Thursday, 25 August 2022

THURSDAY, 25 AUGUST 2022

THURSDAY, 25 AUGUST 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Confirmation of Election of Speaker

Confirmation of Election of Speaker

SPEAKER: I have to report that, accompanied by members, I waited upon Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House on Wednesday, 24 August when I addressed Her Excellency as follows:

May it please Your Excellency.

In obedience to Your Excellency’s request, the House of Representatives, in the exercise of its undoubted rights and privileges, has proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and, as the subject of its choice, I now present myself to you and submit myself for Your Excellency’s confirmation.

To which Her Excellency replied as follows:

Mr Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I confirm the choice by the House of Representatives of you as its Speaker.

I congratulate you on your election to this distinguished office, marking as it does the appreciation of the House of Representatives of your impartiality and ability.

I have further to report that I also addressed Her Excellency as follows:

I humbly thank Your Excellency for your confirmation of the choice made by the House of Representatives of me to be its Speaker.

I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgment to the House of the high honour it has done me in electing me to be its Speaker.

Authority to Administer Oath

Authority to Administer Oath

SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from Her Excellency the Governor-General for me to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. The authorisation reads:

Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986, I, The Right Honourable Dame Cindy Kiro, Governor-General of New Zealand, hereby authorise,

The Right Honourable Adrian Rurawhe, Speaker of the House of Representatives

to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.

Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister

Authorised

Cindy Kiro, Governor-General

24 August 2022

Appointments

Deputy Speaker

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the appointment of a Deputy Speaker.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection for that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That this House appoint Gregory Eamon O’Connor as Deputy Speaker.

Mr Speaker, following your election as Speaker yesterday, there is a vacancy in the office of the Deputy Speaker and I am delighted to nominate Greg O’Connor as your successor in that role. Greg O’Connor has been the member for Ōhāriu since 2017. In those five years, in addition to being a diligent electorate MP, he’s been the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, deputy chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a member of the Justice Committee and the Social Services and Community Committee, chairperson of the Parliamentary Service Commission’s Health and Safety Committee, and co-chairperson of the New Zealand - South and South East Asia Parliamentary Friendship Group. In these roles, he’s shown a willingness to work with members from all parties to achieve the best results possible.

He came to Parliament with a more varied experience in life than many of us. He has a distinguished and exceptional record of service to New Zealand as a member of the New Zealand Police, rising to the rank of senior sergeant. His police service included a lengthy period being deployed deep undercover. He described in his maiden speech the effect of, and I quote, “[being] armed with a new identity—a black leather jacket, a beard, long hair, and earrings”, and he was responsible for putting some of New Zealand’s most serious offenders behind bars. But he also developed an understanding of why they had adopted a life outside the law in the first place. In his maiden speech, he said, and I quote, “You can’t get back on to the straight and narrow if you never knew what straight and narrow looked like in the first place.” Hold that thought, Mr Speaker! He served for 21 years as the President of the New Zealand Police Association, a role for which he was a highly effective advocate for our police.

He also brings with him the experience of being a parent of Mike, a son with high and complex needs, and of being a survivor of advanced bowel cancer. Any of us who choose to challenge him in the role that the House is about to appoint him to might do well to think about what he has done and seen in his life and then reassess their opinion of how intimidating he thinks we might be.

Greg O’Connor will be an outstanding Deputy Speaker. He is popular and respected across the House and I have no hesitation in commending his appointment.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Mr Speaker, thank you. Can I start by congratulating you, sir, on your appointment yesterday to the august office of Speaker, and we look forward to working with you. The National Party in Opposition is very pleased to support the nomination of Greg O’Connor as Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has outlined the range of committees and roles that he’s served on, but he left out two very important roles: member of the parliamentary rugby team—with which Mr O’Connor has played since he became an MP, the MP for Ōhāriu, since 2017—but also a member of the parliamentary cricket team. And a very valuable member of that cricket team he is indeed. So those cross-party extracurricular activities, I think, will make sure that he does a good job as the Speaker, because he’s familiar with MPs from both sides of the proverbial aisle—

Barbara Kuriger: He knows how to keep the score.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right. My colleague Barbara Kuriger says, “He knows how to keep the score.”, and that may well prove useful when it comes to deputising for you, sir, if he indeed gets that opportunity as the Deputy Speaker.

The other thing I would add is that Mr O’Connor will bring to this role diligence, civility, but also experience, and the Leader of the House has outlined the range of life experiences that Mr O’Connor has brought to Parliament—someone who came to Parliament a little bit later in life than others in this Chamber, but who has brought to the House deep life experience, both in a professional sense but also in a personal sense as well. And those skills will be very useful in the role as Deputy Speaker, so we are very pleased to support the nomination of the Leader of the House.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai o te Whare—it’s such an honour to say that to you, Mr Speaker, for the first time proper in this House. The Greens would also like to welcome and mihi the new Deputy Speaker about to be put into that role, Greg O’Connor. I was thinking too, as my colleagues have just shared, about the transferable skills that Mr O’Connor brings to that role, highlighting, as we all have, the four decades as a police officer, which I am hoping will have also given him the de-escalation skills that will be necessary to manage this unruly lot in here. Those are definitely going to come in handy.

I wanted to acknowledge Mr O’Connor’s family and community. These are always proud days, and I always like to remember what it means for the people who are beside, behind, and with us in this House, as well. So I think of them and their pride, and I welcome that.

I also saw throughout Mr O’Connor’s political career that empathy and commitment to education and values that is similar to the Green Party’s, not the least of which Mr O’Connor shared in his maiden speech in Parliament in 2017. He spoke of the empathy for people—and it was during his time with the undercover police that others have spoken about—who haven’t always been able to make the best choices in life. I quote: “Our efforts to protect victims by diverting and steering people away from crime must involve realistic alternatives as well as punishment. You can’t get back on to the straight and narrow if you never knew what straight and narrow looked like in the first place.” We in the Green Party welcome this insight and experience to the role of Deputy Speaker, which I think will make a great complement to your role, Mr Speaker. Kia ora.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand before you for the first time as Speaker of the House, and the MP addressing you. Congratulations.

I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Leader of the House wishing to appoint Mr Greg O’Connor as Deputy Speaker. I, too, went through a bit of your past there, Greg, and I’ve got admit, the number of official positions that you have held in here is quite impressive, including being a chair and the huge number of select committees that you have sat on.

I also note your background, too, as not only as a police senior sergeant officer, but also your work in the Police Association—and that as an undercover police agent, too, which I know would have been particularly hard, especially coming out the other side.

That work that you do as a parent, which quite often goes unnoticed because many of us are parents but we have to slog our way through that—that gives us a lot of experience in itself, including the work that you’ve had to do with your son and the agencies, both those from Government and those from the community, that you’ve worked with to be able to get access to some of the services that you and your family have needed. On top of that, there’s your own health issues that you’ve had to deal with and you’ve beaten and come out the other side of, and the work that you have done advocating in the health space has been very important as well.

