding thistles and catching possums to help look after our native birds and forests. She said, “One day, I really hope to be able to run this farm and I hope that it stays in family for ever so we can keep looking after this beautiful station.” Her mum, Kate Cocks, also articulated how deeply committed she was to providing environmental protection, and I think the statistics speak for themselves: 83.9 percent of that station is in indigenous vegetation.

I also visited Muller Station up in the Marlborough region and saw the work that’s been done there over many, many years since 1965, and there are no noxious plants to be seen. Molesworth Station, which is Crown-owned and Crown-managed next door, has some different conditions but, nevertheless, has a serious wilding pine problem.

An issue that was raised by a number of submitters—and, unfortunately, we heard last night from the Minister for Land Information that he wasn’t aware of it, but it was certainly in submissions to the select committee and was raised numerous times—was the requirement that farmers will need a consent, unless 90 percent or more of the land area is covered in exotic pest plants, to remove those plants, and I’ll show a photograph to the House of one those submissions. There’s a photograph of tussock area and one gorse bush in the middle of it, and that will, effectively, be protected by this legislation. It’s just an example of unworkable regulation that, unfortunately, this Government does time and time again, and it does not listen to those who know their land best and how to protect it best.

I also note that there has not been a real effort by the Government to proactively work with leaseholders, and they’ve instead chosen to ram this bill through the House. We heard from the Minister that farmers were going to welcome lots more visits from the Crown agents. That was in direct contradiction to the submissions from Federated Farmers and High Country Accord, who said that given the nature of the penalty regime in this bill, they will look upon a visit from the Crown agents as, effectively, mounting to a visit from the police. That is not something that most people welcome when they are doing their very best to protect the land for their families and for the environment and for New Zealand.

By setting up an adversarial system of management with rigid rules and complex processes, which will increase costs for high country farmers, this bill undermines the security of tenure granted by the Land Act 1948 some 73 years ago in the pastoral lease tenure, and it will consequently undermine the incentives for enhanced stewardship of the land which that security of tenure has delivered over the past 73 years. There has been no real consideration by this Government that leaseholders, who are often multigenerational guardians of the land, might be better than the Department of Conservation or LINZ, something that anyone who has visited these properties—as I have—would know to be true.

I will speak to two other stations that I visited. Branch Creek Station is in the Cardrona Valley, and a mother and daughter who have done an incredible job—

SPEAKER: Order! The member has run out of time.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise to take the last call on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. This bill underpins the Government’s view that ongoing sustainable and responsible pastoral farming is the best way for this land to be managed. This bill also recognises the place of pastoral farming as a legitimate use of the land while protecting the unique importance and the value of our high country to New Zealand and all New Zealanders.

This bill is part of measures this Government is taking to keep Aotearoa New Zealand clean and green. While this list is big, I’d like to highlight some of these measures. Our Jobs for Nature fund, which is helping to drive our economic recovery to revitalise our regions and restore our environments—the package is set to create thousands of jobs in our regions, while improving fresh water and enhancing biodiversity on public and private land. We are making sure future generations can enjoy our native species and scenery by taking action to protect endangered species such as Māui dolphins and Hector’s dolphins. We also do this by combatting kauri dieback disease, expanding predator control to make Aotearoa predator-free by 2050, and cleaning up our rivers and lakes. We have banned single-use plastic bags, and are committed to phasing out more single-use plastics. The list goes on, but these are exciting measures being taken to preserve the beauty of our country and make it livable for future generations.

We are a farming nation. Opposite to what the Opposition claims, we actually do care about our farmers and we highly value them accordingly. They are the backbone of our economy and our nation—hence we are making sure that climate change is a priority.

Actually, I want to remind the House that not acting on the environment and climate change is not—I just want to give them an example. For example, in East Africa, climate change was never a priority. Now we’ve got drought for the last three years with very limited rain, and, as a result, millions of livestock have died and the people are suffering and entirely depending on aid. So not acting is not a solution.

