Thursday, 11 August 2022

THURSDAY, 11 AUGUST 2022

THURSDAY, 11 AUGUST 2022

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

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 23 August. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the remaining stages of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the third readings of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. The Estimates debate will continue, with the Ministers of Justice, Local Government, and Police appearing on Tuesday. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Wednesday, 24 August.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was wondering if I could ask the Leader of the House: is it still the Government’s expectation that Ministers will appear before select committees to explain bills that they are in charge of?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That’s never been the Government’s expectation. The Standing Orders Committee did make a change encouraging Ministers, where it was appropriate, to make themselves available to discuss a bill if that’s what the select committee wanted. That wasn’t an expectation set by the Government. That was a change by the Standing Orders Committee. I certainly support the change, and where there is good reason—for example, if there is a discussion about a policy intention behind a bill—then it can be appropriate for a Minister to attend a select committee, and they certainly have my full support if they make themselves available to do that.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Geoff Taylor requesting that the House halt any reforms arising from the current three waters reform proposal that would give control of Hamilton’s water assets to a mega-entity.

petition of Kathryn Phillips requesting that the House pass legislation to re-establish a Department of Housing Construction.

petition of Roman Kashpir on behalf of Friends of Ukraine requesting that the House urge the Government to expel the ambassador of the Russian Federation and sever diplomatic relations with Russia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2022 of the Parliamentary Service Commission. That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Tertiary Education Sector: What we saw in 2021, and the briefing into the distribution of the fund to support the mental health and wellbeing of tertiary students affected by COVID-19.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The jobs market is working for young people. Stats New Zealand’s employment indicators for June show that by age group, the largest increase in the number of filled jobs was in the 15- to 19-year age group, up 16.9 percent in the year ended June 2022. As measured by the Household Labour Force Survey in the June quarter, the unadjusted number of young people aged 15 to 19 who were in employment increased by 13,500, or 11.1 percent over the year. The investment that this Government is making in skills and training through programmes like Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, and He Poutama Rangatahi, as well as the initiatives to reduce barriers to help New Zealanders, for example, obtain their drivers’ licences, is supporting young people into work and improving their employment outcomes.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Stats New Zealand reported today that the number of overseas visitors to New Zealand shores rose in June to the highest level since March 2020 when COVID-19 travel and border restrictions were put in place. The number of travellers more than doubled to 94,600 in the June month, compared to the same month a year ago. Those from Australia led the way, making up 74 percent of all overseas arrivals. Those arriving here to visit friends and relatives made up 52 percent; those on holiday, 30 percent; and those on businesses trips, 12 percent. On an annual basis, overseas visitor arrivals were up significantly on the June 2021 year. We know that sectors such as tourism and hospitality have been heavily impacted by the pandemic, and the opening of the border and the prospect of a strong tourism season this summer will provide opportunities to rebuild and support the recovery of the economy.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on initiatives to build a more sustainable and resilient economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is developing eight industry transformation plans that have the purpose of building a high-wage, low-emissions economy. Yesterday, the Government set out a vision for one of those in tourism, with the Tourism Industry Transformation Plan, which will support the sector to rebuild better, with a stronger focus on a more resilient and regenerative future. The plan was developed in partnership with the industry, with unions, with Māori, and is now open for public consultation. It does identify challenges, but also sets out actions to overcome perceptions of the tourism industry as being one with low wages, long hours, and uncertainty. Our response to this includes improving education and training, providing more resources for business owners and operators, and enabling better work through innovation and technology. We have supported the tourism sector throughout the pandemic, including the $49 million Tourism Kick-start Fund, to help operators gear up for the return of international visitors, and we will continue to work closely with the industry to ensure its long-term sustainability.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: On what date did he first request advice for the Government’s support for New Zealanders by way of a targeted and temporary cost of living payment, and what warning, if any, did officials give him about potential problems with this proposal?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As far back as November 2021, when the Government announced increases to the Working for Families tax credits as part of the package of support to come into effect from 1 April, we were aware of the need to provide targeted support to New Zealanders for the cost of living increases that they were facing. We followed this up with reductions to fuel excise, road-user charges, and public transport fares that were announced on 14 March. I formally requested advice on further support for low and middle income New Zealanders not receiving the winter energy payment on 21 March. Implementing an action like this in response to a cost of living crisis was not something that had been done previously in New Zealand. Officials indicated that there could be a range of issues with such a payment, as has been released within the regulatory impact statement. Officials then went on to determine how to best work through those issues and deliver the payment in a timely way during a crisis period. I stand by our actions to put in place measures to support New Zealanders during this period of time and, in fact, note that members of the Opposition were themselves calling for such measures. We just found ones that were better than $2 a week for someone on the minimum wage.

Nicola Willis: Is it a coincidence that he first sought advice on the cost of living payment on 21 March, just one week after the Prime Minister finally admitted that there was a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to be careful with her conspiracy theories on the other side of the House. What I would say to the member, as I said in my primary answer, is that from November, the Government was focused on what we could do to support New Zealanders through the cost of living pressures they were facing, and, indeed, I’m surprised that the member didn’t choose the intervention of one Nicola Willis on 16 March, who called for people in the squeezed middle—people earning between $60,000 and $70,000—to get some extra support. So perhaps the member, rather than that conspiracy theory, might want to put herself at the centre of it.

Nicola Willis: Why did the Minister insist on going ahead with this payment, when his own officials warned against “progressing such a significant policy in accelerated timeframes” as there are “significant risks associated with designing this proposal at speed”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know this will come as a shock to the member, but from time to time, Governments disagree with the Treasury. It’s hard to believe, but it does happen, and, in fact, the member might want to reflect back on some of the occasions that it occurred for her party. On this side of the House, we faced up to the fact that people were facing—as the member called on us to do—a cost of living crisis, and we designed in that period of time something to reach a group of New Zealanders who had not been supported by actions on 1 April. I stand by that action.

Nicola Willis: Did it come as a shock to the Minister to learn that a quarter of the money on the cost of living payment has gone to the top 30 percent of households, and that’s before you count expats in London and French backpackers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The information about the distribution of the payment was, in fact, contained in the advice that we got in the Cabinet paper that went to Cabinet, so that is not a revelation to me. However, the member would find it perhaps a revelation to know that had her policy been implemented, those on the highest incomes would have been getting thousands of dollars a week—that’s untargeted for you.

Nicola Willis: Does he, on reflection, agree with the advice by Treasury that inflation is unlikely to dissipate in the short term, which makes a one-off payment a poor mechanism for supporting households with a longer-term problem?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Treasury went on to advise was that if a payment was temporary or targeted, it had less likelihood of exacerbating inflation. What we decided was, alongside the investments that are long term—such as lifting main income benefits, such as our ongoing commitment to the winter energy payment—that some temporary and targeted support for a wider group of New Zealanders was justified. That member and her leader spent several weeks telling the Government that they needed to look after the squeezed middle. We did it.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that because of the compressed time lines for the design of this payment, no data from Immigration New Zealand was used by Inland Revenue in making the payment, so there could be tens or hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders living overseas who have received this payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I cannot confirm the claim that the member has made. What I can confirm is that the Government responded to the fact that we needed to move quickly. The Opposition were telling us it was a crisis. We took action to make sure that money is getting into the pockets of New Zealanders earning less than $70,000 a year. The member used to think that that was important.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister surprised to learn of a written question answer from David Parker, the Minister of Revenue, in which he said, “I have been informed Inland Revenue has not worked with Immigration New Zealand in implementing the cost of living payment.”, and don’t you think it would have been a good idea for them to do that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, because she put the written question to the Minister of Revenue, those are matters operationally for the ministry of Inland Revenue. What I do know is that the payment has reached nearly 1.4 million New Zealanders, who are being supported through a cost of living crisis. The member might not like the fact that the policy has been delivered, but it has been delivered. It is targeted, and it is reaching the people who need it.

Nicola Willis: Why does the Minister insist on calling the payment targeted when he knows it’s being sprayed around the world, it’s gone to high-income households and deceased people, he was warned by Inland Revenue that their data wasn’t up to date, and he didn’t have any time to address that because he was acting in a reactive panic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll tell you what’s untargeted. What’s untargeted is a policy that would give thousands of dollars to the highest-income earners while giving $2 a week to people who are on the minimum wage. The Government, as we have done throughout COVID, has taken action quickly to support New Zealanders.

Question No. 3—Arts, Culture and Heritage

3. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about supporting jobs in the arts sector?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Last week, I had the pleasure of announcing the extension of the successful Aotearoa Touring Programme at the Pacific Music Awards 2022. The programme has been extended until June 2023 and sees an additional investment of $1.5 million. Extending the programme assists the ongoing recovery of domestic music touring and supports the thriving hospitality sector. The programme has a focus on tours that reach beyond the main cities into the regions so that all New Zealanders can experience the magic of live performance. The impacts of COVID-19 were felt particularly hard in Aotearoa’s live music scene and, with the Government’s backing, our home-grown musicians can continue their road to recovery.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why is this announcement important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This announcement is important because it will continue to help save jobs and protect the livelihoods of artists and musicians who make a living from putting on performances and shows. The Aotearoa Touring Programme, to date, has supported more than 1,700 shows and over 250 artists. It’s also estimated that around 200,000 New Zealanders have been able to attend shows as a result of the programme. We know the Aotearoa Touring Programme has been successful, supporting artists and household names like TEEKS, Drax Project, Nadia Reid, Stan Walker, Reb Fountain, and Shapeshifter. [Multiple members interject] Not everyone in the House will know all of those people! That’s why extending it is important, so more Kiwis can enjoy the best of home-grown talent and live music.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: What feedback has she seen on the Aotearoa Touring Programme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Singer and songwriter Reb Fountain said, “Funding touring with the Aotearoa Touring Programme is the most viable way of supporting musicians to do their work, to employ crew and venues, and bring entertainment to folks across Aotearoa.” She goes on to say, “It’s great to see the Government prioritising our community and ensuring we can provide exceptional music events for all. Long may that continue.” When the heat is on, the beat goes on!

Hon Grant Robertson: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that funding such as this has been described in this House by MPs as “crap”, and what would her response be to that?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My response would be—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me have a think about that.

Hon Grant Robertson: It was a direct quote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, so far as the Minister has responsibility she can answer.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My response to that would be that that really is an indication of how out of touch some of the ACT and National Party members really are.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: Has she been advised that “Current financial modelling (without efficiency savings) shows Kāinga Ora is unable to repay the full $28.9 billion of forecast debt within the next 60 years”, and what steps, if any, has she taken to assure herself that Kāinga Ora is complying with section 51 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 in relation to its long-term financial viability?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. However, I note that the paper this quote is drawing from is based on assumptions about current policy settings and market conditions over a 60-year time frame. A lot can change over 60 years, and I note that at least some of the financial challenges Kāinga Ora faces are driven by the lack of investment by the previous Government in properly building and maintaining our public housing stock. On behalf of the Minister, in answer to the second part, I have received advice on Kāinga Ora’s long-term financial sustainability and sought further advice from both the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora on the issues raised. It is prudent to review funding settings, particularly when market conditions such as increasing build costs are changing. The Government will confirm any changes in funding settings if they are agreed, typically as part of the Budget process.

Chris Bishop: Did she call in the board of Kāinga Ora, following the 17 June 2022 briefing from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development that warned that the four-year view of Kāinga Ora is “concerning”, and what actions, if any, did Kāinga Ora undertake to do as a result?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I referred to in my opening comments and answer to the primary question, the indication is that things can change and that Kāinga Ora has said that the policy setting and market conditions over a 60-year time frame can change. So that remains the advice.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question: did she call in the board of Kāinga Ora, following the 17 June 2022 briefing, and what actions did Kāinga Ora take?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take it as asked again, and the Minister can respond to it.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, the second part of the question was what I referred to in my answer—that the advice is that we note the paper this quote is drawn from is based on assumptions about current policy settings and market conditions, and a lot can change over 60 years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll give the member another question because I think the main part was the first part. If you want to ask that.

Chris Bishop: Did she call in the board of Kāinga Ora, following the 17 June 2022 briefing from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister meets regularly with the Kāinga Ora board. I don’t have the dates for when the meetings may have occurred.

Chris Bishop: Has the Government sought advice on whether Kāinga Ora is compliant with the Crown Entities Act, particularly that it “prudently manages its assets and liabilities and endeavours to ensure it acts as a successful going concern”, and, if so, from whom was that advice sought?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Kāinga Ora is compliant.