Greg, I recall interviewing you when I was with the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners trying to show the licensed firearm owners that there is a human side to Mr Greg O’Connor. I really appreciated you taking that opportunity. Of course, not all of the licensed firearm owners saw you exactly as I did back then, but what I did appreciate was that you actually took the opportunity. You took the opportunity to speak to a group of people who are not that happy with some of the things that you were saying, but you allowed them to see a little bit of insight about yourself. I think that actually goes to show the character of a person who needs to sit in that Chair is someone with so much experience. And with that, your life experience that you bring to this role is lived experiences, and that is exactly what we need to sit in the Chair as a Deputy to our new Speaker. ACT believes that this will be beneficial to this House. In saying that, we support your appointment to that role.

Motion agreed to.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the Estimates debate will be concluded. Other legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Coroners Amendment Bill and the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill, and the committee stages of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and the Screen Industry Workers Bill. There will be an extended sitting for members’ business on the morning of Thursday, 1 September, in recognition of the fact that yesterday would otherwise have been a members’ day.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my regular question around item 20 on the Order Paper, which is the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which has now slipped to the very bottom of the Government business. I wonder if the Leader of the House has an update on when progress may be expected on that very important bill.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, the Government has a very, very busy legislative programme, as the member is well aware, and we will make progress on that legislation in the fullness of time.

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

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

SPEAKER: Members, petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House clarify or amend the Unit Titles Act 2010

petition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House require the Official Assignee to disclose to a bankrupt person the administration and legal invoices paid from a bankrupt estate

petition of Cheryl Singh requesting that the House tighten responsible lending and borrowing obligations that apply to body corporates

petition of William Harding requesting that the House require smart electricity meters to be removed and replaced, and

petition of William Harding requesting that the House place requirements on turbine makers, Transpower, and smart-meter owners.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Health Research Council of New Zealand statement of performance expectations 2022-23

Te Manatū Waka Ministry of Transport long-term insights briefing.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Education Workforce Committee on the 2021 resident visas petitions and the inquiry into migrant exploitation.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Coroners Amendment Bill, introduction.

Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Police

1. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, made on Tuesday, that “Police do keep a tally of ram raids in different regions”; if so, how many ram raids have been recorded over the past three months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Yes, police at the local level will identify and respond to incidents of commercial burglaries that use vehicles as their method of entry, commonly referred to as a “ram raid”. Police take these incidents very seriously and investigate each of them thoroughly. Police have advised me that based on a national tally of events, the current numbers for each of the three months in question are 50 in May, 37 in June, and 42 in July.

Chris Baillie: How many offenders have been caught over the previous three months, and how many were under 18 years of age?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have the age breakdown of them, but I have the figures for Auckland and for the Waikato, where most of the ram-raiding offences have been taking place. Over the last four months—so they’re slightly different time periods—so from 1 April to 6 August, there were 84 ram raids in Auckland, in Tāmaki-makau-rau. To date, 38 offenders have been identified or arrested, almost all of whom are under the age of 18—the median age of them was 15—and a further 27 offenders’ images have been identified through CCTV but they don’t yet know who the particular people are. In terms of the police’s Operation Pryor in the Waikato, they have arrested 216 people and laid 829 charges.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister stand by his statement “I want to know how I can best support them, make sure they have the tools they need to do their jobs” when referring to police, and, if so, what tools, if any, have police requested that would assist them in tackling the rising ram raid issue?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, absolutely. In answer to the second part of the question, one of the things that the police have asked is that I, as Minister, help to facilitate them working with other arms of Government to try and prevent this sort of offending happening in the first place, and that’s exactly what I’m committed to doing.

Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain to a small-business owner in Ellerslie, who has been ram-raided, what the process for applying to the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund is?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d suggest that they talk to their local police, in the first instance, who will be able to talk to them about the range of support that’s available to them and will be able to talk them through the various prevention strategies that they can put in place.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Did he receive any advice from Treasury about potential for increased inflationary pressures from Government spending decisions made in Budget 2022; if so, on what occasions, if any, did he choose to spend more on initiatives than Treasury advised?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I received a range of advice from Treasury about the macroeconomic environment during the Budget 2022 process, including on the hypothetical implications of total spending decisions. In answer to the second part of the question, it is always the case during the Budget process that initiatives change and evolve compared to the original submission, meaning the funding required might also change. For Budget 2022, there were 564 proposed Budget initiatives.

Chris Bishop: Good grief!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the time available—I know—preparing for this question, it has not been possible to compile every instance where Cabinet decided initiatives were of a greater priority than the Treasury’s assessment of them. I can confirm for the member, though, for example, we decided to invest more in Pharmac than Treasury advised, because that was a priority for the Government. There were also instances where less funding was provided than what Ministers bid for, based on advice from the Treasury. Ultimately, the core Budget operating package came in at $5.9 billion, within the $6 billion operating allowance set at the Budget Policy Statement.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall receiving this advice on 7 March from Treasury recommending he reduce the size of planned climate change spending “due to delivery risk, potential for increased inflationary pressures and in order to preserve funding … for future funding requirements” with a recommendation of an alternative package with a price tag of $2.4 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly recall conversations with the Treasury around the phasing of the new Climate Emergency Response Fund. It is a multi-year fund. The Government made the decision to front-load some expenditure that the Treasury wasn’t in favour of, because we wanted to get on with the job of reducing emissions.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that instead of taking Treasury’s advice to reduce pressure on inflation, he went ahead with $2.9 billion of spending on climate change projects, that is half a billion dollars more than Treasury advised?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in my primary answer, the Government in its core operating allowance came in at $5.9 billion. As we indicated at the Budget Policy Statement in December last year, we brought into place a new scheme called the Climate Emergency Response Fund. This Government takes very seriously our obligations to reduce emissions and meet the goals of the zero carbon Act. I’m sorry the member doesn’t share that.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister recall receiving this advice on 3 March also recommending he reduce climate change spending—“Warning: higher-value initiatives are expected to seek funding in future years that will reduce emissions more.”—and is he satisfied that all the funded projects are high value?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that what we have funded under the Climate Emergency Response Fund takes serious steps towards meeting the carbon budgets that have been set by the Climate Commission. I’m not at all surprised that the Opposition are telling us to do less on the climate, because that is their track record.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister continue to believe there is a magic money tree at the bottom of the garden, and how can he claim all spending will be high-value when a report provided on the $652 million industry fund found four out of five projects evaluated would likely have gone ahead anyway without Government funding?

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, I’d perhaps wonder if she’d like to reflect on the fact that her leader has said clearly that the National Party would have spent the same amount in the core Budget allowance. So perhaps Mr Luxon can go and look for the tree, if the member thinks one is out there.