But, luckily, on this side of the House, we are responsible, we are sensible, and we are working to futureproof our pastoral land. Simply, we are putting our environment at the centre of our thinking—it’s the asset that underpins our wellbeing, identity, livestock, and livelihoods. Our farmers and our land—New Zealand—deserve better, and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 May.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to shout out to all the hard-working nurses in the Taieri electorate on this International Nurses Day.

In June 2021, a financial institution called Credicare service announced it was closing, and it left 2,300 people out of pocket, including many senior citizens in my own electorate, and people like Wayne White of Dunedin who had paid into this fund for decades, some of them for 25 years, hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Those who were over 73 years old were offered a closure gift of $50, which they found difficult to understand, and they basically walked away empty handed. This financial institution was about funeral costs. It was these seniors trying to do the right thing by not lassoing their families with the expense of funerals should they die, and the idea was that everybody would chip in and that when somebody passed away, they would have their funeral costs covered to the tune of $10,000. The problem is that as that cohort aged and fewer and fewer people opted in, and more and more people died, the fund basically ran out of money.

That is exactly the type of situation that the legislation before us is seeking to remedy. There’s another case of a woman who paid $19,000 in insurance premiums for a policy that was worth only $10,000. Consumer magazine called that type of cover over-hyped and over-sold. I’d like to acknowledge Consumer magazine for the advocacy it’s done to restore the fairness around funeral and other insurance schemes. The Otago Daily Times has also done an editorial, saying that the law before us today, the bill we’re debating now, is long overdue. I hope the Otago Daily Times will continue its excellent coverage of this issue and also alert its readers to the fact that we are now remedying this, and that is what we’re doing here today.

The Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill refers to the conduct of financial institutions, so this is really about changing behaviours, changing the culture of those institutions and putting people before profit, which is a core Labour value. So it’s seeking to address the question of how we get a culture of valuing people into our financial structures, and it’s very much about fairness. It sits very nicely with the response of this Government to COVID, where we have sought to get fairness for people. You’ve seen that our unemployment rate is at the lowest for many, many years at 3.2 percent. We have targeted our pay rates and living standards for the lowest-paid workers. We have fair pay agreements coming in. We’re steering away from austerity. We’ve got a wellbeing focus and we’ve got many other things to show that this Government puts fairness at the heart of its policies, and we will see that again in the impending Budget.

Actually, the legislation is also about financial stability. When we have systems that are robust and transparent and are fair, we also contribute to the overall financial stability, and that, Mr Speaker, as you well know, leads to a more robust and more stable economy which is more attractive to foreign investment and is able to withstand the types of shocks that we’ve seen.

The legislation also builds on the work done in the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. So the problem that the bill tries to remedy is the imbalance of power in the financial markets and the role of consumers in that. It specifically looks at insurance and the questionable motives of salespeople who are perhaps seeking a win from a sale rather than looking at a win-win, and it’s also looking at the conduct controls and systems that protect consumers, and the lack of accountability, especially at senior level.

Various banking inquiries have identified gaps in the conduct around markets, gaps around fairness and weaknesses—that’s inquiries by the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority—and there have been several sector reviews which have shown evidence of poor conduct. So, as I mentioned before, we’re really looking to try and change the culture around these financial institutions to make sure that consumers are taken care of, that there’s a rebalancing of the playing field, and that everybody entering it knows that it is fair.

The UK financial services did a lot of mahi into what that culture could look like, and the New Zealand officials have looked closely at that research. The UK says that consumers need to feel confident that they’re treated fairly, that they have needs-responsive products, that there is clear communication that they can understand, that the advice that they’re given is appropriate, that products meet their expectations, and that there are no unreasonable post-sales barriers.

So what the bill does is it ensures that banks and insurance companies are licensed by the Financial Markets Authority, and it also seeks to reduce harm to customers by making sure there’s fair treatment, and that means including due regard for their interests plus intermediaries. It establishes and maintains a fair conduct programme and it requires compliance with it, and it creates a regulatory power to stop volume and value targets, or soft commissions. This is a case where somebody is told that if they can get a 10th consumer over the line to buy a particular product such as insurance, they may, say, win a trip overseas. So the incentive on the intermediary or on the salesperson is about getting that sale at all costs, rather than considering what is a win-win outcome.