Chris Bishop: Is she confident that Kāinga Ora will meet its current delivery commitments?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Minister, yes.

Chris Bishop: Is she concerned that, on its current track, Kāinga Ora will not be able to cover its depreciation costs and will have to issue debt on the same asset again to pay for its replacement or renewal, and how is this consistent with the obligation for Kāinga Ora to be financially sustainable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Minister, what I’m concerned about is the fact that the public housing stock was so run down by the previous Government, and the existing stock was not cared for, and that is why there are some concerns that are raised in the report that the member speaks about with regards to finances moving forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that wasn’t addressed at all. The first part of the question, again, I think, is the main part—so if you want to ask that again.

Chris Bishop: Is she concerned that, on its current track, Kāinga Ora will not be able to cover its depreciation costs and will have to issue debt on the same asset again to pay for its replacement or renewal?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: At this stage, on behalf of the Minister, we have no concerns.

Chris Bishop: What is her definition of “financially sustainable”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Ensuring that we have the money available to us to be able to continue to invest in future public housing and ensure that we’re able to provide the houses that are needed for the general population, unlike what was left to us when we took over Government, when our housing stock had been run down.

Chris Bishop: Is she concerned that, on current projections, by 2025 Kāinga Ora will reporting negative net operating cash-flows, so that Kāinga Ora will be issuing more debt to pay the interest costs on its existing debt?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As said earlier, the assumptions are questionable.

Question No. 5—Women

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. [Removes mask] Bit of a fashion—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was that?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry [Holds up mask] I—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You—just read the question.

5. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Women: What progress has been made to ensure greater diversity and representation of women on public boards?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Last week, I released the results of the annual stocktake of public sector boards and committees, untaken annually by Manatū Wāhine Ministry for Women. I’m pleased to inform the House that, as of December 2021, women now hold 52.5 percent of positions on Cabinet-appointed public sector boards and committees. This is the greatest ever percentage. Over 2021, 54.6 percent of new appointments were women, and this is the second consecutive year we have met Cabinet’s 2018 target of 50 percent for women’s representation. There is no shortage of various skilled women for governance roles, and I am glad many are able to strengthen the governance on public sector boards.

Angie Warren-Clark: What improvements have been made to the collection of ethnicity data on public boards?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We have received ethnicity data for 98.9 percent of board members. The results show gradual improvement in the ethnic diversity of our board members. Compared with 2020, we have seen increases in the representation of Māori, Pacific, Asian and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African board members. We are committed to increasing ethnic diversity across public sector boards, and Manatū Wāhine have been working collaboratively with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and the new Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People, and Te Puni Kōkiri to support the development of a pipeline of diverse board-ready candidates. The cross-agency group recently hosted an online webinar focused on preparing a good governance CV, which was very well attended. More sessions are planned over the coming months.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is having diverse representation on boards important?

Hon JAN TINETTI: It is important that public boards have the relevant skills and expertise and reflect the vibrant diversity of our country. The facts prove that diverse boards bring a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skill, which, of course, can only be of benefit to the organisation the board is governing. By making our organisations, and boards that govern them, more inviting environments for under-represented groups, we will attract and retain the best talent and we’ll better understand the needs of clients and the wider public. I would like to thank my Cabinet colleagues for nominating and appointing such a talented and diverse group of candidates. I look forward to further diversity across all governance boards in the future.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he consider recent health campaigns have been successful; if so, how many people were employed under the Kiwi Health Jobs critical care nursing campaign to 30 June 2022?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In response to the first part of the question, yes. Recent health campaigns include the 2021 COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the single biggest health campaign in the country’s history. That campaign saw more than 11 million doses of the vaccine administered by a workforce of literally thousands of people, many of whom were assembled especially for that campaign. Turning to the second part of the question, the Kiwi Health Jobs critical care nursing campaign was one of several recruitment campaigns to recruit nurses from within and outside New Zealand. Between February and the end of June this year, the campaign resulted in 175 applications for critical nurse positions—80 were withdrawn or declined; 46 candidates were referred to Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand; 25 candidates have indicated that they would be available more than 12 months from now; another 13 are at the interview stage; and yet another 14 are still being processed by Kiwi Health Jobs; 10 candidates are not critical care nurses, but are being considered for other roles. It’s not possible to say how many people were employed as a result of the campaign, because the employment process for 62 applicants has not yet concluded. Ultimately, New Zealand needs more nurses, and this campaign is only one of a wider and ongoing workforce plan to train more nurses in New Zealand, get nurses not currently practising back into the workforce, and to attract nurses from overseas.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his reply to written questions in April that a total of three people were employed under his critical care nurses Kiwi Health Jobs campaign?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member may not have observed, but it is currently August, and in the months and weeks since April, work continues, including on nurse recruitment campaigns, which is why many more people have been processed as a result of that campaign than was the case in April.

Dr Shane Reti: How can he consider the measles catch-up campaign a success, when he wrote to me that in the high measles risk area of Tai Rāwhiti, only 28 people in the target group were vaccinated over the two years of the campaign?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member highlights the very need for Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, which that member and his party has opposed throughout. The reality is the equity performance of our health system when it comes to even childhood immunisations has been woeful, and we need Māori leadership where it counts in the health system, and now we will have it with Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that despite all the immunisation campaigns that he wrote to me about, that child immunisation rates were falling before COVID, and overall have fallen dramatically under this Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member, again, highlights the point that even before COVID-19, there were real problems with our immunisation campaigns, particularly for Māori and Pacific children. That’s why this Government has made the commitment to improve the equity performance of our health system, including by having Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, which that member and his party has vociferously opposed.

Dr Shane Reti: Did the measles catch-up campaign fail Māori in his hands, when of the tens of thousands of Māori in the target group, only 4,000 were vaccinated over the two years of a $20 million campaign?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It would be a failure if this country doesn’t recognise that we have to do better when it comes to equity performance in our health system. That’s why this Government has fronted up and we’ve established Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, something that that member and his party deeply opposes.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his claim in the House last week that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation came up with the idea of engaging with Shortland Street, when they have published that “It was actually the Ministry of Health team and not the New Zealand Nurses Organisation who suggested Shortland Street could be used as an aspect of the campaign.”, and that “There is no way it could accurately reflect what is happening for nurses.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Real Nurses campaign was a collaboration between the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, entered into at the request of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. A steering group was established that had Nurses Organisation representation on it, and part of the work of that steering group was, in addition to developing a website, reaching out through other channels to publicise the nature of nurses’ work, and it included, as a result of advice from the creative agency that was assisting them, establishing a relationship with Shortland Street. Everything that was done in that regard was fully known and understood by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he seen on the impacts of monetary and fiscal policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic on the distribution of wealth in this country?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a range of reports on the impact of economic policy measures on wealth inequality, some of these from the time, and some with the benefit of hindsight. Throughout the crisis, we took the approach to prioritise those who were the most vulnerable and tend to disproportionately bear the cost of an economic shock. That’s why we lifted main income benefits three times, we lifted the minimum wage, and we doubled the winter energy payment. The wage subsidy scheme was designed not just to provide cash flow and confidence to businesses but to keep New Zealanders in their jobs. I appreciate that the member may disagree with some of the decisions that were taken and some of the outcomes that have occurred since then. A decision that we would do less in response to a one-in-100-year shock would have meant accepting a greater risk that lower-income people would have suffered through the pandemic. I would never claim that our economic response was perfect—or our health response, for that matter—but I am proud of the way in which we have supported households and businesses through a period of intense uncertainty. I’m proud of the way that New Zealanders have continued to manage the ongoing supply side impacts of the pandemic, and I’m proud that, for example, the Māori unemployment rate, which reached almost 15 percent after the global financial crisis, is now at 5.5 percent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did he accept the conclusions of Treasury advice received in 2020 that large-scale asset purchase measures could “raise asset prices more directly than conventional monetary policy, creating wealth inequality”; if so, what actions did he take to minimise the risk once unconventional monetary policy was used by the Reserve Bank?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As you would expect, in the advice that was provided, the pros and the cons of any issue or any particular policy approach are listed off. I think it’s important to remember the problem that the monetary policy response was trying to address. We had bond markets that were beginning to look like they would be in free-fall. We had the potential of a significant credit crunch. There was a role for monetary policy, and, unfortunately, conventional monetary policy tools were not in a position to be able to be used.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think ordinary New Zealanders are justified in feeling angry that over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic the wealthiest New Zealanders grew $872 billion richer, according to 2021 analysis by economist Bernard Hickey?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve, obviously, read Mr Hickey’s analysis, and I have a great deal of respect for him. However, I don’t think that quite captures where that support went, because the wage subsidy scheme was designed specifically to ensure that people stayed in work. While it was paid to businesses, it played a very important part in making sure that New Zealanders kept their jobs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he consider it fair that ordinary New Zealanders are currently watching their purchasing power go backwards while foreign-owned banks, as supported by the Reserve Bank, rake in excessive profits; if not, what fiscal options is he considering to redress the balance and provide support to vulnerable people?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think I have an expectation, as I think most New Zealanders would, that we don’t see parts of the economy, or actors within the economy, use their market power to take advantage of consumers, and we’ve already been addressing those sorts of issues—for example, in the supermarket sector. What I would also say, however, is that the stability of the banking system has served New Zealanders particularly well during times of crisis such as COVID-19. But I do understand the spirit of the question that the member is asking.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, “we’re saying ‘we have your backs’ through the measures we have in place, including the wage subsidy and working capital support alongside the banks.”, and, in the context of the COVID-19 support; if he does, does the Government now have the backs of those worst-off or those who made unearned and excessive profits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In respect of the first part of the question, yes.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on the progress of the Clean Car Discount scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’ve seen some excellent recent reports which show that the Clean Car Discount scheme is progressing very well, with over 19,500 rebates already processed. In just its first year, the scheme has proven a huge success with more than 57,000 light electric and non – plug-in hybrid vehicles registered, and, in some recent months, around about 45 percent of imports into New Zealand being low- or zero-emissions vehicles. Importers are responding to the surge in demand, and we’re seeing a greater number and a greater range of low-emissions vehicles across all types for Kiwis. By choosing to purchase electric vehicles, New Zealanders are collectively helping our nation to transition to a cleaner, more efficient vehicle fleet. Our world is experiencing a climate crisis, and while some oppose any change to reduce emissions, our Government is acting.

Shanan Halbert: What benefits is the Clean Car Discount scheme providing for our country’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: New Zealand sits at the end of a very long supply chain and could easily become a dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles. We know that transport emissions make up 43 percent of New Zealand’s total carbon dioxide emissions, and the Clean Car Discount is helping to power the transition of our vehicle fleet along. Over the long run, cleaner electric vehicles also will prove to be cheaper for consumers to maintain once fuel costs are taken into account. By reducing the upfront cost through rebates to New Zealanders, we’re making clean vehicles a more viable option and enabling a domestic second-hand market for clean vehicles to flourish for all New Zealanders to access.

Shanan Halbert: What other work is the Government doing to build on the success of the Clean Car Discount scheme to decarbonise the transport sector?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We’ve seen the impact of climate change over the last month, with extreme weather events in New Zealand and a record heat wave in Europe, so it is time to act. The reality of climate change is upon us. In the transport sector, as well as the Clean Car Discount scheme, the Government is building mass rapid transit solutions in our major cities, supporting higher-quality public transport, and investing in high-quality walking and cycling projects all around the country, and all of these measures will help to reduce our carbon emissions. On this side of the House, we’ve set out a pathway to reaching our emission targets by 2050. The Clean Car Discount scheme is proving to be enormously successful—above expectations—in helping us to get there.

Simeon Brown: Has the Minister seen reports that the Clean Car Discount scheme has paid out more than $85 million more in discounts and subsidies than has been received in fees, and, if so, is the Minister considering increasing the car tax on hard-working Kiwis to continue subsidising wealthy Kiwis who can already afford Teslas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve seen a range of reports about the level of discounts and fees charged under the scheme, and, as anyone who had been following the policy in any detail would be aware, the fees under the scheme only came into effect on 1 April this year; whereas the rebate started on 1 July last year. That is why there is an imbalance at this stage. There is a much-closer balance between the two over recent months. In respect of the member’s suggestion that the scheme is only delivering for high-income New Zealanders, he is absolutely wrong. The largest-selling vehicle types under the Clean Car Discount scheme are on the used side for vehicles that are commonly sold at under $20,000.