Nicola Willis: Why does he keep blaming everyone else for inflation when he ignored direct Treasury advice that going ahead with lower-value climate change projects would add to pressure on inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would note that virtually every economic commentator in New Zealand believes that inflation has peaked at the June quarter level of 7.3 percent. That peak represents half of what is imagined to happen in the United Kingdom. We have worked hard to put out a balanced Budget package that continues to give New Zealand one of the lowest levels of debt in the developed world while also investing in core public services.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that as long as New Zealand is running lower inflation than a country beset by an energy crisis, then he’s doing a good job?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My position is that this Government has overseen getting New Zealanders through COVID with an economy that is regarded by rating agencies as being robust and regarded well by the IMF and the OECD. With unemployment at 3.3 percent and with more people going into work all the time, I think this Government can be proud of its record. Does it mean it’s not tough out there for people? No—of course it is when inflation is running higher than we have seen in recent years. But this Government is looking after low and middle income people to get through that.

Nicola Willis: How can he justify spending more than $600 million on corporate climate welfare when he knew that would put pressure on inflation and add to the prices being paid by everyday Kiwis in all parts of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can justify is a Government that doesn’t just go off to conferences overseas and sign up to climate commitments, but actually takes action to do something about it. That Government failed New Zealanders, with no real climate policy. I’m proud of the actions we’re taking.

Nicola Willis: Well, do we take it from the Minister’s answers today that his test for whether climate change spending is good is simply how much is spent and whether it’s got good intentions and that he doesn’t care if the evaluations show the work would have gone ahead anyway and not a single extra emission has been reduced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is simply wrong. The Government is actually getting alongside New Zealanders to make sure that we reduce emissions. I repeat: the National Party’s record was to sign New Zealand up to agreements and then do nothing about it. We are committed to reducing emissions and also growing the economy.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Here we go! Workers have experienced their biggest pay hikes on record and outstripping inflation. Statistics New Zealand figures released last week show median weekly earnings from wages and salaries jumped by 8.8 percent in the June year—the largest annual increase since records began in 1998, and well ahead of inflation at 7.3 percent.

Barbara Edmonds: What did the Stats New Zealand report say about median weekly earnings for women?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Women’s median weekly earnings increased by 9.9 percent for the June year, also the highest annual percentage increase on record.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing sector has continued to expand. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) was 52.7, led by new orders and employment.

Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen on activity in other sectors and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, activity in the services sector is continuing to support the economy. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) stood at 51.2 in July, driven by new orders and sales. Combining the PSI results to the PMI results from the previous question, BNZ economists said the composite index suggests the economic expansion continued into the September quarter, albeit at a slower pace than the June quarter.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the global activity in the manufacturing and services sector continues to be volatile. The US composite index contracted to its lowest level in two years in August, and the eurozone composite index declined to a 16-month low. Australia’s composite index also shrank in August for the first time in seven months. While New Zealand is not immune to global economic uncertainty, our performance in these areas shows that the country is in a strong position to respond to the current pressures we are facing.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Kei a koe, te Māngai o te Whare, te mokopuna a Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana, kei te mihi ki a koe mō tō tūranga hou. [To you, the Speaker of the House, the great-grandson of Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana, I congratulate you on your new role.] To the member, yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her unwillingness to say yes in response to my primary question on Tuesday, “Is it still the Government’s intention to be, ‘the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had’?” because she has abandoned that goal?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: That’s good to know—that’s good to know. When the Minister said on Tuesday that the former Minister of Conservation “was a lawyer and advised a lot of people on official information issues”, did the former Minister say it was her legal advice that the best way to avoid things unfolding through the Official Information Act (OIA) process that were less than desirable was to have a yarn rather than to write things down?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No. [Interruption]

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

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did the former Minister of Conservation tell her what letter from whom prompted her message to colleagues not to write but to have a yarn instead?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, although many colleagues have conversations all of the time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister to claim ignorance of what was in her own mind?

Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. On this side of the House, we don’t talk to ourselves. [Laughter]

SPEAKER: Are members ready for me to rule? Thank you—I appreciate that. Both the point of order and the member speaking to the point of order are out of order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she think a Government culture that avoids writing things down helps improve public confidence in Government transparency?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the underlying assumption in that statement, and I think and consider that all members on this side of the House adhere to our obligations under the Official Information Act and adhere to the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her statement on Tuesday in relation to the OIA, “As [the] member will be aware … we wear different hats.”, a confirmation of recent high-profile allegations that Ministers were using different hats to avoid disclosure under the Official Information Act?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Question No. 5—Forestry

5. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made about transforming the forestry and wood processing sector?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Forestry): Last Friday, at the Canterbury West Coast Wood Council Forestry Awards, I launched the draft Forestry and wood processing industry transformation plan (ITP) for public consultation. The plan recognises how pivotal the sector will be in our future and is a significant step forward for forestry and wood processing in New Zealand.

Anna Lorck: Who, if anyone, did the Government work with in developing the plan?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government worked closely with industry, Māori, and unions to develop the draft ITP, and we’ll continue to work with these groups to move our sector from having a significant reliance on unprocessed commodity exports to one which processes more of our logs onshore, thus creating jobs, value, and low-carbon products.

Anna Lorck: How will this ITP help the Government meet its climate goals?

Hon STUART NASH: By growing our wood processing capability, we can replace high-emissions material in our buildings and use woody residues to produce low-emissions fuels to power our trucks, trains, and planes, and replace plastics in a number of products and applications.

Anna Lorck: What investments has the Government made to support the forestry and wood processing sector?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government provided $385.4 million in Budget 2022 to support the sector. This investment will be instrumental in further developing wood processing in New Zealand.

Anna Lorck: What feedback has he received on the industry transformation plan?

Hon STUART NASH: A great example came from Grant Dodson, president of the Forest Owners Association, who said that the plan would be a game-changer for the New Zealand economy. I’m sure the chief executive and chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council would have waxed lyrical as well, given the opportunity.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: How many nurses have applied for the Accredited Employer Work Visa, and how many of those nurses applied from offshore?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I am advised that since the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) migrant gate opened in July, 198 nurses have applied for the AEWV, of whom 24 have applied from offshore. As the member will be aware, the period between July and now has been one of transition between the critical purpose visa and the accredited employer work visa, and so it’s important to note that nurses continue to arrive under the critical purpose visa—142 were approved in May and 149 were approved in June, and I understand there was a similar number in July. Through our immigration rebalance we are providing simplified ways of important groups like nurses coming to New Zealand, but we’re also working hard to ensure that we have a good domestic supply, something that was neglected under the previous Government.

Erica Stanford: Why did he say on Tuesday in question time that “there is very strong interest amongst nurses” for the AEWV, when today he has confirmed that only 24 new offshore nurses have applied in the first two months of the visa being open?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because that is the information that I receive from health employers and recruiters and officials. It is worth noting that nurses are able to show interest in applying for these visas before the application process has been completed.

Erica Stanford: How many new migrant nurses arriving in New Zealand every month do we need before he is satisfied that his policy of placing nurses on the two-year wait to residence is working, given that he said that he will make changes to the policy if needed?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is something that I will continue to keep under review and consult with colleagues and the sector about. As I outlined in my primary answer, we do continue to have a good number of nurses entering the workforce each month: 142 in May approved, 149 in June approved. So progress is being made, but we’ll continue to work with the sector on it. I do note that the two-year residency pathway that we have put in place covers all 13 categories of nurses, something that was not previously available. This is a simplified and more streamlined pathway than New Zealand has had previously, and it’s more simplified and streamlined than most other countries currently have as well.