The select committee received 59 submissions. Most of them were favourable, and the main highlights from the process were really adding a minimum requirement of fair conduct so that there would be certainty, and also limiting the definition of fairness so that it was a non-exhaustive list.

One of the big areas that came up with intermediaries—and we’ve seen this around employment law, where there are grey areas of whether people are employees of a company or a firm, or whether they’re subcontractors. The legislation tidies this up and, basically, requires all intermediaries to be treated as though they were employees of the company for the purposes of making sales. So that means that the firms have an onus to do criminal record checks on their intermediaries, they explicitly set out the expectations of good conduct, they have robust policies and processes for dealing with misconduct, and they monitor the outcome for consumers. Also, they encourage the disclosure of commission to consumers so that they can mitigate risk, so that means that intermediaries need to be transparent about any commissions that are coming their way.

What this legislation does is it sits in a very complementary way with other regimes which protect consumers. It sits under the umbrella financial and credit contracts legislation. There are compliance overlaps with other legislation, which are complementary. They are acceptable and they don’t cause confusion. There is a statutory review clause, which will pre-emptively deal with any unforeseen issues—for example, if there are regulations which may overlap—and it really does complement other regimes.

The scope of the legislation is around banks and insurance. KiwiSaver providers and finance companies have not been included. However, there is room to do that. The Minister has acted swiftly. He’s seen the mischief in the market and has moved to rebalance things for consumers, and once this legislation is passed, we could expect that there will be a review into other institutions which should be captured by legislation like this.

Really, what we are debating today is a bill that looks to increase fairness and achieve a culture of fairness in the financial institutions. It’s about re-levelling the David and Goliath relationship that consumers sometimes have with large firms and organisations, but also it’s about ensuring the integrity and financial stability of the banking structures so that we have an economy that can withstand the types of shocks that we have seen very recently.

So it’s a great piece of legislation. It’s been a long time coming, getting to this second reading. I don’t know how many times we have prepared to stand and speak to it, so it feels very good to be doing this on International Nurses Day, and I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Echoing the comments from Ingrid Leary about just the number of times that I’ve prepared to give a speech on this bill, it’s nice to finally get in here. I want to start by also giving a shout-out to our nurses and our migrant nurses on International Nurses Day. The Green Party supports a transparent and well-regulated and accountable financial services sector, and we’re pleased that this bill, the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill, works towards creating such a regime.

I note that this bill was introduced almost 2½-plus years ago now, and so it does feel like it’s been a sort of slow process in getting here. Looking back at some of the submissions, which are now somewhat dated, I think the issues are very much relevant in terms of some of the pressures that consumers continue facing—as well as retail workers who work in the bank sector—and I wanted to reflect on one of the submissions from FIRST Union, who was really clear that a fair-conduct principle is really necessary but it must extend to fully removing sales pressures from New Zealand’s retail banks. They talked extensively on some of the pressures that exist on workers and that, when we talk about fair conduct, we need to think both of the consumers and the workers as well. And I did note in the submission that they were really keen to have some specific requirements regarding the fair-conduct principle.

When I was looking at the select committee report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the amendments that were being proposed, I was pleased to see that not only was there a sort of review period being introduced that I think will allow us to examine whether the bill is actually meeting the requests from submitters to properly protect people from the tactics from financial institutions that are sometimes unfair, but also that there are some amendments that seek to clarify, and provide more clarity around, the concept of the fair-conduct principle and the clarity and broadening of that definition that I think will give some space to hopefully just better protect consumers.

And just echoing, too, what Ingrid Leary was saying earlier, I think the potential to apply some of these regulations to intermediaries is really important, and that is an area that needs to be properly met. I looked at some of the background into what led to this bill, and really thinking about the sort of predatory nature that some insurance companies take on and particularly how they target people that may not have the literacy to understand what may be offered. And I think it is important that we set a regulatory framework that addresses the predatory nature of these institutions.