Question No. 9—Health

9. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: How many nurses are currently needed to eliminate shortages within the health system, and has this number increased since he stated in April, “We are about 3,000 nurses short in our public health system. In the private sector, aged retirement, it’s roughly 1,000 nurses”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): As of 31 March this year, there are recorded 3,335 vacant nursing fulltime-equivalent positions in our public health system. The number of nurses working in our public health system has increased by about 2,000 since this Government was elected. In regard to the private aged-care sector, there are a number of private data sets that suggest the number of vacancies is roughly the figure that the member has referred to, although the latest figure I’ve seen suggests it’s about 900—but 900-1,000. As I’ve already said today, there are a number of measures being taken to address health workforce shortages.

Brooke van Velden: Why, then, in reply to my written question No. 24316 does he state that we need 4,700 nurses to eliminate the shortage, and is this a case of the Minister being unaware of the needs of our nurses and the health system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, it’s the fact that there are a range of data sets around, some of which combine both public and private health nurse vacancies; some of which separate them out. I suspect that figure was a combination of both public and private nurse vacancies.

Brooke van Velden: Is the Minister aware that between January and March 2021, Australia had over 418 more nurses caring for every 100,000 of their citizens than New Zealand did, and, if the Minister is aware of this, why did his Government not put nurses on the Green List straight-to-residence pathway?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the relevance of figures more than 18 months ago are to the current situation. There is a worldwide shortage of nurses. The United Kingdom has a shortage of registered nurses of roughly 50,000. Australia has a massive shortage of registered nurses. We have a shortage of registered nurses. We have changed our immigration policies and established the Green List, which now makes it easier than ever before for health workers, in particular, to cross our border and take up jobs here. They are queuing up and they are taking jobs here.

Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister agree that his Government has neglected the healthcare sector when the number of nurses working per 100,000 New Zealanders has only increased by 5.57 percent since March 2028; yet during that same time period, the number of nurses working for every 100,000 Australians increased by over 13 percent?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, and I’m not quite sure why the member referred to the month of March 2028.

Question No. 10—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities

10. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What recent announcements has she made about this Government’s ongoing support of ethnic communities in Aotearoa?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Today, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities released its inaugural strategy that sets out tangible actions that it will take over the next few years to work to create a more cohesive society where everyone feels safe, valued, a sense of belonging, and able to contribute to Aotearoa’s growth. The ministry’s strategy is informed by the communities it serves. It lays out work that the ministry will lead and work that the ministry will undertake in collaboration with other Government agencies to achieve the outcomes sought by our communities. Our ethnic communities make a significant contribution to New Zealand. However, it’s also true that many groups face specific barriers that lead to poorer social and economic outcomes. For example, many have told us that they struggle to access Government services that are relevant to them, and find work that pays them fairly, and that’s why this strategy includes a strong focus on strengthening initiatives to improve economic outcomes, including addressing barriers to employment and supporting workplaces to be more inclusive.

Vanushi Walters: How will the strategy support an inclusive labour market that enables ethnic communities to pursue jobs?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Many from our ethnic communities work in some of the hardest-hit sectors and so have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, but this Government has worked hard to deliver record low unemployment at 3.3 percent, against expectations when COVID hit that it could rise as high as 10 percent. It is vital, though, that we continue to support our communities in ways that are relevant to them. This strategy will work in alignment with the Government’s Former Refugees, Recent Migrants, and Ethnic Communities Employment Action Plan, and focuses on addressing some really specific barriers to finding meaningful work, skills development, and also supporting the workplaces to become more diverse and more inclusive. Another key action that’s already under way is the Ethnic Communities Graduate Programme, that both provides a first employment option into the Public Service and makes the Public Service more culturally competent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer was far too long. You’d actually addressed the question. I didn’t interrupt you, but I’m going to offer the Opposition an additional question if they would like to ask this Minister.

Vanushi Walters: How does the strategy build on the Government’s support for ethnic communities to grow their skills, celebrate their culture, and take part in society?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This Government has continued to support ethnic communities to thrive through the Ethnic Communities Development Fund, that was actually increased eightfold in the last term of Government. Since July 2021, we’ve supported about 345 programmes across the country that do exactly this, and I’m confident that this strategy will help us to continue along that trajectory.

Melissa Lee: How many successful nominations to increase ethnic diversity on public sector boards has the Ministry for Ethnic Communities made, and is the answer still one successful nomination since its establishment, per the Minister’s reply to written parliamentary question No. 11188 on 11 April this year?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Once again, that was back in April—it’s clearly been a fair few long months for the National Party. There is a significant work programme by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities to ensure that we support nominations made by various other Ministers into diverse boards, and you’ll know from the previous answer by Minister Tinetti that we’ve actually seen an increase in the number of people from ethnic communities on public sector boards.

Melissa Lee: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific, and it actually said, “How many successful nominations to increase ethnic diversity on public sector boards”, and the Minister did not answer that question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, but she did actually address it within her answer.

Hon Michael Wood: Supplementary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Supplementary—the Hon Michael Wood [Interruption] Order! We have a question.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Minister believe that all organisations should consider the diversity of representation that they present to the community?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister can answer, but be very careful that that question is not targeted at another political party.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That supplementary just does not flow from the primary question, which is about announcements about the Government’s ongoing support of ethnic communities, notwithstanding the Minister’s extremely long and fluffy answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister can respond in so far as it relates to the primary question and her responsibilities—don’t go outside that.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, absolutely. We’ve heard time and again from ethnic communities that while they want to be supported into employment, and into leadership positions in various spaces, we also need to make sure that those spaces are representative of them.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): Does she stand by her statements and actions?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Yes.

Erica Stanford: Can she guarantee that New Zealand will be included in the Programme for International Student Assessment, given that our critically low school response rate of 63 percent is classified as not acceptable?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Mr Speaker, I didn’t quite hear the start of that question. The mike wasn’t on. Could we hear that again, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. We’ve got some movement in the gallery. I’ll just ask the member to—

Erica Stanford: Can she guarantee that New Zealand will be included in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), given that our critically low school response rate of 63 percent is classified as not acceptable?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

Erica Stanford: How can she guarantee that our inclusion in the latest Programme for International Student Assessment study will happen, when ministry advice around our critically low uptake at 63 percent says that we will not know definitively if our data can be considered until early 2023, because we haven’t met the minimum requirement to participate?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The ministry is continuing to work on that and the member is a little bit behind in her details in what she has. They have worked on that with some haste.

Erica Stanford: What percentage of schools are currently participating in the PISA testing studies?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t actually have that number in front of me at this point in time, but if the member would like to put that in writing, I’m certain that we can get that to her.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. The primary question was the traditional Opposition question of “Does the Minister stand by her statements and actions?” To have a cacophony of noise when a very specific point is—

Nicola Willis: Oh, diddums.

Hon Grant Robertson: —or even to interrupt during a point of order, is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll deal with one at a time.

Hon Grant Robertson: So I think, to have that response—we know that if members want specific details, they should put down specific questions. To have that response come back at the Minister is simply out of order.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, that is a legitimate point, except that the Minister in her response to, I think, the second supplementary question, essentially, implied that the questioner was behind the times and that the Minister had access to information that the questioner did not have access to, and thereby implied to the House that she had all the information at her fingertips. So my colleague Erica Stanford asked a very legitimate question, which was just a simple: what is the percentage of schools that are participating? So it flowed directly from the supplementary question that came before.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the supplementary was in order. I think it was very difficult for probably anyone to hear the answer. I have no idea whether it’s been addressed or not because of the volume coming from my left. I’m assuming the Minister has addressed it and that’s where it will lie, except that the member Nicola Willis will stand, withdraw, and apologise for her interruption of a point of order.

Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Erica Stanford: Does she think that it’s acceptable that the Government Statistician has had to intervene and act on a duty of care to protect PISA’s integrity, by sending a letter to school boards and principals to encourage them to participate, when it is her responsibility as the Associate Minister of Education?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This year has been the most difficult that schools have faced. COVID-19 in 2022 has brought the biggest challenges to the schooling sector that they have ever faced. In fact, I was just at a school this morning where the principal was telling us of the absolute difficulties that they have seen. It is absolutely warranted that the Chief Statistician would send that letter out to schools. I have also asked schools, myself, through many different avenues, to become involved in this. We are using every avenue that we can, and I can confirm to the member that this is of importance to us.

Erica Stanford: Why did she not act with more urgency to guarantee our participation beyond doubt, when she was advised by her officials that for this cycle especially, PISA will contain significant insights into how our learners are doing academically and personally after two years of disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I refute the premise of that question. I have acted with great urgency around this through many different avenues, as I’ve said in the last supplementary question.

Question No. 12—Education (Pacific Peoples)

12. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples): Fa‘afetai lava lau afioga le fofoga fetalai. What has the Government done for Pacific peoples since the delivery of the formal Dawn Raids apology a year ago?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples)): Today, the Government announced 35 recipients of the Tulī Takes Flight Scholarships, which were a key part of last year’s Dawn Raids apology. The scholarships are a part of this Government’s gesture of a reconciliation to mark the apology by this Government for the harms during the Dawn Raids of the 1970s. The Government tasked the Ministry of Education to establish the Tulī Takes Flight Scholarships for Aotearoa-Pacific peoples as one part of the gesture of goodwill reconciliation package. The Tulī bird migrates from the Pacific on a 20,000 kilometre round trip every year to their breeding grounds in Alaska, north-west Canada, and Siberia. It is a powerful symbol of our Pacific peoples of Aotearoa and their migration story, their stamina, their resilience, their courage, and their determination to learn, succeed, and thrive in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How are these scholarships going to support Pacific learners and Pacific families?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Tūli scholarships will support Pacific learners and families to reach their potential by reducing some of the financial barriers to study or training. In our part of the goodwill gestures of reconciliation to accompany the New Zealand Government’s apology to Pacific families and communities impacted by the racist experiences of the Dawn Raids in the 1970s, each of the recipients will receive between $10,000 and $30,000, depending on their course of study. Budget 2022 also allocated more funding to support additional scholarships in the next four years. The successful Tūli scholarship recipients were chosen from right across the motu of Aotearoa. They and their families will be present at the first year’s commemoration of the Dawn Raids apology at the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Marae on 27 August.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What is going to happen at the first commemoration of the Dawn Raids apology on 27 August?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This will herald a pivotal partnership between the iwi of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Pacific peoples of Aotearoa. It signals the Government’s commitment to deliver on education and a comprehensive historic record of the Dawn Raids so that we can collectively tackle the issues of racism and discrimination the Government apologised for during the Dawn Raids periods and of which our young Māori and Pacific people continue to experience and talk about even today. Māori and Pacific acknowledge together the need to fight against systemic racism and discrimination, and will forge a new partnership, utilising education and these Tūli scholarships as one of the number of tools to combat racism and discrimination in Aotearoa. The lessons from the Dawn Raid experiences: good Governments must eliminate racism and discrimination at all levels for the sake of our young people realising their fullest potential.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with Princess Mele Siu‘ilikutapu Kalaniuvalu Fotofili, who said, “The Government should address the immigration needs of the Pacific community as part of the apology.”, and, if so, will he advocate for an amnesty for overstayers?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: As a population Minister, I constantly advocate for all the things that our Pacific communities ask for. It is well-known, my view, with the Minister of Immigration. That consideration is part of the immigration reset work that’s currently happening.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Government recognises that overseas investment supports a strong forestry sector, and we continue to welcome it. We also recognise that it is a privilege for overseas investors to own New Zealand land. We, therefore, strike a careful balance: the New Zealand forestry sector must remain an attractive home for foreign capital whilst also having a system that provides oversight to ensure that investments benefit New Zealand.

The special forestry test was introduced in 2018 to support investment into production forestry by creating a streamlined pathway whilst we also brought forest registration rights within the ambit of the overseas investment regime prior to the inception of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which closed down the ability of Governments to add new areas of screening. At the time, the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) was itself highly complex—in fact, unnecessarily so. Since then, things have changed: the carbon price has more than tripled, to upwards of $70—this is quite attractive to forests investors—and also the consent pathways generally under the OIA have been simplified, with some of that complexity and some of the inconsistent criteria have been removed.

Since then, we’ve also heard concerns from amongst rural communities concerned about productive farmland being converted into forestry. So the streamlined process for forestry conversions, in the view of the Government, is no longer warranted. That’s why this bill is in the House. It ensures that overseas investors wishing to convert land into production forestry must demonstrate benefits to New Zealand. The current test operates, essentially, as a checklist and doesn’t give decision makers much discretion to determine the appropriateness of the investment and whether it benefits New Zealand. We’re also making a range of minor and technical changes that will provide investors with clarity about the rules.