Erica Stanford: Has he seen a recent nursing organisation survey from July that found that 11 percent of the workforce has made plans to leave, which equates to 6,600 nurses, and, if so, why is he not placing nurses on the fast track to residence to allow us to compete with Australia?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Taking inspiration from my colleague from the East Cape, no.

Hon Andrew Little: Can the Minister confirm that those who have applied for the accredited employer work visa from in-country are more likely to know that there is a two-year pathway to residency and yet still record numbers are applying for it?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I can confirm that point, and it does go some way towards demonstrating that the two-year pathway to residency is a highly attractive pathway for both recruiting and retaining nurses in New Zealand. I also note recent decisions that I have made to ensure that the two years can be counted from late 2021 to smooth that pathway further for nurses who are currently onshore. I think that’s helping as well.

Erica Stanford: Is the Minister aware that the only pathway for a nurse to gain residence at the moment is the two-year pathway to residence, because he still hasn’t opened the skilled migrant category, so of course the numbers are going to be good?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is correct. The accredited employer work visa is the main pathway to residence at the moment, and as the Government has confirmed, we will be moving forward to consult and reopen on the skilled pathway in the coming months.

Hon Andrew Little: Is the Minister aware of other steps the Government has taken to support the development of the nursing workforce and enable offshore nurses to come to New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, there is significant work that is under way there. The Government is rolling out a targeted suite of measures to both attract, train, and retain overseas nurses. This includes a coordinated and enhanced national and international healthcare recruitment campaign, dedicated immigration support services that are put in place with Health New Zealand to support them to make it easier for health workers to move to New Zealand, and, finally, easing the process for overseas nurses, with provision up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses to cover New Zealand registration costs. These measures are making a real difference.

Erica Stanford: Why are game developers given residence immediately, and nurses are forced to wait two years?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government made the decision to have a streamlined pathway for all 13 categories of nurses to achieve residency within two years. We believe that that is an appropriate policy, it is an internationally competitive policy that is simpler than most countries, and it is one that, we believe, will make a real difference. The member needs to remember that residency in New Zealand is something that is highly valued by people from all around New Zealand; it’s not a competition between gamers and nurses. This is a policy that we have confidence will attract new nurses to New Zealand.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in your reflections on question time, I wonder if you would consider whether the Minister of Health’s questions to the Minister of Immigration were in keeping with Speakers’ ruling 183/7, and, if they are, whether there will be a new Speaker’s ruling around that matter.

SPEAKER: Yes, I will look at it. I thought the question, when I heard it, was in order. I probably should have said to the Hon Michael Wood to answer in so far as he had responsibility; I believe he did that. But I’ll go back and have a look, and I’ll take note of what you’ve said.

Question No. 7—Research, Science and Innovation

7. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Research and Development Tax Incentive?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): This morning, I was pleased to announce that the Research and Development Tax Incentive has supported over $1 billion in research and development activity in New Zealand. The Research and Development Tax Incentive provides a 15 percent tax credit for businesses performing eligible research and development activities in New Zealand. This milestone represents $150 million in tax credits allocated over the first two years of the scheme.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the tax incentive important to New Zealand’s economic development?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is part of a wider economic strategy to improve the wellbeing and living standards of New Zealanders through better productivity, sustainability, and inclusive growth. Through the tax incentive, we’re enabling more businesses to innovate and driving greater investment in research and development as a proportion of GDP.

Willow-Jean Prime: What sectors have been supported by the tax incentive?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is supporting a range of innovative businesses, from exciting start-ups to some of our largest companies and growing sectors, like aerospace, medtech, biotech, and manufacturing.

Willow-Jean Prime: What impact has the tax incentive scheme had on businesses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There are now over 1,600 businesses enrolled in the scheme, and we know that $700 million of the $1 billion has gone into salaries for a range of high-value, low-carbon jobs for the future. Through this incentive, we’re boosting the amount of research and development taking place and building a high-skilled, knowledge-based, and productive economy.

Willow-Jean Prime: Can she provide an example of research and development that this tax incentive is supporting?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. This morning, I visited one of these companies, Dawn Aerospace, in Christchurch, a leader in New Zealand’s growing space and aerospace sector. Dawn Aerospace is investing tens of millions into research and development for reusable space vehicles and satellite propulsion systems, supported by the tax incentive. Dawn and their fellow innovators in the aerospace sector are contributing over $1.7 billion to our economy each year, and employ 12,000 people.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the application of sanctions to people who receive the jobseeker – health condition and disability benefit for “failing to prepare for work”; if so, what is the purpose of these sanctions?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do stand by our current approach to the use of sanctions, which is only to use sanctions as a last resort and to work with a client to ensure that they meet their obligations. The obligations a client has is based on what they are capable of, according to medical advice. Any decision to reduce or pause benefit payments is never made quickly or taken lightly. A sanction is only applied if someone has failed their obligation and refused the opportunities they are provided to re-comply or to provide a good reason for noncompliance before their payments are reduced. This Government is focused on supporting people on a benefit and helping them to achieve their goals, not on penalising them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement from Tuesday, “We have to remember that people with health conditions and disabilities often have aspirations to work as well.”; if so, how do benefit sanctions support these aspirations?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, I do. That’s why, as I’ve said in my response to the primary question, that they are only used as a last resort, and that the focus of the Government is to support those who can into work, based on the medical advice that is provided.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify that the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