I think it’s been great to see quite a few commerce bills being introduced and hopefully passed over the next few sitting blocks. So we’re really keen to see this bill being discussed in the committee of the whole House, and we’ll see if the Minister is planning on bringing forward any changes, seeing that this bill has been sitting for quite some time and people have had ample time to provide feedback. We look forward to this bill coming into effect sometime in the near future—hopefully not too many sitting blocks for us to give the speeches. Kia ora.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and speak on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill. This is an introduction of a new conduct regime. The behaviour targeted and required by this bill is laudable but misses the target. ACT has strong concerns over the scope and the application of this bill and would prefer to see a major rewrite before this has been introduced, or the holes in the bill are to be addressed.

The bill intends to create a broad regime governing registered institutions and the conduct of banks, insurance, and non-bank deposit takers. In new subpart 6A, inserted by clause 9, key definitions, it says that New Zealand has 27 registered banks and 86 licensed insurers and 20 non-bank deposit takers. The bill excludes the other 1,450 registered financial service providers—98 percent of the industry’s participants—which includes privately funded finance companies, pay day advance, peer-to-peer, and other high-cost lenders and shopping trucks; the worst offenders in the recent years under consumer laws. This is a major flaw in the bill.

It’s a bill where much of the evidence of the problems is based on qualitative reports by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and the Reserve Bank into conduct, and the culture into the banking and insurance sector, plus the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) report back filling the stakeholders’ rationales. ACT has a concern that this is all bones and no muscle, and so do others. No crisis, no burning platform here; this is FMA director Mason. FMA and the Reserve Bank said that there were relatively few instances of potential misconduct. The Insurance Brokers Association said that this still results in less availability of independent financial advice in the full reveal of product and design information. The independent financial advisers said that there’s no evidence presented that financial institutions are not already treating consumers fairly. The Bankers’ Association raised concerns to the incentive prohibitions and settings.

Bad behaviour targeted should not be fixed by regulations. Problems identified by MBIE: products are not always designed with a good customer outcome in mind, poor value of products, stitching and covering issues, and problems in relation to sales. Free market is about greater competition and other methods than those proposed in this bill. Institutions already have policy in place, and this requirement will simply impose more regulation and bureaucracy. It discriminates against mutual and credit unions. There’s no more hazard in their activities targeted in this bill. Mutual and credit unions is burdensome and unnecessary and should be excluded from this bill; they’re already legislated to act at all times in the best interests of their members.

The ad hoc approach to the industry, the framework where two years to put meat on to this, and MBIE’s advice two years old, and another two years of workability, and we still need to move on. The bill requires certain financial institutions to be licensed and to create and comply with a fair conduct programme, at a cost. Clarifying what a “fair conduct programme” must include by inserting further minimum requirements for this bill.

Intermediaries are not included in this and do not have to comply. Ministers must have regard and powers before commencing regulations regarding incentives. “The FMA must, before commencing a proceeding under subpart 3 of Part 8 for a contravention of this subpart, obtain the consent of the Commerce Commission if the FMA considers that the conduct in question is likely to contravene any provision of—(a) the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003; …(b) the Fair Trading Act 1986. (2) However, a failure to obtain consent does not affect any proceedings commenced by the FMA.”

We must legislate, at all times, in the best interest of the customers, and ACT does not believe that this achieves that. So ACT will not be supporting this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I’m pleased to rise in support of this bill. I think if we just take a very simple example, I might be able to add to the debate.

I remember a time when people were being charged for insurance for something that ACC covered. So they were paying money they didn’t need to pay for something they were going to get in another way. It felt like trickery because it was trickery, and it wasn’t helped by things like incentive payments, which made that absolutely tempting for people within the industry. I’m glad to see principles like this come into our law and be expected of our people, because these things hurt real people.