Can I thank the submitters for their valuable submissions, which have led to additional amendments to the bill, ensuring the bill best reflects the Government’s policy intent. Can I reiterate my thanks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their efficient deliberation on the bill, and I’m pleased that the bill is attracting broad support in the House. That said, some people would say that we should have gone further and made rules more restrictive. I would like to reassure anyone who shares this concern that the “benefit to New Zealand” test has sufficient flexibility to manage proposed investments in land for forestry. The “benefit for New Zealand” test requires investors to show the benefit of their investment is proportionate to the sensitivity of the land. Proportionality, in this sense, means that overseas investment in our most sensitive land must demonstrate a higher degree of benefit than for land that is not so sensitive. This goes beyond economic productivity, applying to land that’s not just productive farmland but also land of high conservation values. The Government, outside of this work, is also looking at emissions trading scheme settings and Resource Management Act rules.

To conclude, production forestry is among New Zealand’s four largest export earners. It’s also a critical input for wood processing and manufacturing and, of course, is a key contributor to realising our climate goals. That said, we understand that oversight of overseas investment is needed to ensure that investments do bring benefits to New Zealand, which is why this bill requires overseas investors to demonstrate that forestry conversions benefit New Zealand. In doing so, it will support our efforts to have the right tree in the right place. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill, third reading. I just want to say, at the outset, that National does support this bill. We have two overriding principles: the first one is that we do support the forestry industry, and the second one is that we do welcome foreign investment. However, this bill is about overturning a change that was brought in under this Government, back in 2018, when the Rt Hon Winston Peters proposed quite a significant change to the rules which allowed foreign investors to come into New Zealand and buy up to 1,000 hectares of forestry land, and to be able to do that with very little oversight from the Overseas Investment Office.

At the time, there was widespread concern. I sat on the committee at the time, and there was a number of Opposition members and parties who were opposed to the change of making it much easier for foreigners to come and buy New Zealand forests. It should be acknowledged that, at the time, we were informed that the ownership of New Zealand forests back in 2018 was approximately 72 percent owned by foreigners. I must admit, at the time when I heard that stat, I was very, very surprised at the level of foreign ownership of New Zealand forests. Obviously, the preference would, of course, be that we have New Zealand owners of forests, but we also acknowledge the contribution that foreigners make. Yet, contrary to all of the views that were expressed, the Labour Government and New Zealand First drove through these changes and did not take into account sufficiently the issues that were at hand at that point, and people knew what this was going to mean. It was pretty clear what was going to happen. Since then, I think, about 260,000 hectares has been converted into forestry in New Zealand. So we’ve sort of seen a revival from the Minister, and Minister Parker was just talking before. This is the Labour Government changing its mind now that it hasn’t got New Zealand First sitting alongside it.

We welcome these changes because we thought this was more appropriate—this arrangement that’s been put forward today. I think, if we were back in 2018, we would no doubt have supported these changes. The principal reason put forward by the Minister last night, during the committee of the whole House, was that it was an open country for forests without making some change back in 2018. So we went from, what the Minister described as, a situation where there was very little approval process around forestry registration to an extreme case where we allowed foreigners to come and buy up to 1,000 hectares of farmland and convert it to forests. We are concerned about making sure that we do have the right trees in the right place, as the Minister said in his concluding comments. It was interesting that the Hon Stuart Nash contributed to the debate last night and spoke about a farm in, I think, the Tukituki electorate, when he was a younger person, prior to entering politics, and he spoke about a beautiful farm where the farmer had planted unproductive parts of the land and planted those in forests, which was very good, and kept the productive parts and claimed that there was no decrease in the stock units on that property.

As I said last night, no one in this House would have any issue with that. Under the previous arrangement, I suspect that farm may no longer be a farm as it was then; it could quite possibly now be planted in trees—and, of course, the attendant issues that come with the loss of community, not just of people but also the wider impacts on schooling arrangements, transport arrangements; all that goes with it. So that is why we were very keen at that stage, in 2018, and why we are supporting this bill, because we think it’s about balance, making sure that we do end up with a viable, thriving forestry industry. But we want to make sure our agriculture and our productive lands are supported and have the opportunity to continue, because agriculture is by far the biggest component of our exports, and without it we would have been in trouble, particularly during the last 2½ years of the COVID crisis.

So this bill introduces a more beefed-up test if a foreigner is wishing to convert land to forestry. It’s a “benefit to New Zealand” test. We asked the Minister about it last night—about what that test involves; whether, in fact, it involved a counterfactual—but, essentially, what it means is that the foreign investor has to demonstrate that there are superior benefits from converting that to forest land. It’s closer to what a foreigner would have to go through if they were buying land for land purposes. It is certainly not the same level of scrutiny, but it’s certainly a much tougher level of scrutiny that foreigners have to go through.

I think the other thing is the issue around this target of one billion trees—a silly mantra that Shane Jones used to say in this House, about achieving one billion trees to be planted in New Zealand per annum, of which, of course, back then we were planting about 500,000 a year. So all this was his mantra about pushing this piece of legislation through, and I think hindsight has shown that it was poorly thought-through and resulted, in some cases, in inappropriate investment. None the less, I think where we are this afternoon is a good place. One of the big issues we have is that we want to make sure that foreign firms who do seek to convert farmland, who go through this process, get a proper showing by the Overseas Investment Office. We want to make sure that that processing is done in a timely manner, that they get a fair chance at it, because we don’t want to unnecessarily restrict people investing, but we want to make sure that there is a proper process and they’re not unduly held up.

So, on that note, I know many of my colleagues are going to talk to the bill, but we will be supporting the bill as we think, ultimately, it will lead to a better outcome, better balance between a thriving forestry industry and supporting our agricultural pastoral farms in New Zealand, which have played such a crucial part to New Zealand over our history and currently in terms of the extent of their exports. Thank you very much.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I’d like to echo the sentiments of the Minister and thank officials for their work on the bill. I also thank the Minister for his support. Ultimately, all matters have been traversed in the various stages of this bill, and I just wanted to reaffirm why this Government is supporting this bill.

This Government wants to ensure that all overseas investment continues to benefit New Zealand. This means making sure we have the right forests in the right place. The proposed changes will help manage the increasing concerns of some New Zealanders over the negative impact of farmland to forestry conversions, particularly in relation to pastoral land and land that is otherwise important to local economies and communities.

This bill ensures that forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring more benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land, under the streamlined special forestry test. Again, this will channel overseas investment into the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. Therefore there is nothing more to add other than my support, and I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I’m happy to take a call on this bill, because, actually, it is a long overdue step, bringing the requirements for overseas investors looking to invest in the forestry sector closer back into line with overseas investors who are looking to invest in other areas, such as our food and fibre sector—the amazing food and fibre sector that it is. It’s been interesting just listening to the contributions we’ve heard from the Government, who have put forward their views on why this is an important change to make, why we need to look at tightening up the rules around those investors. We support this piece of legislation. Interestingly, though, it was only four years ago that the very same Government, the Labour Party, were standing up and saying exactly why they needed to put this rule in in the first place. So here we are now, four years later, and the Government is arguing the complete opposite to what they argued just four years ago.

Hon Scott Simpson: Flip-flop.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Flip-flopping all over the show, Mr Simpson—absolutely. And suddenly this is now the right place to be, and they’re trying to rush it through quite quickly without too much debate about that, hoping the public won’t realise that they have totally flip-flopped on their position.

Fortunately, we, I think, have been consistent throughout, and I’m confident the public will recognise this as well. We opposed the bill when the Government put it forward a few years ago, because when we think about overseas investment—and here we are, the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill third reading—foreign direct investment has an important role to play in New Zealand. We are a relatively small country. Access to capital can be challenging at times, and job creation, in particular the economic value that can be derived from that foreign direct investment, the community benefit from it as well, can be significant, and there are many great reasons why we should support that sort of contribution to New Zealand.

Unfortunately, what we saw, though, with the rules that were put in place by the Labour Party four years ago, was a significant skewing of the playing field, as it were. The level was significantly different in terms of the bureaucracy, the hoops you had to jump through if you were wanting to invest in forestry—a much easier and streamlined process compared to if you’re wanting to invest in the food and fibre sector; a much more cumbersome process. In my mind, that just shows how dangerous it is when you have a Government prepared to meddle in the markets like that. You get this negative or perverse impact as a result of Government interference in market processes. Ultimately, it has, in part, contributed to a significant shift in the values paid for farmland, and there are other factors around that, too, but we have seen, in many cases over the last couple of years, New Zealand farmers being outcompeted, food and fibre farmers being outcompeted from forestry interests for the same piece of land.

That’s a real concern, especially at a time of growing global food insecurity. There is a lot of concern around where our food is coming from. We have a very proud track record of producing top quality food and fibre products around New Zealand—some of the best of those coming from my electorate of the Waikato, of course. But at a time when we really need to be focusing on how we can contribute internationally, here we are with a Government providing the business community with a significantly skewed environment that meant it was easier if you were a participant in one particular area and much harder if you were a participant in another area. That simply is not right, in our opinion.

We do support this bill, because it takes out that special forestry test and brings it back to a “benefit to New Zealand” test, which is, as I say, a good shift back down that spectrum, making it more balanced. It still isn’t totally balanced, because there’s still a more stringent requirement if you are looking to invest in land for agricultural purposes as a foreign investor into New Zealand. So there is still a disparity there, and, actually, the Green Party did put forward a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage to look at addressing that, to even up, for other reasons, perhaps, but the outcome was it would have evened up the playing field. Unfortunately, the Government didn’t support that, and could easily have had that addition made as well. So, ultimately, we do support it, as I said.

One other concern I had that came up through the committee stage was around one of the amendments that had been put forward by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which sought to allow an exemption for accommodation on forestry land, because, effectively, the rules said there can’t be residential properties on the land; it’s only for forestry purposes. But that was believed to create a risk for any investor or any landowner who had accommodation on a particular forestry block that would have supported the forestry activities from time to time, for example: old shearers’ quarters, or something to that effect that the forestry workers would stay in, carry out the pruning task, for example, and then head away again. Often these forestry blocks can be in quite remote areas, and so having accommodation on site can be very important. So adding in that carve-out, as was done at the select committee stage, was a way to try and recognise and allow for that variability that is present on some blocks, but not all forestry blocks.

My concern that I raised in the committee stage was around whether that was still too restrictive in terms of not allowing for other uses, such as shearers to use those same accommodation premises, or school camp groups, for example, when they’re not being used by forestry groups. The Minister didn’t seem to understand that. He certainly didn’t address or give an answer to the committee on that, and so that is one area I will be interested to see how that is interpreted. My view is that there should be scope for a slightly more lenient allowance under that category to recognise that whilst the main purposes of that accommodation or neighbouring general curtilage group of buildings in that area is for forestry use, there may be some additional uses that would also still be appropriate and wouldn’t negatively impact on the ability to use that accommodation for forestry purposes. So I would hope that that would be looked upon favourably, to allow those sorts of things to happen, still, in remote rural areas.

So look, overall, we do support it. It is a good step in the right direction, unwinding what was a horrible piece of legislation put forward by this Government four years ago. Thankfully, they seem to have come to their senses or buckled to pressure, I’m not sure which. Ultimately, though, we are in a better position with the passing of this bill shortly than we were before it. So we commend this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): First of all, I’d like to congratulate you on your appointment as a Speaker. It’s really a great pleasure to see. I just want to talk in support of this Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill for a minute, in opposition to what I’ve just heard from Tim van de Molen. I actually believe there is a place for Government to meddle in the markets, and I think this is a really good example of it being done intelligently. It was not acceptable when we were selling land without control. Land is very special, and that’s been pointed out by the Minister in charge of this bill several times. He’s talked about the value of that land, and indeed the word “taonga” might be the word most appropriately used.

What this bill does is it balances the needs of our society. This is long-term investment. It takes back the test from where it was to a better position and it puts it under the “benefit to New Zealand” test. Just to reassure those listening as to what that means in this specific circumstance, one of the things that will be asked is: are the benefits to New Zealand proportionate to the sensitivity of the land? That will depend on the quality of that land. So one of the things that will happen as a practical result is that high-quality land will likely not be sold under this test, but low-quality land, which is not suitable for farming, will be. I think that’s a really important balance, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I’m pleased to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. I congratulate the Minister for bringing the bill to the House and to Parliament for expediting its progress.