SPEAKER: No, the Minister is acting. So she is answering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who said of sanctions in 2013, “The message it sends is that the jobseeker’s role is to look for work, and the Government’s role is no longer to ensure that there are jobs, to train, to educate, and to help you move into work. No, the Government’s role is simply to sanction when you fail.”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I do agree with that statement. That’s why this Government has placed an emphasis on supporting people who can into finding work that is sustainable and meaningful and pays a good wage. Also, as I said previously, that’s why sanctions are only used as an absolute last resort.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she provide any evidence to support that benefit sanctions support disabled people and people with health conditions to meet their aspirations?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I can provide evidence that our approach is working, because we’ve actually seen record numbers of exits into work for people with health conditions and disabilities. In the year to June 2022, 17,295 people on jobseeker – health condition and disability exited into work, almost double the number in the year to June 2017. Just to add, in the June 2022 quarter, only 156 people out of the over 70,000 on a jobseeker – health condition and disability actually received a sanction for failing to prepare for work. So the combination of using sanctions as a last resort and a focus on supporting people who can into work does appear to be working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is an acceptable number of disabled people who should be sanctioned by the Government?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: It’s not about an acceptable number; it’s about the approach, which is not to resort immediately to punitive measures but to actually work with people who can to find the work that is meaningful to them, to take into account the medical advice that is provided, and to use—as I’ve said multiple times—sanctions as an absolute last resort.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is her response to Roger, who participated in the 2021 Beneficiary Advisory Service research titled “Understanding Welfare Sanctions in Aotearoa”, and noted that being called into repeated meetings at short notice upon threat of a sanction left him on edge, anxious, and in a persistent state of stress, saying, “I lost my mental health. If there was a little a bit left, I lost it.”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The evidence that I can point to, in fact, that was undertaken also by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, was that harsh regimes of sanctions often wasn’t proven to work, but the less severe regimes where sanctions were a last resort were the ones that proved to have some benefit in terms of motivating people who could into work. I would also point to my previous response, once again: they are an absolute last resort. The focus is on ensuring that those at the front lines of the Ministry of Social Development take into account medical advice that is provided and work alongside and with those beneficiaries to enter work, as and when they can.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent work has the Government done to grow Pacific employment?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): The latest provisional figures to 30 June show that the Tupu Aotearoa programme has supported more than 1,000 Pacific people into employment in the last six months, and over 1,400 Pacific people have transitioned into training to gain qualifications over the last 12 months. To date, the ministry has 16 Tupu Aotearoa providers servicing Pacific clients from Northland to Invercargill, and it is the ministry’s goal to place at least 2,400 Pacific people into work or in training by the end of June 2023. Tupu Aotearoa continues to transform the lives of Pacific aiga, kāinga, kopu tangata, whānau, and families with more training and employment opportunities.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How much has the Government invested in Tupu Aotearoa and growing the Pacific workforce?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This Government invested $13.9 million in Budget 2020 to expand Tupu Aotearoa’s reach, with a further investment of $30.3 million in Budget 2021 and $8 million in Budget 2022. This investment has taken Tupu Aotearoa from South Auckland and expanded it to the main metropolitan centres of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch and to the regional communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, delivering employment and training services so that no one is left behind.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How does Tupu Aotearoa grow the Pacific workforce?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Tupu Aotearoa programme connects Pacific people with local education, training, and support providers that help them access work or learning opportunities on their journey to employment with further training or study and support to high-value jobs. This ensures that Pacific people are nurtured from the beginning of their career journey to sustainable employment, with business partners providing access to the right tools for skills development that aligns with future employment and educational opportunities.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why has Tupu Aotearoa succeeded in growing the Pacific workforce?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: You have the right Government in place, but Tupu Aotearoa’s success is due to the targeted approach of supporting Pacific communities at a regional, local, and cultural level, offering end-to-end, wraparound support and pastoral care from locally based providers in metro and regional communities, using Pacific languages, cultural capital, and cultural intelligence as tools to build our workforce and people. We also know Tupu Aotearoa is reaching some of the most vulnerable members of our Pacific communities and is transforming their lives through pastoral care and cultural support, training, and employment.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Has he heard any real-life success stories from Tupu Aotearoa?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Earlier this year, I joined with local MP Terisa Ngobi and listened to the testimonies of realised hopes and dreams for the generation of young Pasifika people coming through the Tupu Aotearoa programme at the Horowhenua Learning Centre. These often shy students stood up and boldly acknowledged the valued support of Tupu Aotearoa employment consultant Tessa Feomaia of the Horowhenua Learning Centre in Levin, and the Life to the Max Horowhenua team, supported by the local district council. These success stories tell us that this Government is on the right path, and they are why we will continue to invest in Tupu Aotearoa so that Pacific peoples aren’t left behind during our economic recovery phase—[Interruption]—which often happens when that Government is in power.

SPEAKER: During that question, there were several interjections while the question was being made, coming from that area. I don’t know who it was, but just a reminder not to interject while the question is being made. I said I would be fair on patsy questions and the length of the question. There is a ruling around that, but I will not be influenced by people shouting out that it’s a speech. The number of interjections during the answer—and I refer to a ruling from Speaker Carter—does and can extend the length of the answer. So—[Interruption] I beg your pardon?

Hon Member: It’s just their masks moving.

SPEAKER: I don’t know what that’s got to do with me on my feet making this ruling, but I’ll just leave that there.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Alex Walker, who described her Three Waters reform process as “unempowering for our communities”, and does she believe communities have been adequately consulted in her proposed Three Waters reforms?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. No—and yes; there’s always room for improvement.

Simon Watts: Does she agree with Auckland mayor Phil Goff, who said, “We will get 20 percent of the, say, over 93 percent of how the assets that belong to the people of Auckland will be utilised. That’s patently not fair.”, and is she concerned that even former Labour Ministers don’t support her reforms?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: All elected representatives representing councils have the ability to voice their concerns at the select committee. They’re doing so and we’ll take on board those views.

Simon Watts: What does she say to Marlborough district councillor Cynthia Brooks, who said three waters “has been an insult to those of us charged with upholding the mana of local government” and that she was “exhausted and unable to commit to another three years managing the pushback from this Government’s reform”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think the greatest insult is to ratepayers who don’t have the absolute assurance of access to safe, reliable drinking water. The need to find a financially sustainable way to invest in infrastructure, because the looming costs of guaranteeing better drinking-water standards, better and improved environmental standards, is a huge cost on councils—and that’s the problem we’re trying to fix.

Simon Watts: What is your response to Roimata Minhinnick, lead negotiator for Ngāti Te Ata, who said, “There has been for us an obvious lack of consultation” and is she concerned many iwi and hapū have raised concerns with and submitted against her three waters legislation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The opportunity for iwi to reflect their views is, as it is with councils, able to be made at the select committee. I understand that that particular submitter has made his views known, on behalf of Ngāti Te Ata—their interests in relation to entity A, I understand, have been provided for and included within Waikato-Tainui’s view as well.

Simon Watts: Does she agree with Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon, who said, of three waters reforms, “The process and the resulting bill are dismissive of the concerns and alternative suggestions of local government.”, and how can she stand by her consultation with communities on three waters when so many say they aren’t being listened to?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Mayor Dan Brown has reflected his view through the small number of councils, Communities 4 Local Democracy. They’ve received correspondence which I am happy to table in relation to the range of concerns that they have raised. They have also received correspondence, which I am happy to table, in relation to the areas which we do agree on in the reform process. Point of order. I seek leave to table the responses to Communities 4 Local Democracy on the range of issues that they’ve brought to my attention so that it is clearly set out in this House.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Question No. 11—Children

11. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in the Government’s ability to protect and support vulnerable children, and what lessons, if any, have been learnt from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care to date?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): In response to the first part, it’s improving. In response to the second part, we’re on the right track.

Karen Chhour: Why, after a four-year-old boy was critically injured by his father and stepmother, did Oranga Tamariki return him to his abusers six months later, where he was then almost beaten to death?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a terrible case, and no child deserves that. That’s why I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: so that we could set in place the changes. The future direction plan that we have in place—the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan that we have in place—is there to address these very issues.

Karen Chhour: How are vulnerable children supposed to have faith in an organisation which returns them to their known abusers?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a very good question, and that’s the very reason I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: because we have to turn those very issues around.