I’m glad that the National Party and ACT seem to be enthusiastic about extending this legislation to others, because that’s actually what we do need to do—work on a greater and greater expectation of reasonable things for people and reasonable conduct. This bill does that and I’m proud to support it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party will oppose this bill. It does have some aspects of it which the Minister is making out to be in the best interests of New Zealand consumers, but we just don’t think it’s needed at this time. And really, if the Labour Party actually wanted to do something for consumers, it would do something to support their interests and their ability for business to get on and actually rebuild this country after the COVID experience. This bill, as we see here, follows reviews that have been into the conduct and culture, and it’s a small change compared with what’s actually going on in the community today. And if we look at the Government’s announcement around immigration today, really saying they’re open for business, but at the same time restricting the ability of New Zealand businesses to get staff in—[Interruption]. I know, Mr Speaker, that you’re raising my attention to the bill, but what I’m saying is that the bill in its context is only small fry when we’ve actually got businesses that are falling over and really need help, and we need an economy that’s growing.

SPEAKER: The member’s had his introductory comments. He will now talk on the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, and so what I’m saying is that’s why the National Party will be opposing this bill: because we think there are more structural things that the time of this House should be used on in making better decisions for New Zealand going forward. So we do oppose this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call on this bill and remind people in this House, unsurprisingly, given that it is a Labour Government, that this might look like it’s about money and finances, but actually it’s about people.

This bill is about people; this is about making sure that we have better support to improve conduct and culture for our banks and insurers. This is about making sure that the people who work in those institutions are supported to do the best that they can for their customers and about looking after those customers.

When I was a kid, my dad worked at the ANZ bank in Molesworth Street—yes, back when we had little branches all over the city—and I remember his pride at being able to bring his expertise to his clients when they were discussing their potential mortgage or other financial contracts that they were considering entering into and really supporting those people to make the best decisions possible. Because the implications if you get it wrong can be incredibly difficult for those involved.

I’m really pleased to see this bill that brings some humanity back to the sector. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity this afternoon, on a Thursday, to discuss the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill, second reading. One thing that you notice when you listen to speeches that go before you is that a lot of the conversation today, one relatively short—but in terms of the actual ability to add any specific detail in regards to what actually is going to happen as a result of this legislation, it’s pretty narrow.

So I want to talk a little bit in regards to this legislation, because my background and experience is in banking and finance, having spent most of my career working in banking. Looking at this legislation, in effect, the purpose is in order to require financial institutions—so banks and other institutions like that—to comply with prescribed regulations, regulations that mean that they need to do things around sales incentives or meet conduct or licensing. For those at home, I’ll give you a clue what that is. That’s just regulation, compliance, and burden on business. And what you’ll hear from the other side of the House is that this legislation is out to protect the consumer. But what I heard, listening to some of the speeches that have come before, is actually an ideological attack on these big entities saying they are big, bad banks. Well, one of the biggest banks in this country employs 9,000 Kiwis, hard-working people across this country that work in that institution. So when you attack that “big business”, you’re actually attacking all of those individuals within that entity.

This legislation is absolutely a legislation or a solution looking for a problem. And I’ll tell you why that’s the case. Because the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) undertook two projects looking at the conduct in regards to financial institutions in this country, and that was off the back of what was, rightly so, inappropriate behaviours that were occurring across the Ditch in Aussie. But I can tell you what: New Zealand is not Australia, and luckily it isn’t. But I can tell you, in regards to the way in which our financial institutions act, it is night and day in regards to that. Our financial institutions, in regards to this legislation, actually have a number of controls and monitoring and processes in place to deal with some of the issues around conduct that this legislation is meant to deal with. This legislation is not necessary in this country. It’s regulatory oversight and burden on a business trying to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s not just me that is saying that this is a problem that doesn’t exist. The actual findings of the Reserve Bank NZ and FMA review did not find major systematic misconduct when they looked at New Zealand’s financial markets. I’m not sure how much clearer one needs to be in terms of a report, but, as I said, this bill is looking for a problem.

The challenge that we see with this Government, time and time again, is the increase of cost burden on hard-working Kiwis in this country. Middle of New Zealand is squeezed at the moment and this legislation will bring an increase in burden, an increase on red tape on businesses that will be passed on to consumers. So you hear the lovely comments on the other side about “Oh, this is going to be great.”