The Greens have got a strong preference for land being owned by New Zealand citizens and permanent New Zealand residents. As others have noted, land is special. It’s finite in terms of its quantity. It’s the basis of our culture and identity, and New Zealanders have a very strong association with place, with particular landscapes. So any overseas companies and individuals wanting to buy land here have to recognise that it is a privilege and that purchase should deliver substantial benefits to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Exotic forestry does, of course, sequester carbon, but, as the Climate Change Commission has noted, if we have an over-reliance on planting, that means a reduced emphasis on actually protecting the climate through reducing emissions. So the 2018 changes—and a note to National speakers: that was a Government where Labour was in coalition with New Zealand First and had a confidence and supply arrangement with the Greens. It is a different Government—it was New Zealand First, which pushed for this special forestry test to encourage the planting of more forests, as Shane Jones was the then Minister of Forestry. But some of the changes made in 2018, like that special forestry test, were problematic. Others, as the Minister has noted, such as bringing forestry cutting rights under the Overseas Investment Act, were, because they’ve got a similar status to long-term leases, an improvement on the prior regime, because overseas companies were using cutting rights in the purchase of those to circumvent scrutiny under the Act. But the Green Party is very pleased that we are now shutting the gate on this primrose path for forestry in that the very limited discretion that Ministers and the Overseas Investment Office have had until now in terms of forestry applications by overseas investors, because they haven’t had to demonstrate a benefit to New Zealand, meant there was really very limited oversight.

When we’ve got 57 percent of plantation forestry in Aotearoa being overseas owned, the Greens don’t think we need to encourage any more land purchases by those overseas corporates. So we certainly welcome the removal of the tick-box test and the fact that overseas applicants will now have to comply with the general “benefit to New Zealand” test. But yesterday, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 219 that was in my name sought to even the playing field and ensure that overseas investors wanting to buy land to convert it to forestry had to comply with the stronger farmland test, and that stronger farmland test involves the seven general benefit factors, like protection of the natural environment, protection of historic heritage, advancing Government policy, but with a greater weight on oversight and participation of New Zealanders and a consequential economic benefit to New Zealanders.

We were really disappointed that the National Party, despite speeches from Tim van de Molen and others recognising the concerns of Federated Farmers and many in rural New Zealand about the intensive wave of forest plantations, didn’t support the SOP, and I think that is a strong reminder to New Zealanders that National can be very loud on talk but does little to actually deliver. It didn’t develop any SOPs to make the changes to avoid the bill being skewed, as Mr van de Molen said. Nor did it support an SOP which would have levelled the playing field between overseas investors wanting to take land and plant pines and overseas investors wanting to buy land and plant kiwifruit orchards or grapevines to create vineyards.

The Minister said that the “benefit to New Zealand” test has sufficient flexibility and that the assessment would be in proportion to the sensitivity of the land. That still leaves a lot of discretion for the Overseas Investment Office, so we would have preferred that that stronger farmland test applied. We recognise that the bill doesn’t bring permanent forestry for carbon farming into its regime, but there is quite a lot of concern that some overseas companies will buy land, convert it to pine forest, tell the Overseas Investment Office that they want it for harvesting later but then claim the carbon credits and not actually log it, not prune it, and not use it to supply wood processing in New Zealand. That was one of the reasons we wanted that stronger test, and in the absence of that I think it is really incumbent on the Overseas Investment Office to do much more monitoring to ensure that the promises that overseas companies make—that they are planting for plantation forestry to harvest—are actually implemented.

Certainly, in the last Government there was an increase in the funding for the Overseas Investment Office to do more monitoring and to take more enforcement action, and it has certainly done that. But it needs to expand that into really looking at what’s happening in the back country with these big forestry plantations. That was a concern of submitters—and I acknowledge the 24-odd submitters who’ve contributed to changes to the bill. It was a concern of submitters that the land was well managed, that the trees were pruned, that weeds were managed, and that it wasn’t just a case of plant and walk away, and a reliance on carbon credits despite protestations to the contrary. So it is that real monitoring that’s needed to enforce the claims that are made in the application for investment.

So I just close by thanking our select committee staff for all of their work, and the very good report they helped the committee draft, and officials from both Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office. We really encourage the Overseas Investment Office to do much more monitoring to ensure that these provisions in this bill are enforced.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your new role. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party and as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) to support this bill. Just to get back to the main purpose of the bill, it was to prohibit overseas investors who planned to convert farmland to forest in New Zealand, a forestry conversion, from using the special forestry test in the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and instead require them to apply under the more stringent “benefit to New Zealand” test. We feel comfortable with that.

In 2018, the Government did introduce the special forestry test in order to make it easier for overseas investment to acquire an interest in productive forestry in New Zealand. The test was designed to stimulate forestry investment and could be used in respect of any land that was or was likely to be used exclusively or nearly exclusively for forestry activities, including forestry conversions.

Since 2018, the Government has recognised fairly that the consequential increases in forestry investment in New Zealand, including the increasing number of forestry conversions by both domestic and overseas investors, has led to this scenario where growing investment in forestry has been further accelerated by the increased price of carbon credits, emissions trading scheme reforms, and Government afforestation schemes.

So what will the bill actually change? The bill would remove this ability for overseas investors to rely on the special forestry test in seeking to convert farmland or other land to forestry, and these will be assessed under the test which is less permissive. Now, we do accept that in the real world—the Federated Farmers position: Gisborne is a province that has been hit hard by farmland being snapped up for forestry, including carbon only, not-for-harvest blanket pine afforestation. The Feds did believe that the pace of conversion, in large parts, was becoming distortionary, and Government policies and incentives were causing this.

According to an independent study commissioned by Beef + Lamb New Zealand in 2017, 3,965 hectares of entire sheep and beef farms were sold into forestry. This jumped to 20,000 hectares in 2018 and 36,000 in 2019. Only the dampening impacts and uncertainty of COVID saw a decrease to 25,000 of farmland sold for forestry in 2020. It’s now 14,000 hectares in the first six months of last year.

So the Federated Farmers argument that the playing field will not continue to be level was discussed, and Cabinet had made its decision to go through to the general benefit test for New Zealanders. If farmland to forestry sales will continue to have to go through the more stringent test, the benefits have to be substantial, they have to be considered by the Overseas Investment Office, and they have to address the proportionality of that decision.

While the bill is a step, according to Federated Farmers, in the right direction—and I can understand the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper yesterday—it is recognised, and I have spoken to the Federated Farmers, that there is some land that is totally needed to be converted to forests. While it’s correct that international forests can’t directly transfer New Zealand units overseas, they can, however, sell them in New Zealand.

So from an investment perspective it’s not easy, but we do believe in the free market. One of the things that David Parker said yesterday was that he believed in a market that had a long-term view and was disciplined, and he felt that the forestry market met this criteria. ACT believes and agrees that clarity was important, and we were disappointed that even though the FEC took the word of the advisers and the organisations, we would have liked to have seen a review of the guidance scheduled to this primary piece of legislation so people would have supreme clarity and the politicians would be able to sign off on it. We didn’t get that, but we look forward to seeing that at a later date.

We do accept that the Overseas Investment Office has plenty of experience in dealing with this sector, because the number of people who actually invest in forestry, whether it’s syndicates or corporations, is quite small as a universe, and we do believe that that’s highly manageable. The one concern that we did have is that it shouldn’t take more than 70 days to process this from the pre-application interview. We do believe that there is a difference, versus the Federated Farmers view, in terms of the economics of forestry, which has a different returns profile and a different business model to farmland as generally depicted. Forestry applications which are of long-term benefit focus on economic benefits to New Zealand—that makes us stable and measurable to the public.

We heard that subjecting forestry investments to stricter farmland benefit tests could exacerbate this further, which was the other side of the argument. But we also heard that the “benefit to New Zealand” land test would still impose the same advertising requirements across all pathways. ACT does believe, like the Minister, that the 30-year investment with market discipline matched with foreign direct investment is the way forward for New Zealand.

I myself have a member’s bill coming up to the House which fast-tracks investment from friendly OECD nations, embracing principles like that. It’s come to the stage in New Zealand now where we do need to find extra legs to the economy in terms of income, and we should be encouraging sensible investment that is sustainable and which is exposed to public scrutiny that all the political parties can actually see and monitor.

That brings me on to the Overseas Investment Office and Land Information New Zealand. I’m not satisfied yet that they have the capability to monitor exactly where the forestry patch network is, and that surprised me immensely. I thought that that would be nailed down in the books and somebody would actually be able to spit that out on a computer for us.

So ACT believes that this bill balances these competing objectives, and we support the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill to its third reading and into law. Thank you.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading—my third time speaking on this bill. We have had a problem of forest conversion for plantation being incentivised in a way that was predicted to be a good thing, and now the tools need to be change. So it’s important to note that this has always been about plantation forestry and it’s not about carbon forestry. Plantation forestry—those trees get pruned and harvested. And I know a little bit about this: it might surprise you, Mr Speaker, and other members, that one of my summer student jobs was, in fact, harvesting a pine plantation, primary harvest. It was a very hard job, and I didn’t go back the next summer. So I appreciate the hard work that goes into forestry.

Of course, forestry is important for New Zealand, and the production of timber is obviously going to be very important in the decarbonisation of our construction industry in particular. We’ve heard from other speeches that the rural community in particular has raised concerns with too much of this plantation forestry from overseas investors, and the Government has responded to that with this bill. So on that note, I commend it to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and it’s an absolute pleasure to be speaking in the third reading of the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. I was just listening to the contribution by the last member, Rachel Brooking in which she reminisced, I think, in terms of her earlier days of working in forestry, pruning pine trees, and I, too, I have fond memories as a young person in my summer holidays in the mighty Waikato working what were quite long days, I must say, pruning pine trees.

Hon Scott Simpson: He’s a lumberjack.

SIMON WATTS: I wouldn’t go as far as saying a lumberjack, the Hon Scott Simpson, but I must say there is something about getting out in our forests of New Zealand and working as part of that productive sector. Tough work, but work that is enjoyable. I must say, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which heard this bill, that I think it was a process in which there was a number of perspectives that were brought in front of that committee. I do acknowledge the members of that committee who are in the House here and also those submitters from across the forestry sector that made a contribution in regards to this legislation. Those contributions, I think, are always—but in this case were—of absolute value, because I think the practicality of those contributions in terms of some of the complexities and challenges which exist within this important sector, a sector which contributes a significant amount of value to this great country, is important.

There will be no doubt, or it shan’t be any surprise, from the speakers that have gone before me today that National will be supporting this bill. The reason for our support is quite simple and it is really around the fact that the “benefit to New Zealand” test is going to be the basis on which future investments in terms of forestry are going to be considered rather than the special forestry tests. I think the degree of conversation that was had at a select committee level did go in, in terms of the specific challenges—because again, there are different views and challenges around that. But I think, at the end of the day, as a select committee, in terms of a unanimous position around support of that, I think we’ve landed in a place which is reasonable.

I think there was—and it is important to reflect in regards to, you know, where we have come from in regards to the sector. I must say it was a number of years ago when I was, as we say—and the colleague across the House—probably pruning trees, you know, on the job. But a lot has moved on in the last 20 years in regards to the sector. I think what we were able to—and, hopefully, what this bill will be able to—achieve is in terms of setting that basis and that platform for this industry to be able to move forward.

I think a key element of that is around certainty. So often we are hearing at the moment the feedback back from our business sector and our primary sector in terms of the fact that actually if only we had more certainty in terms of what that future pathway looks like. Heck, if I reflect on the significant contribution that our rural communities and our primary sector make to our country, they’ve absolutely done a stellar job in terms of carrying us through the period of challenge that we’ve had through COVID. I think in regards to forestry and other primary sectors, the weight of burden of compliance and regulation that is on that sector in particular, I think, you know, we do need to and should continue always—I know on this side of the House—absolutely acknowledge and support that sector in terms of the contribution, the important contribution, they want to make.

Sadly, I haven’t got too much more time to go, and I can hear the calls on the other side for another allocation of more time. Sadly, on this day that’s not going to happen but I am very pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to be taking a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. This Government welcomes sustainable, inclusive, and productive overseas investment. This Government has simplified the Overseas Investment Act by cutting unnecessary red tape and reduced the number of low-risk transactions being screened. We also want to make sure that the overseas investment continues to strongly benefit New Zealand, and this bill does that. The removal of special forestry tests only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. So I commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): It’s a Thursday afternoon. Look, I just want to absolutely agree with that previous member, Dan Rosewarne, who’s just resumed his seat. He spoke wisely about the importance of forestry. We talk about the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. Everything that we’ve done, and we’ve traversed this quite thoroughly in the select committee process, in the committee of the whole House—but forestry is actually lifeblood. It’s livelihood, where I come from in the central North Island. It was off the backs of our grandparents, who built the Kaingaroa Forest, tree after tree. They wanted to make sure that it was a successful industry and successful economy for New Zealanders going forward, for their children, and their grandchildren.