Karen Chhour: How many children have been killed or hospitalised by abusers since he took over as Minister for Children?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think in the last three years, and that might go back to before I was the Minister—so last year, I think, there was one; the year before that, there was two; and the year before that, there was one. No death is acceptable, it is a tragedy, and that is what we are trying to turn around and change.

Jan Logie: What is the Minister’s response to the social services provider who recently told me that every single day, they’re supporting whānau who have had their children removed or have been told that they may have been removed because of poverty or a lack of housing?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The first thing I’d say is, thank you for the work that they do. In terms of the providers—we’re working to make sure that communities have the resources and the ability to make the decisions around the needs of their communities. I ask them to get on board with this work because that is the way forward.

Karen Chhour: Can the Minister clarify the number just given—is that known to Oranga Tamariki or all across the board?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not sure—

SPEAKER: In as far as the Minister is responsible.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not sure. Sorry, can I just ask her to clarify the question. Is she talking about all children in New Zealand or children in Oranga Tamariki’s care?

SPEAKER: I’ll let the member answer that question.

Karen Chhour: Yeah, it was all children that have been hospitalised or killed.

SPEAKER: Again, in so far as the Minister has responsibility.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So my response was the advice I’ve given about children in the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Question No. 12—Disarmament and Arms Control

12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What outcomes does he want to be achieved when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concluded this week?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): I recently returned from the review conference in New York of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Our diplomats there are working hard right now for a successful outcome. As the Prime Minister said in her Guardian op-ed today: right now, nuclear catastrophe is not an abstract threat; it’s a real-world risk. That’s why New Zealand calls on the nuclear-weapon States—the US, China, Russia, France, and the UK—to commit to new disarmament and arms control negotiations. That’s the measure of success.

Ibrahim Omer: Why is the NPT such an important part of the international nuclear disarmament framework?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The NPT has been the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts worldwide since it came into effect in the middle of the Cold War 52 years ago. Despite recent failures by the nuclear-weapon States to meet their disarmament obligations under the treaty, over the long run it has been successful in reducing nuclear arsenals and limiting the number of States acquiring nuclear weapons.

Ibrahim Omer: What is the current state of nuclear disarmament efforts worldwide?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: With nuclear arsenals being upgraded and expanded, the prospect of a nuclear test in North Korea, and President Putin’s nuclear threats since his invasion of Ukraine, there are alarming signs that the world’s becoming more dangerous. It was, however, reassuring to see President Biden’s remarks on the first day of the review conference that the US was ready to negotiate a new arms control agreement with Russia, and also to negotiate with China.

Ibrahim Omer: How is New Zealand able to have an impact in global disarmament efforts?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: New Zealand diplomats, politicians, academics, and civil society figures have, for decades, across successive Governments, been principled and constructive players in international disarmament efforts, reflecting the pride that Kiwis have about our nuclear-free status. I want to take this opportunity to thank both the Hon Jenny Salesa and the Hon Todd McClay, who accompanied me in the official delegation in New York, which demonstrates the strong support across this Parliament for disarmament work.

Ibrahim Omer: What recent reports has he seen on the humanitarian consequence of nuclear war?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: New research by Rutgers University found that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would see more than 5 million people die of hunger, due to the devastating atmospheric impacts of such a conflict. That’s why it’s critical to maintain the focus on the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear catastrophe, as New Zealand does.

Simon Court: Does the Minister believe that his efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place, based on his ability to deliver the KiwiBuild programme?

SPEAKER: Order! That question is out of order.

Bills

Electricity Industry Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I present a legislative statement on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Can I ask all members leaving the Chamber to do so quietly and quickly. Thank you.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will implement a number of the recommendations from the 2019 Electricity Price Review. It will support the Government’s efforts to adopt the right regulatory and market settings for an electricity system that supports a low-carbon economy. The bill will promote competition and innovation in emerging distributed-energy markets, for example, by allowing the Electricity Authority to amend, extend, or revoke arm’s length requirements between distributers and affiliated businesses. It will reduce industry costs through enabling the Electricity Authority to regulate more standardised distribution access agreements and will protect the interests of small consumers through providing clearer powers for the Electricity Authority to regulate how retailers deal with medically dependent and vulnerable consumers such as for non-payment of their electricity bill.

The bill has four main purposes, which are to provide for the establishment of a small electricity consumer advocacy agency and enable the levy on industry participants to recover the Government’s costs relating to small electricity consumer advocacy, to remove ambiguity in relation to the ability of the Electricity Authority to amend the Electricity Industry Participation Code 2010—or the code—for the purpose of protecting household and small-business consumers, to provide more regulatory agility to promote competition in evolving contestable markets by shifting from the Act to the code a number of existing provisions relating to a distributor’s involvement in generation or retailing activities, and to ensure that the code can regulate distribution access terms and conditions, as it already does in relation to Transpower.

We’ve had robust scrutiny of this bill through the select committee, second reading, and during the committee of the whole House just yesterday. A number of clear focus points emerged in these debates, such as the small electricity consumer advocacy agency and the backstop power given to the Minister of Energy and Resources.

I will address the points raised in previous debates on these issues to help ease members’ concerns, but first I want to speak to the two amendments made to the bill yesterday through the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Government. The two amendments were to include a transition period for the Electricity Authority’s additional objective and to allow for remote attendance at annual meetings of beneficiaries of energy trusts.

Clause 9 of the bill inserts an additional objective for the Electricity Authority of protecting the interests of domestic consumers and small-business consumers in relation to the supply of electricity to those consumers. In order to allow sufficient time for the Electricity Authority to make the appropriate preparations for this change, including ensuring consistency between its current and new objectives, a four-month transition period has been added to the bill. Clause 9 is the only clause that is proposed to have a delayed commencement, with the remainder of the bill coming into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.

The other amendment addresses a lack of clarity in the existing legislation about whether annual meetings of beneficiaries of consumer trusts with shareholdings in distribution companies are allowed to be held virtually. This amendment inserts a new clause 32A, which amends section 102 of the Act, which sets out the procedures for annual meetings to appoint an auditor.

One of the focus points of previous debate on this bill has been the role of the small electricity consumer agency and the funding for this agency. The Electricity Price Review found that household and small-business electricity consumers struggle to make their voices heard and to exert influence over decisions affecting them in the electricity sector. Large industrial consumers, in contrast, have their own advocacy body, which provides evidence-based policy advocacy to regulators. This bill will help address this imbalance in bargaining power and representation in the decision-making process for households and for small businesses.

Another criticism that has been levelled against the small electricity consumer agency is that it will lead to increased consumer bills. The Electricity Price Review estimated that if the agency had a budget of $2 million, this would be a small increase of less than $2 per year on consumer electricity bills if the Government decided to recover the agency’s costs. The bill does contain a provision to enable either a portion of or all of the costs of the agency to be recoverable from the industry levy, but there is no plan at this time to amend the levy regulations to recover the agency’s costs incurred to date. Funding for small-consumer advocacy is being provided from Budget 2020. It’s not being funded through consumer bills.