Well, I tell you what: for those hard-working Kiwis in Hamilton, in the North Shore in my electorate, or in Southland with my colleague in front of me, they’re the ones that will end up being burdened by the cost impact of this regulation and compliance in this bill. It is legislation that is unnecessary. It is ideologically driven by a Government that says, “Well, Aussie’s doing it; we might as well do the same.” Well, I tell you what: we are different in that regard, and there is no need for us to go down this path, because the value created is not going realise the benefits that are needed and have been realised in other countries, because we don’t have the same problem.

The legislation also looks at sales incentives. And I heard from the other side, “Oh, we can’t have sales incentives; that’s a bad thing.” Well, that shows you a number of individuals have never worked in business, would not have a clue how to try and incentivise people to sell things. I don’t need to go back to the people that, you know, in terms of a sales culture—but a little bit of incentive financially in order to get things done is not a bad thing, you know? We shouldn’t have Government overreach in order to try and put regulation like this bill, that is going to force and try and control that aspect.

The other aspect is that the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) conduct and culture review found little evidence of widespread banking-conduct issues in New Zealand. And the small number of issues that they found actually related to individual people. It wasn’t widespread or systematic issues with the system. And you’d expect that; it’s a complex business—it’s a big business. I mentioned one of the banks has got 9,000 staff. So you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to expect that you’re going to have a couple of people in this country that maybe haven’t followed the rules appropriately.

But what I am confident about is that the banks and the financial institutions in this country treat this very seriously already. They don’t need this legislation coming in and putting a burden on them, and side tracking them from focusing on what they want to be focusing on as well, and that is supporting their customers. I tell you what: business do things quite well. They actually understand how to focus and work with their customers, how to get value, how to achieve outcomes, and how to deliver. But, again, this legislation is going to place a burden and red tape on those businesses. And then when the FMA and the Reserve Bank did not find evidence of systematic failure in the current model of sales incentives, why are we trying to put in place through this legislation, limitations and restrictions in that area? It simply does not make sense.

In the short amount of time that I’ve got left, I wanted to reflect on the fact that the backdrop of this bill is in the backdrop of where Mr Grant Robertson is going to prepare and announce a Budget with $6 billion of additional spending. Kiwis are under a lot of pressure, and legislation such as this conduct bill on financial interest on financial markets is going to put more burden on those hard-working Kiwis. And it simply shows that we have got a number of aspects that we could be focused on in this House but we aren’t using the opportunity to put that through, because, as I said before, there is very little evidence, or they did not find any evidence at all, in regards to the problems that this legislation is meant to be dealing with.

So that’s a real great shame. It’s a disappointment in terms of the fact that the opportunity here by this Government is actually to do something positive. They’ve decided in this case to focus on the ideology of attacking a big business, a big bank, because they’re “big and bad”, which is not the case. Who funds the mortgages of hard-working Kiwis? Who funds the loans and finances of our agri-sector? Who funds the investment required across our businesses? Well, our banks do. They’re part of a system. They’re part of the solution. And they do a good job in terms of supporting those people, and they employ a heck of a lot of Kiwis across this country, Kiwis that are hard-working, and that I, for one, am proud of.

I am going to finish it there. The National Party strongly oppose this legislation. It is unnecessary legislation. It is not required. It is not going to add value. It is a solution looking for a problem and I do not support this legislation. Thank you.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to be able to finish the end of the parliamentary week with a really short call.

This bill is all about improving the conduct of banks and insurance companies. The submissions that were heard in the previous term were all about asking banks and insurers to treat consumers fairly. They wanted us to improve the trust and confidence in the financial market, and one of the small changes that the select committee made, which I think should provide some assurance to the House—because this is a new regime; however, it was a regime that had to fill a gap because there is no fair conduct across the board for all banks and for all insurers—and that’s the statutory review of this regime.

I have to applaud the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who’ve now recommended, in clause 9, to insert a statutory review within five years and to be completed within seven years.

So on that point, I’d like to commend this bill to the House and wish everybody a good Friday.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

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.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) 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.

SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m., Tuesday, 17 May 2022. Have a good weekend, everybody.

The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.