What we’re doing here is we’re streamlining things. We’re making it more fair. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. I commend it to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support, on behalf of the National Party, of the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. This bill tries to rebalance things that had become a little out of balance in terms of the assessment of foreign investment. So what we’re trying to do here is say that we welcome—the National Party certainly does—forestry, which has a significant contribution to New Zealand of about $6 billion per annum; we welcome foreign investment; and we welcome having the right tree in the right place, but the problem is that this had become a little out of balance, and so this bill rebalances this somewhat. Rather than having a special forestry test, it focuses on a “benefit to New Zealand” test.

You might ask why that is important. Well, in total, there have been 110 one-off consents granted under the Overseas Investment Act using the special forestry test since October 2018, when the test was introduced, through to 30 April 2022. The total area consented was 240,539 hectares, which included sales from one overseas owner to another overseas owner. There were 90,607 hectares transferred from a New Zealand owner to an overseas owner.

There is a balance that we’re trying to strike here because, like I said, we do welcome forestry and we do welcome foreign investment, but we also think it’s really important that we protect the productive land that is producing food, and I may note that the primary industries themselves contributed $52 billion to New Zealand last year. So that’s huge for our country.

It’s an incredibly important part of our economy and it’s incredibly important for our communities, as well, and I can say that I have personal experience on both sides of this discussion. As a young guy, in fact, I remember going with my younger brother cycling around local farms and asking if they had a job. When I was a 12-year-old, a farmer was good enough to take me on—and I think my brother was 10—and we got our first job, working on farms, and it went on from there. I worked for years as a young person on farms. I helped out in the shearing sheds, I went out cleaning troughs and checking fences, and I went on to do a whole lot of things.

Through many summers, I worked on farms around the region. When it was hay-baling season—you know, the old square bales—we’d get out there and we’d work day and night, bringing in the hay. You’d have to get it in before the weather broke, so we’d stack these hay bales up, seven or eight tiers high, and we’d be driving these old Bedford trucks so you could get them into the sheds at the back of farms. I got my driver’s licence and got my truck-driving licence, and we’d drive these trucks into some pretty precarious places and then unload these things at midnight or after midnight, and then go back and carry on with it.

So I’ve got a very good understanding of just the value of the productive farming sector to the country through that experience from my younger years. I also have experience in the forestry sector. In my teens, I also worked both in the Hawke’s Bay and in Northland in forestry in my summer holidays, making money so that I could pay for school, etc., and—

Angie Warren-Clark: Did you work for my family?

JOSEPH MOONEY: Oh, who knows? I may have—there may be a connection there. So look, I’m familiar with getting up at 4 o’clock in the morning, driving for miles in the back of the van, and then going out in all weathers, pruning trees. You’ve got to fight your way through blackberry to get tree to tree, and then start pruning from the bottom and pruning your way up. You get the ladder on the tree and then climb up and carry on, and you’re often doing this in very steep country.

I did a significant amount of that work. As one of the speakers said before, it’s tough work, and all credit to those who do it because it is challenging work. You really work hard for your money and, certainly then, you were paid by the number of trees you did. So the more trees you did, the more money you’d make, and, obviously, if there’s more blackberry, it takes longer to battle your way from tree to tree.

So I have an understanding of the forestry industry from that practical perspective as well. It is a valuable industry, and it does provide employment and it does provide economic potential to New Zealand, but we need to balance it also with this conversation around our biodiversity. That’s one of the other challenges that we have along with our carbon sequestration and food production. So we’ve got these various things that we’re trying to balance here and get it right.

I understand that the select committee sought advice on this “benefit to New Zealand” test. There were some concerns expressed that this test would preserve incentives for foreign investors to convert farmland to forestry, and after receiving advice on it, the select committee “heard that the benefit to New Zealand test will reduce the risk of losing highly productive farmland to forestry because it requires investors to demonstrate benefits that are proportional to the land’s sensitivity. For example, highly productive farmland would require a correspondingly high benefit.”

I think that’s quite an important point. It’s certainly something that I’ve heard quite a bit about in my electorate of Southland, where there has been quite significant concern expressed by many people in my region, with farms being bought that were quite productive land that are going to be put into forestry. There is a real concern that there will be a significant loss in productive food capacity from those farms being converted into pine trees and, certainly, there is a strong view that this was not the right tree in the right place. Also, there is the impact on the surrounding communities, because the various businesses that provide services to those farms would no longer have that work, and the people who normally live and work in that area would no longer be able to put their kids into school, so it would have the impact on schools, with schools being, potentially, shut down. So there are quite a few concerns there, and also quite a few concerns from some folks that they will not be able to compete in a fair market because what they could pay for productive, food-producing farmland was not the same as those who could purchase it for forestry when taking into account carbon sequestration, etc.

So it’s encouraging to see that the intention here is to demonstrate that the benefits from forestry—which are significant and important, both for wood production and for carbon sequestration—are proportional to the land’s sensitivity. For example, our productive farmland has real benefits—particularly in this current era, where food security is becoming an increasingly significant issue around the world—and we need to really pay close attention to the value that we provide, both economically for ourselves but also for the food that we can provide to others for their needs in a world where food has become constricted and is more and more important for people. So that is an important thing here, and it is something I think is good.

The final thing I would note here is that we certainly do want to send the right signals here. The signals I clearly want to make, as I said at the beginning of my speech, are that we do welcome forestry, we do welcome foreign investment, we do welcome having the right tree in the right place, and we are trying to balance these different considerations with carbon sequestration, biodiversity, food production, and strong communities. This is a bill which we believe has made a positive step in rebalancing the investment framework so that there is a fairer playing field in terms of those who are investing in New Zealand land for the purposes that are important for this country. So, with that, I’ll conclude my remarks and commend this bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this piece of legislation. What we have with this piece of legislation—it’s an important piece of legislation. We’ve heard today about the economic performance of forestry here in New Zealand and we’ve heard about the importance of the right tree in the right place, whilst also we’ve heard about the importance of overseas investors being able to invest here in New Zealand. This piece of legislation, I think, puts all of those three into perspective and into a good balance. It’s been very well-traversed on all sides of the House, so I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 August.

Clauses 1 and 2, and new clause 2A (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. I’ll remind members that they’re able to participate remotely. If you’re on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during the call. When we were last debating the bill, we were debating clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A. The question is that—

Tim van de Molen: Mr Speaker?

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I couldn’t help but notice that you’d started the vote. It wouldn’t be appropriate to take the call.

Tim van de Molen: The Standing Orders are quite clear that anyone can seek the call up until the point that you put the vote, and you had only started posing the question. So we’re not indeed seeking the vote at that point.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes, the member is correct. I hadn’t actually put the question. So I’ll give the Hon Scott Simpson the call.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. The bill that we’re considering—we’ve come pretty much to the end of the committee stage, but we’re at the point where we are, I think, unless I’ve got it wrong, discussing matters relating to the title and commencement. One of the issues that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, is about the title of the bill. It’s pretty innocuous, and I’m just wondering whether the Minister might be able to give us some information as to the detail as to what advice she received from officials on the particular wording of the bill, and why the word “oversight” was used when, actually, many people—laypeople who watch the proceedings relating to this agency—would think that often it’s a matter of “undersight” rather than oversight. If the Minister could give me some kind of insight into the reason for the use of “oversight” rather than “undersight”, I’d appreciate it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I apologise for my tardiness. In terms of addressing the committee and speaking to the title and the commencement, I understand my colleague Karen Chhour has spoken to her Supplementary Order Paper in relation to that. Again, I impress to the Minister the importance of the relevance and the significance that, in terms of the commencement of this bill, the priority and the emphasis and the public opinion that’s come through is that this should not be proceeding. So commencement is something that is not factoring in the minds, in the supportive mode of our New Zealand community.

The commencement as is stated in the bill is for this to come into force on the earlier of the following: a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council—interestingly, a former Commissioner for Children, our Governor-General, who will be signing off on this when it does come before her—or 1 July 2023, next year. So insofar as commencement, the submission is, and the proposal is, that this not commence until at least six months after the report back from the royal commission of inquiry into those who have been abused in State care.

So in speaking to clause 2, the commencement, it’s really the proposition and the public opinion that there be a deferment rather than commencement, taking into account—and that this Government should accordingly do so—heed and recognise the relevance and significance of the royal commission of inquiry and the lived experience of those who have been abused in State ill-care, welfare, State care.

So with the remaining minutes and moments that are left on this, in addressing the commencement, seeking a deferment which takes into account public opinion rather than Government convenience and expediency, and that, in concluding—not that it’s going to happen, but certainly getting it out in the public domain and on the record for the benefit of the public who have been supportive of this all the way along. This bill should not be proceeding. It should not be commencing as of 1 July 2023 or an earlier date appointed by the Governor-General. This is flawed legislation to be, and that, in talking to the title, I said that this really should be about how blind this Government is, how deaf this Government is, in saying that this is an oversight with the wraparound of three entities to provide that for our people who’ve been experienced in State care—welfare, ill-care. This is an absolute dismissal, an overlooking of the concerns and the regards of those who have experienced, to their detriment, what the Government has previously done and is striving to do so now with this commencement, if it’s signed off.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 53

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 85

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Amendment agreed to.

: The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 53

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour’s amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move Supplementary Order Paper 210 dividing the bill.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

The bill was divided into the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill and the Children and Young People’s Commission Bill.

Bills to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The committee has further considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Screen Industry Workers Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Screen Industry Workers Bill.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be now read a second time.

I’m very pleased to bring this bill back to the House about two years since the select committee concluded its considerations of the original piece of legislation. That time, of course, has been somewhat extended by the exigencies of COVID-19 and various disruptions to the proceedings of the House, and the energies of officials. But I am pleased to bring the bill back today and also to report that the additional time has enabled us to make further refinements to the bill, to ensure that it can be as effectively implemented as possible. I note that I will be the third Minister to oversee this bill, and in particular I do want to acknowledge the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, who was the Minister who introduced this piece of legislation to the House and set up the work of the Film Industry Working Group, who designed the principles that sit in behind this piece of legislation. I also wish to thank the select committee from the previous Parliament who considered this bill. They heard, I think, about 200 submissions and I think it produced a very useful report back for the House to consider at this time.

Finally, in terms of recognition and thanks, I do wish to thank and acknowledge members of the Film Industry Working Group, who sat back in 2018 to design a new structure after what had been a very divisive period in the sector. So if I can thank all the groups that participated in the process, including Business New Zealand, the Directors and Editors Guild of Aotearoa New Zealand, Equity New Zealand, Film in Auckland, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU), the New Zealand Writers Guild, Ngā Aho Whakaari, Regional Film Offices in NZ, the Screen Industry Guild of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Screen Production and Development Association, the Stunt Guild, and Weta Digital.

New Zealand’s screen sector is one that we can be really proud of. It’s one that has grown significantly over recent decades, which is a significant contributor to jobs and economic development, and which also helps to present New Zealand to the world. It’s a sector that we all want to see succeed, and successive Governments in different ways have provided support to ensure that happens. But in my view and the view of the Government, there is one real blot on the sector in recent years—not one of the sector’s making but one of the previous Government’s making. That was the changes made in 2010 by the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act, sometimes commonly referred to as the “Hobbit law”, but I don’t want to besmirch the reputation of hobbits by associating them with that in my speech.

That piece of legislation was rammed through the House by the previous Government in urgency. I note some considerable irony, at the moment, in that I’ve just had a number of months in which accusations that the Government’s fair pay agreement programme, which supports greater collective bargaining, somehow breaches International Labour Organization (ILO) rights—something that the ILO categorically did not agree with when it heard that complaint. Yet here we have a piece of legislation put in place by the previous Government which, through urgency, removed the fundamental rights of workers in the screen sector to be able to collectively bargain.