Another focus point of debate on this bill has been the time-limited backstop power given to the Minister of Energy and Resources through this bill. The concern is that this power will give any Minister of Energy and Resources unrestricted ability to act as if they were the Electricity Authority. This is not the case. The bill grants the Minister power to amend the code for a small number of specified matters only if satisfactory progress has not been made on these matters. The specified matters were recommended by the Electricity Price Review as important matters requiring code amendment, and the Government agreed that they were priorities for the Electricity Authority to address. This power is time-limited and is actually being brought forward by one year to help lessen any regulatory uncertainty that may arise. I would also note that there is precedent for this approach as it reflects what was done with the establishment of the Electricity Authority under the National-led Government in 2010.

Finally, I wanted to highlight some of the other provisions included in this bill which will help ensure an effective regulatory framework for the electricity industry in view of rapidly evolving technologies and business models. Clause 9 of the bill gives the Electricity Authority the additional objective of protecting the interests of household and small-business consumers in their dealings with industry participants. Despite the reference to the benefit of consumers in the authority’s objective, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which the code may include provisions to protect the interests of small consumers in their dealings with industry participants. Protecting small consumers is intended to be a relevant consideration for a relatively small portion of the Electricity Authority’s work. It is expected to come into play only when the Electricity Authority is considering the conduct of retailers and other participants that deal directly with small consumers where there is an imbalance of power in those dealings that can result in adverse outcomes for small consumers.

This bill will help enable more flexible and responsive regulations to help promote competition. The Electricity Price Review recommended that the Electricity Authority should be able to develop rules in the code, a secondary legislative instrument that can respond if distributors use their monopoly position deliberately or inadvertently to deter competitors from entering markets or to disadvantage those already in the market. This will help ensure that consumers can benefit from new products and services that offer high quality, lower cost, and more choice enabled by these emerging technologies and services.

The bill will move some provisions from Part 3 of the Act into the code. It will give the authority jurisdiction to develop proportionate and targeted rules to address any competition-related problems arising from the involvement of distributors or Transpower in other contestable markets, if they emerge. It is more appropriate that these statutory provisions are in the code because the rapidly evolving electricity system requires more flexible and responsive regulation than would be the case if the rules remained in primary legislation.

In closing, this bill will ensure the electricity regulatory system is more future fit in light of significant changes occurring in the industry. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to speak on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill.

We just did the committee of the whole House stage yesterday, so I’m going to cover quite a bit of the ground that we did yesterday, because we actually asked a lot of questions of the Minister and we got very little in the way of answers. We got quite a lot of hot air and quite a bit of snarky comments, but nothing in the way of substantive answers to our questions, so we still don’t really understand why this bill has been brought in. Some of the things are OK, but, actually, we can’t support this bill. I mean, it is quite outside of what the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advised in some of the provisions, it’s outside good practice, and, most importantly, it won’t address the single issue that is the problem at the moment in the electricity sector, and that’s high electricity prices. It does nothing to address that problem at all.

I did note that the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who just took her seat, talked about the new Consumer Advocacy Council, and she said that it would be rebalancing bargaining power for small consumers against large industrials. Well, I’ve got some information that the Minister might be quite interested in: industrial electricity costs have increased from 2017 through to 2021 by 24.7 percent. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Energy and Resources that question, and I’m sure my colleagues here will remember that question. The Minister alluded to it being 0.1 of a percent—that’s what she said. It was completely wrong. That was really an example of how the questioning went yesterday and how we didn’t get any information, really, despite trying to lead the Minister with enough information so that she could actually answer the questions, but she didn’t. Of course, she blustered on about something else.

Penny Simmonds: She doesn’t listen to anyone’s information.

STUART SMITH: Well, that’s right—absolutely.

So why is that—why have industrial prices increased so much more? The rebalancing that the Labour member just mentioned in her speech is totally unnecessary, and it seems strange that we’d have another entity set up by the Government to try and do what, actually, the Commerce Commission does anyway. So we’re going to have another entity checking on another entity to see whether they can help people to rebalance when, actually, it is the large industrials that are paying more than anyone else, and their costs have gone up, quite simply, because they operate on the spot market—for very good reasons.

They may have hedging mechanisms and so on, which we don’t need to go into in this debate, but the reality is the sector has a sword of Damocles sort of hanging over the sector, and that is actually Lake Onslow—the Onslow pumped hydro scheme that the Minister referred to yesterday. That is actually having a hugely negative impact on the ability for the industry to decide whether to build more generation or not, because they don’t know what the impact of Onslow will be, or this pumped hydro scheme—a mega - Muldoon-like Think Big project which I thought New Zealand had moved on from. Admittedly, Rob Muldoon was a National Prime Minister, but I don’t support those projects. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would support Government intervening in such a way.

As I said yesterday at the Wind Energy Conference, what gets built where is not a decision that should be made inside a Minister’s office. That is something that the industry itself should make. They are the people who are investing their capital. They know—

Penny Simmonds: The Minister’s stifling innovation.

STUART SMITH: Well, that’s right, and it’s actually a shame that we’ve got to this. But the Minister has completely gone right off track and thinks that she is the font of knowledge sitting in her office and knows what should be built where—she knows how to operate the electricity sector. She has, in fact, given herself some power to actually go over top of the Electricity Authority. In fact, in the regulatory impact statement, it said that the Minister’s power to made code will temporarily duplicate that of the authority and does not conform with the practice of independent Crown entities—the Minister’s ability to regulate over the top of the authority is inconsistent with the independent Crown entities. MBIE have said, “Don’t do it.” The Minister said, “Yes, please, I want that power.”

The Electricity Authority is an independent body that knows what it’s doing. It’s got a huge staff that—well, not a huge staff, but very well-qualified staff. They’re very clever people in there. They know what to do, and yet the Minister thinks she’s got a better idea of how to manage that. I think that’s just outrageous.

Penny Simmonds: She thinks she knows best. The Government knows best.

STUART SMITH: Yes—well, that’s what they believe, yeah. So having more bureaucrats isn’t actually going to help. Having the Minister coming in over the top isn’t going to help with electricity prices; in fact, it will create more uncertainty and less investment where it should be.

As I said yesterday, the Onslow project—and I just referred to this earlier—is like the sword of Damocles hanging over the industry. The problem is it’s going to take a long time to make a decision on this as well, and I’ve just looked up a couple of projects before I came down to the House. Switzerland has a pumped hydro scheme that they started building in 2008, and I’m sure that you’ll be shocked to learn that it’s only just opened now. Fourteen years it took to build—14 long years—and the cost overruns were enormous, and that is exactly what we’re facing here.

Penny Simmonds: But Switzerland is generally efficient, not like this Government.

STUART SMITH: Well, that’s right. The Swiss are generally pretty efficient. It would take a lot of pocket knives, I guess.