That piece of legislation explicitly targeted this group of workers and removed their ability to be considered employees under the Act. Furthermore, it removed their ability to seek relief through the Employment Relations Authority or the courts to test the status of their employment. That was a Draconian and unjustified piece of legislation that was divisive, and it is most certainly a matter of concern to the International Labour Organization, who have consistently raised their concerns about that with me and with New Zealand’s officials over the years. That’s a bit of a history and a bit about why we’re here.

So what did our Government do when it came into office and picked up this issue? The approach that our Government took under the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway was to try and work constructively with the range of different interests in the sector to positively overcome the problem, through a good process, good relationships, and a focus on fundamentally solving the problem. That was the genesis of the 2018 Film Industry Working Group that was established in the previous term of our Government. It, basically, was set up under two core principles. The first was: how can we find a way within the system to enable collective bargaining to occur in a way that is consistent with the rights of workers in virtually any other sector, while, at the same time, ensuring that production companies had the level of certainty that they felt they needed, to be able to pursue their projects? That Film Industry Working Group was set up to have a very collaborative and inclusive process. I understand the discussions were often robust but they were always very, very respectful.

There were four key principles that the group agreed upon early on: that all parties in the sector need to act in good faith and not mislead or deceive each other; that there should be protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment in the sector—and we have seen real examples of that illustrated over the years—that the engagement of workers in the sector must be fair and reasonable, and particularly that must apply if and when contracts are terminated; and that there should be fair rates of pay and conditions that can be determined via collective bargaining as well. What is most impressive about this process is that—and I read out the members of the group before, which ranged from Business New Zealand, the CTU, the producers, the unions, and the guilds—not only did they constructively work through these issues together but they unanimously recommended back to the Government a way through that would restore collective bargaining rights to workers in the sector. That is why I take my hat off to that group—because they demonstrated what a high-quality tripartite process can be, where employers, unions, and the Government sit down in good faith and solve problems in a way that is consistent with everyone’s rights and everyone’s aspirations. In this case, they did it, and I think that’s excellent.

The legislation that’s before us provides for workers’ terms and conditions to be covered by occupational-level collective bargaining, by enterprise-level collective bargaining, and by individual agreements. There will still be capacity within the system for individual agreements to be reached, provided they do not fall below the levels that are established by occupational-level collective bargaining or enterprise-level collective bargaining respectfully. Effectively, within the legislation, there is something of a grand bargain in which workers will end up retaining the contractor status which is in the current framework, but collective bargaining will be enabled to ensure that those workers can have a real voice, and to ensure that there can be fair pay and conditions and redress built into the system, and that is what has been recommended to us.

As I said, those recommendations were made in late 2018—so some time ago now—and a subgroup of the Film Industry Working Group have continued to work with officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to develop the legislation as it’s gone through drafting, to deal with a range of smaller issues that have emerged as the legislation has been considered further, and I really, really want to thank them for that work.

The Government has primarily picked up on all of the recommendations in a slightly narrower way, so the bill will apply, in particular, to productions that have an international component to them. The select committee has reported back a very good report back and does have a range of improvements to the bill, including stronger protections around freedom of association, which are more closely aligned with the Employment Relations Act; stronger provisions around workers getting advice on their contracts and working them through in good faith; and some clarification around where it is appropriate and where it is not appropriate for bargaining fees to apply in respect of collective bargaining that occurs under the Act.

I do also signal to the House that when the bill comes through the committee stage, I will be bringing forward a Supplementary Order Paper that will mainly deal with a range of small changes to the bill to ensure its workability, and these reflect a range of issues and discussions that have occurred with the Film Industry Working Group subgroup over the past year or two. One more substantive change that I will be proposing at that point is that the commencement period will be extended from one month to three months, and that is simply to give all the parties involved a little bit more time to set themselves up for what will be quite a different formal way of working together and establishing employment terms and conditions.

We’ve heard from the Opposition previously that they won’t be supporting this piece of legislation, and I think that’s a shame. This bill is, as I say, a bargain between the producers and the workers working together to try and get a collaborative system in place that moves us on from that very, very divisive period we had previously where fundamental rights were stripped away from workers. It is absolutely supported by the screen industry itself, who have been engaged in this process in the same way that it is supported by unions and guilds who are involved. It preserves flexibility but it ensures that workers have the right to have their voice heard as well.

This is a great piece of legislation. It is consistent with our Government’s ambition to have workplaces that are fair, safe, and productive, and it is the tripartite process at its best. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister indicated, we won’t be supporting this bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which has had a very long gestation by this Government. It was introduced by a fellow called Iain Lees-Galloway. I don’t know if people remember him. I think he was from Palmerston North. He introduced this way back in March 2020. But just going back before that, Jacinda Ardern—and, before her, Andrew Little—campaigned through 2017 that they were going to repeal the “Hobbit law”. It was going to be an urgent matter and it was going to be something that was going to be dealt with by a Labour Government in the first hundred days. They were going to bring in collective bargaining and strengthen the unions, and this was very much part of the deal to support the unions and increase union activity in New Zealand. That was going to happen within the first hundred days.

Of course, the first hundred days came and went and this bill never appeared. But, eventually, in 2020, in the dying days of the first Government, Iain Lees-Galloway introduced the bill in March, and then he was in a mad hurry and shortened the select committee time, rushed it through so we didn’t get the normal time for submissions, and then they seem to have forgotten about it until today. So after two years in the freezer and five years since it was going to be introduced quickly, we see the second reading of this bill. I suppose in film terms, it’s not as long as the sequels between the Top Gun sequels, but it still nevertheless is strange to figure out what the timing is of the reintroduction of this bill.

The sad reality is that it comes at a very difficult time for the industry and indicates, frankly, once again, this Government’s tin ear when it comes to the needs of businesses that are struggling to survive in very difficult business conditions and in the global context. If you think of what the screen industry are having to deal with at the moment, they’re dealing with a review of the screen grants process at the moment, which is a very important issue for the sector. They are also dealing with the big TVNZ - Radio New Zealand merger, and what on earth that means for the broader sector is an open question. It’s, I suppose, one of the problems that nobody sees, that the Government is trying to fix at huge expense—$300 million - odd going into that—that nobody seems to want, but they’re doing it anyway. But it’s still creating a lot of issues for the sector.

Then, on top of those two significant issues, the industry, of course, is dealing with COVID, which continues to create real problems. Our lockdowns meant that the country lost the Amazon Lord of the Rings material, which was a tragedy for the country. Even now, many productions are struggling—just like every other business—with a lot of people being sick, and that’s just making life difficult.

So at a difficult time for the industry, what this Government is proposing is a very substantial reform of how the employment relations are dealt with, and introducing collective bargaining. If you just think for a moment: they’ve never had collective bargaining in the sector up until the introduction of this bill. They haven’t had it. It’s all been contractors, people doing things their way. A lot of people would argue that the system works pretty well and there’s not a burning platform out there that requires it—the sector is on its knees and it needs transformational change. No, this is an ideological decision by the Government. They want to strengthen unions and they want to introduce collective bargaining to this industry.

If you think of it from the point of view of people trying to put together films, then that requires, presumably, negotiations with a wide variety of groups within it, whether it’s the—it could be the actors, but, of course, then there’s the people involved in the various elements of it: the writers, the stunt people, the people who do the catering. Who knows—all the various people involved in the production of movies, which is a very complicated area. So you’d be putting a lot of pressure on the employer groups.

The Screen Production and Development Association of New Zealand is one of them who are not wildly enthusiastic about this bill at all. The Minister seems to think everybody is delighted at the prospect of this. It just may be that the sector looks at the Government that is brutal and can be vindictive towards people that argue with it and don’t agree with what they do, and they decide probably just to keep their head down and lump it. But this is not something that is particularly widely appreciated in those areas outside the union strongholds within the sector.

What we’re seeing is the introduction of a system which is, frankly, going to create more trouble and dislocation, a lot of extra work and anxiety, and certainly a lot of extra costs to the whole sector at a time when it’s least welcome, given all the other pressures that they have.

Now, when it comes to the arguments put forward for it, yes, there was a bill that was brought in under a deal back in 2010 to ensure that a set of movies were passed, and that’s why it was called the “Hobbit law”. Is it a perfect piece of legislation? Are there issues that could be dealt with around ensuring or improving protections for workers against harassment, and freedom of association and clear standards for employment contracts? Yep, yep. We could be persuaded for that, and absolutely happy to look at some of those issues.

Where we diverge from this Government, though, is their desire to impose collective bargaining across the various parts of the sector at an occupational level—setting a benchmark at an occupational level, and then only allowing enterprise-level bargaining to go on top of that. So that really means that right across the whole sector you, will have the same terms and conditions if the collective bargaining proceeds, regardless of the size, the scope, or the situation of the particular production. That reduces flexibility, makes the whole system more rigid and, fundamentally, at a difficult time for the sector, imposes a lot of extra costs on to them.

This is a Government, I suppose, that, in the broadest sense of the word, doesn’t seem to accept that Government-imposed regulations that add costs into the sector fundamentally do one of two things. They either, in the internationally competitive sectors, such as this, fundamentally make us less competitive, or, in industries which are discretionary, like hospitality and cafes—if you add those costs on, they either get passed on to the consumer or, if they can’t be passed on to the consumer, because people don’t have to go and enjoy hospitality or even necessarily watch films, then that puts real pressure on the survivability of the business.

Everywhere you look, this Government, every week, every month passes new extra costs on to businesses, particularly small businesses. It’s longer sick leave, it’s the fair pay agreements—they’re the latest ones. Extra public holidays—doesn’t matter. Look, handing out stuff is what this Government does. Lots of people like to receive extra things, but, ultimately, as a country, we either are internationally competitive or we’re not. Partly that is reflected on the skill and the talent of those producing goods. The good news on that score in this industry is that New Zealand, of course, has an extremely talented variety of all sorts of people involved in the sector, some of whom are genuinely world class and make our country proud. So that’s great. But there’s also plenty who are just struggling to get by in a difficult world, and the cost structure matters. It does matter. So what’s been introduced here will, over time, add to the cost structure and certainly make it less flexible if collective bargaining goes ahead. On that basis, we are opposed to this legislation.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. All people in New Zealand deserve good jobs, decent working conditions, and fair remuneration for the work that they do. And what this bill does—the Screen Industry Workers Bill—is it helps to ensure that our workers in the screen industry are receiving similarly.

Now, the Minister spoke already of a block that hindered the industry or hampered the industry over the last decade, and this bill deals with that block. This bill is addressing the injustice that over the last decade—more than a decade, in fact—film industry production workers have been prevented from testing their employment status and gaining access to some pretty fundamental employment protection. Now, the Minister spoke about the divisive issues and these changes—they started in 2010.

Now, I do like the previous speaker, Mr Goldsmith, but it feels like we have been at different meetings listening to the submitters. So what I would like to do is I would like to bring the voice of our submitters to this debate. So what we heard from one submitter is the following: “The fact that there is no enforceable basic contract which guarantees minimum terms and conditions is a disgrace. These are standard overseas. Indeed, offshore producers are astounded when they ask for a standard contract and discover there isn’t one. It makes us look like inefficient amateurs who don’t value our performers.” There was also a submitter who referred to industry practices as a “race to the bottom” and referred to New Zealand as a “bargain basement destination”. Several submitters also told us that what was, in fact, the going bottom rate 20 years ago is now the going top rate. Now, that is a disgrace. One submitter said that the current legislation says that New Zealand workers are cheap and expendable, and she supports the bill, as our screen industry workers should not be regarded as the wetbacks of the South Pacific.

Now, the Minister already mentioned this but, back in 2010, when I was a law student, the right to bargain collectively for an agreement—which is an internationally recognised right—was taken away under urgency, removed from film production workers by the then National Government, without even hearing one single submission. And so, from that time on, the workers in that film industry were deemed to be contractors and they were unable to bargain collectively. Now this bill restores that right. As we heard from the Minister, the Film Industry Working Group that was brought together in 2010 did some really high-quality tripartite work, as the Minister referred to. They, basically, came up with a model that allows collective bargaining in the screen industry, and that’s what this bill does: it implements that working group’s changes.

Now, it’s the industry itself—the Film Industry Working Group itself—that didn’t just manage to design a new model; they unanimously recommended that the Government adopt it. What their model does is it represents their shared vision for a thriving industry and that recommended model is the basis for this particular bill.

Now, I heard some members on the other side talk about or mention the unions. There is actually a real big danger to the industry if the National Party doesn’t agree to this bill, because the work done by the Film Industry Working Group secures the future of New Zealand’s film industry. It gives the production companies certainty about the employment legislation and the employment relations in the film industry. It is really important to actually acknowledge that, because trying to disrupt this process just because of politicking is actually really utterly shameful and a disgrace to New Zealand, and to the industry as well.

So this bill, as I already said, restores an internationally recognised right to workers in the New Zealand film industry. It will provide certainty for the sector; ensures an enduring and well-supported workplace relations framework in the New Zealand screen industry. The workers will have the right to bargain collectively, they will have access to their fundamental employment rights but, at the same time, the industry is still able to have the certainty they need to make sure that films can be made successfully in New Zealand. It was agreed by all parties who spent their time in the Film Industry Working Group. And, again, for the National Party to disagree with this bill means that they are the only party in this whole House that is not agreeing to this legislation. So therefore I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had to go and refresh my memory about the introduction of this bill because it happened so long ago. It was back in March 2020, back in the last Parliament.

Just listening to the member who has resumed her seat, Marja Lubeck, I did a quick look at her Wikipedia page and it lists her profession as “trade unionist”. That actually sums it up completely. Not a politician, not a member of Parliament, not a servant of the people; her profession is listed on Wikipedia as trade unionist. The Minister speaking earlier on in this bill: he’s a unionist as well. He came from the old FinSec union. And that actually belies the linkage between the parliamentary Labour Party and the trade union movement. Those linkages are historic, they are political, and, in many cases, they are financial as well.

So what we have here is what we thought was originally a piece of legislation that was going to be rushed through in the dying stages of the last Parliament, on a promise that the Labour Party made in 2017 to their union mates that they would introduce this legislation and have it passed within the first 100 days of their administration. Well, here we are nearly 5½ years into this failed Labour Government and they are only now bringing back this legislation from select committee for a second reading. So what went wrong? Well, fundamentally, the legislation is flawed. It’s wrong, it’s conceptually inadequate, and it removes freedoms. It removes flexibility. It removes the ability of employers and employees to freely negotiate terms and conditions of employment in a way that Labour Party politicians and trade unionists find objectionable. Well, on this side of the House, we stand for freedom. We stand for the ability to have flexible labour laws, for laws that enable businesses and employees to work together, to grow businesses, to create strong jobs, and to create opportunity for a growing economy. But, on that side of the House, they take the reverse view. They like big Government, they like centralised control, they like strict union discipline, and Dr Gaurav Sharma has just today revealed the intensity of the strict union discipline that is applied within the Labour Party’s parliamentary caucus—and so it is within the trade union movement.

This is a party that likes to control people. They like not to give people individual rights. They are scared and fearful of people making decisions for themselves. What they want is union control. And, actually, this piece of legislation is all about a relationship that is historic, and political, and, at times, financial with the parliamentary Labour Party and the trade union movement. This piece of legislation does nothing to encourage the brilliant and bright opportunities that exist for New Zealand filmmakers—and the people who work for them and with them—to create great movies, a great industry, and great opportunities for us as a nation and to grow our economy. This is a bill that will stifle that.

The previous speaker quoted from two unnamed submitters. Well, we had 207 submissions to the select committee back in 2020. Only 30 of them were heard in person, but my recollection of those was that they were just a steady stream of union members—one after another—who gave remarkably similar testimony to the select committee. In fact, if I was a teacher and they were my pupils, I would have accused them of plagiarism because the words were the same. One would have thought that they had been provided with a cookie cutter template submission word script to use; talking points to use.

For the then chair of the select committee—I’m not sure that she’s still the chair of the select committee—to then cite those as some kind of justification for this piece of retrograde legislation that removes people’s freedoms, that removes flexibility from the workforce, and removes ability for us to grow an economy; that’s a disgraceful use of selective submissions from the trade union movement by that member. As I said, we’ve had an insight just today as to how strict and controlling that mentality can be within an organisation that doesn’t like people being individuals.

On that Government’s side, they like to put everybody into groups, into units, into groupings of human beings—they don’t see them as individuals. They don’t trust individuals. And that’s, of course, basic socialist dogma—not to trust individuals. They don’t like that. So at select committee, this legislation was considered, and the select committee made a number of changes, but one of the changes was a further insight. And just remember—for people who are watching and listening at home—that at select committee, the Labour Party Government has an absolute majority in the select committee, as they do within this Parliament currently, but not for much longer. One of the things that was changed at select committee was the meaning of “screen production worker”. I want to quote from the select committee’s report, where the majority—the Labour Party majority—on the select committee came to the view, and it says in the report, “We consider that the intention of the bill is to treat an individual as working for another person even if the individual is providing their services through a third party.” Now, let me say that again, because it takes some getting your head around to understand that: “We consider that the intention of the bill is to treat an individual as working for another person even if the individual is providing their services through a third party.”

Well, that’s the kind of mind-set that this Labour Party Government considers “individuals”. They want the employer not to have any individual relationship with the employee. They want the flexibility of negotiating terms, conditions, and arrangements to be made by third parties who actually may not be privy to the commercial workings and understandings of both the employee and the employer. They don’t like that.

They want to categorise everyone as a worker who is a unit of production, and that’s not the view that we see on this side of the House. We have far greater respect for individuals and their ability to negotiate their own terms and conditions on the basis that they are intelligent, smart, capable, clever, professional people with skill sets that are sought after by employers—and in this case, filmmakers. On the Labour Party side, they don’t see it like that at all. They want the union to be controlling it; they want the employees to be members of that union.

So, on this side of the House, we see that this piece of legislation’s second reading—and as my friend and colleague Paul Goldsmith has made very clear, we will of course oppose this legislation. But after three years of mucking around and waiting, it seems that the union movement is having to wait a long time for the original 2017 commitment to pass this legislation in 100 days—5½ years into their term, they are now just getting around to a second reading.

So we on this side of the House don’t support the legislation. We think it’s backwards. We think it’s a step back to the 1970s. We think it’s Napoleonic in terms of its approach, and the Minister represents everything about that kind of description in terms of his speaking to the bill at second reading. He has a Napoleonic approach to freedom of negotiation between people who want to work and sell their skill set to a willing buyer in terms of a production company, a movie production company that may want to use their services and pay appropriately for them.

So this Screen Industry Workers Bill, we think, is a retrograde step. We don’t support it. We won’t support it. And given an opportunity, if we have the privilege of sitting on the Government side of the benches in 15 short months’ time, this is a piece of legislation that we will almost certainly look to put right in the fullness of time.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It is no surprise—I guess, for us on this side of the House—that members opposite are in opposition, because it seems that any time that this Government does anything to help employees get ahead in the workplace, they say, “No. We’re not having that. No power to employees. We’re not interested in looking after employees. Full stop. Not interested. Not interested.”

As of 2018, there are 15,000 people doing screen production and post-production work in this industry. Of those workers, 85 percent—12,800—were hired contractors. They were often employed on a “take it or leave it” basis: “This is what we’re offering you. Take it or leave it. Whether it’s worth your while or not.” If you’re desperate for work, you’ll take it. There’s been no ability for them to have standard contracts.

Regardless of whether someone is union member, what does it matter? They are still a human being and an employee that needs to make a living in order to live a good life. That is what this bill is about; it is about looking after employees, ensuring that people have the ability to have access to standard contracts, and are looked after in their workplace. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the first time today that I’m quite stoked to get to stand up and speak to this bill. It’s fantastic to see it back after two years of COVID delay. I know that a lot of our people working in the screen industry have been eagerly awaiting this day, because this is a real step forward for them.

I want to acknowledge, too, the whakapapa of this is a result of an 18-month process of negotiation and collaboration of industry stakeholders within the Film Industry Working Group. At the end of that process, all of the guilds and production companies, and representatives, and Business New Zealand were able to come up with unanimous recommendations for fairer working conditions and collective bargaining for the contractors within our screen industry—because they’re not employees and they don’t get access to those rights that so many of us rely on in this country.

I do, too, recognise the importance of this and just want to—that there’s been a lot of work done in select committee. I wasn’t lucky enough to be able to sit in on the select committee last term when considering this bill, but I’ve read some of the submissions and been through the quite extensive report. There’s a lot of work that was clearly done in committee in response to the submissions to strengthen this bill. I would like to just speak to a few of those.

But before I get into that, I do have to respond to the comments by a previous National speaker talking about “standing for freedom” and the “flexibility for business”. The idea of freedom, for me, doesn’t equate with the reality that we’ve had in this industry of entire casts being fired for approaching the producer to try and negotiate collective conditions. That’s what happened under the “Hobbit law”: an entire cast, wanting just to talk about the possibility of being able to get some collective conditions, were fired. The production decided to start again.

Like, where is the understanding of freedom in that? That is just an unmitigated abuse of power, and that has been the norm, or at least, if not the norm—I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration—but has been happening in the screen industry. My partner worked in the screen industry for a while; 16-hour days as a norm. It’s a very, very, often hierarchical industry, where people start on the shop floor and have to work really, really hard on tight budgets and do whatever is required. And that means that health and safety and the wellbeing of that person, and their ability to be a member of their family, is often compromised.

We’ve seen the wages of our actors, in terms of relation to other wages in the country—as well as internationally—go backwards over the last 15 to 20 years. These are artists who contribute a huge amount to our country, whether they’re in front of the screen or behind it. They have, on a regular basis, still been exploited in this country. The “Hobbit law”, which I think is in the Urban Dictionary defined as a “Law that is introduced as a knee jerk reaction, usually to erode the rights […] of people at work.” That’s the National Party’s definition of freedom. That is what they are standing up for in this House. That is not my definition of freedom.

My definition of freedom is for people to have the opportunity to have decent conditions, and that requires an ability to bargain collectively for many people. Some rare people will be able to do it for themselves, but that’s usually because they’ve got quite a few things behind them to get to that point, and it is not the norm.

So to get into some of the detail of this bill, which I think is really interesting, and some of the changes that have been made, is—it does clarify the position on a prohibition on industrial action during collective bargaining. And that is one of the points where the Green Party differs in terms of the outcome of this. The right to strike, for us, is a fundamental right that we do not want to see traded away through negotiations or through legislation. On a more positive side, we’ve seen through submissions coverage of this bill being extended to computer-generated games for educational training and advertising purposes, through the submissions of people requesting that cover, which I think is brilliant.

From the submissions, some of those stories of manipulation and misuse of power came through, because there has been a strengthening in the bill of protections against the use of undue influence. There’s been the addition of situations of somebody trying to prevent people representing workers or trying to get somebody to terminate any work because of that individual’s status as a member or non-member of a worker association. So, clearly, that is a very real dynamic where people have lost their opportunities to be working, and we know blacklisting is a very active practice in our screen industries that really does need to be stamped out. And this is more protection to try and change that culture, even though listening to the previous National member the Hon Scott Simpson rail against unions as if they’re the devil’s spawn as opposed to the collective voice of workers just surprises me. He might support terminating people’s work on the basis of their union membership because he doesn’t seem to understand what a union is. However, this provides protection against that, which I think is great.

It clarifies the duty of good faith. And I note that this is more limited than the duties within the Employment Relations Act, and that is the result of that bargained situation—which is clear that these are not just demands from one party, in the workers in the screen industry; it is about trying to meet the needs for everybody. There’s also carve-outs around some of this in terms of volunteers, and recognising that our film industry—in particular short films—and part of the industry relies on people volunteering in films and that that is built into the industry. And this bill is not undermining that, because it’s a recognition of the reality that people are working with. It’s also providing more clarity around where there’s a collective in place, individual contracts, while they’re allowed, cannot offer conditions less favourable.

It also strengthens provisions against retaliatory termination, to provide protection for workers who exercise any power, right, authority, or remedy under any enactment, not just this one. I really speak to the absolute importance of that in terms of providing some surety around and strengthening of our health and safety provisions, as well as noting that that includes providing information in relation to a complaint about bullying, discrimination, or harassment, because that is a known dynamic where people are blacklisted for reporting on the behaviour of people more powerful than them.

The committee did just consider putting in specific processes for raising complaints around bullying, discrimination, or harassment, but were advised that further policy work would be required to determine how a single process fixed in legislation could apply. Now that we are kind of two years on from the select committee, I do wonder if there’s been an opportunity for that work to have been done and whether we might see a Supplementary Order Paper in that space. Because we know that as a country—and a shout-out to Deborah Russell, who’s in the House, and her fantastic bill that’s around at the moment around extending the time to be able to make a sexual harassment complaint—that there are huge barriers in terms of being able to report and get an adequate response around bullying and harassment, and industry-specific responses are important. So thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 August 2022. Mauri ora ki a tātou.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.