Snowy 2.0 in Australia—that’s a really interesting scheme and a similar sort of pumped hydro scheme to here in New Zealand. Well, that was the brainchild of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who announced the scheme in March of 2017. Now, that scheme was to be finished in 2021 at a cost of $2 billion with no taxpayer subsidy. They’ve come back looking for another $2 billion of taxpayer subsidy to help finish the scheme. The scheme will end up being $6 billion to build and then it’s $4 billion to upgrade the transmission system, so we’re talking $10 billion from $2 billion—five times the cost.

Everyone I’ve spoken to in the electricity sector—everyone who is an engineer, anyway; except for one person—has said that Onslow is not a good idea. It will have an unsettling effect while it’s still out there until a final decision has been made. We don’t know what it will do to the sector. It’s actually in the wrong place. It will take an upgrade of the high-voltage direct current line—the Cook Strait cable—and it will be at least another $1 billion on top of the $4 billion that they are projecting, but that’s actually not going to make it anyway. They all estimated it would be two to 2½ times more. So we’re talking probably $10 billion, plus the upgrade of the transmission. How is that going to help small electricity consumers? How is that going to help industrials?

Why am I concerned about industrials? Because we’ve got a cost of living crisis in New Zealand, with most of it down to Government policies. Yes, there’s some imported inflation, but mostly from their overreach in their expenditure, and industrial electricity prices lead to higher inflation, higher costs for families, higher costs for small businesses, higher electricity costs for everyone, and also higher consumer costs. This is a bad bill and we do not support it.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, can I just firstly start by acknowledging all of the officials and the submitters who have worked with us in the passage of this bill.

It is really disappointing for me to sit here and listen to the Opposition not grasping the concept of competition. This bill is a bill that will finally increase competition in the electricity market, making sure that things like vertical integration in our market—which our select committee has actually just received a petition on—brings about competition which actually lowers the price in our electricity market. This bill has not come at the whim of the Minister or the ministry, but since 2018, we have conducted the Electricity Price Review, and this bill is a product of that Electricity Price Review, knowing that in parts of our electricity market we need the Electricity Authority to have better control.

There’s one particular aspect that I find really, really important that we have to implement in this bill, which is to create space for emerging technology, and I note in the bill that it especially alludes to solar energy. We know that right now, as the world keeps changing and as wars are fought over energy, for new technologies like solar, where it’s low in carbon and where it democratises our electricity industry, it’s extremely important for New Zealand to go forward.

Making sure that big monopolies don’t actually take over the whole, entire emerging solar industry is so important, and this is what this bill would do. It is to make sure that small consumers will get the better deal, at the end of the day, to make sure that New Zealand has a proper and competitive energy market. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would start off by saying that the only monopoly that is actually taking over in this debate is the Government thinking that it knows best. That seems to be the line that this Government is continuing on, and I think people are waking up to that.

I mean, as soon as it became Government, it talked of declaring a climate emergency and they espoused a low-carbon economy, and yet what kind of result do we actually have? Since Labour took office, going back to even 2017, we have multimillion tonnes of bad and dirty coal being imported from Indonesia because we cannot generate our own. The whole thing is that they say, “Oh, it’s because we cannot control rain.” That is not the only reason; it is bad management. It is unbelievable, and it is actually decimating the gas exploration industry, killing off the Taranaki industry—I feel terribly sorry for the MP who is currently the sitting MP there.

So we absolutely oppose this bill. As my colleague Stuart Smith has carefully laid out, during the committee stage yesterday, we were rather appalled that the Minister could not answer a lot of the questions that we were posing, and often dismissed it by being sarcastic and even nasty in her commentary. I did actually give her some advice that perhaps she should be more collegial, and then perhaps the committee stage would actually work better and work properly, as it is supposed to, so that members asking questions will get answers—and that is the objective. But there were no answers forthcoming.

For example, one of the things the members have talked about was the establishment of the small electricity consumer agency. We asked what the purpose was, as we already have a very well-funded Commerce Commission who are in the business of acting for consumers. One of the things that I actually asked—I quote from my Hansard—and I quoted from the legislation where it says, in new section 22A(4) in clause 11, “In approving a person or persons under subsection (2), the Minister must be satisfied that the person has (or the persons collectively have) the ability to perform the function of the agency.”, and that’s a quote. That suggests that the Minister will appoint that person, and what is the criteria that that person must have? Does the Minister actually deem that that person or those persons are better qualified or better equipped than the Commerce Commission to act in this capacity in this new entity that the Minister wants to establish? The only thing that she said was that the Commerce Commission doesn’t do advocacy.

Stuart Smith: Yeah, that’s what she said.

MELISSA LEE: Mask! I’m translating it for you, Mr Speaker.

One of the things that she said was that it doesn’t do advocacy, so does that mean that this new entity is an advocacy group, effectively—like a union?

Penny Simmonds: It’s Government-mandated.

MELISSA LEE: A Government-mandated union, effectively. You know, I thought it was to protect the consumer so that we’re aiming to reduce the high electricity prices that consumers are paying, and this is just an organisation or group of people that’s going to be the mouthpiece for the Government. It’s typical of this Government to actually create new bureaucracy to do so.

The Government has been told by numerous agencies—and Stuart Smith, my colleague, has said that the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the leading Government officials who are actually advising on this, have, effectively, advised the Minister not to go ahead with this, and yet the Minister has decided to ignore that. That is often the case with this Government—the Government and the Minister seem to know best—and I was so frustrated that I even asked her if her PhD was in this field. I don’t think so, but if it was, then I would have said that, actually, maybe she knows best. But I don’t think her PhD is in this field. I would have thought that if one does not actually have the expertise in this field, one should take advice from officials whose job is to actually advise the Minister and who do, in fact, have the expertise, and yet the Minister would not actually take advice.

This is typical, as I said. This is the Government and the Minister—it’s an overreach. It’s actually a power-grab so that they can control the narrative and control—

Penny Simmonds: Another power-grab.

MELISSA LEE: Another power-grab, and the bit that I was completely skittled by was this particular bit in new section 44B, where “The Minister may amend the Code under this section as if the Minister were the Authority,”. I mean, I won’t read the rest of it, but, literally, the Minister can actually act like the authority and actually decide to change the code willy-nilly if she wanted. I thought there was a differential between Government entities, the Minister, and the advisers. I thought that was a role specific—

Penny Simmonds: There used to be.

MELISSA LEE: There used to be, but not any more, it seems. The Government and the Minister can actually take on the role, like the authority, and just change the regulation—just like that. This, to me, seems outrageous—that the Minister will actually take that power to do so.

When Stuart Smith talked about the ever-increasing prices that everyone is actually facing, one of the pieces of advice that the Minister would have got was that there are people in this country currently going through the cost of living crisis, and those vulnerable people—particularly pensioners, students, and people who are on a low income—will be in energy hardship. They’ll be making decisions, making a very, very difficult choice, whether to eat or provide power to their homes to heat up their homes.

This is a really, really sad indictment on this Government when they make it more expensive for consumers. It’s going to be tougher as we continue with this Government, who see fit to spend more money, with growing inflation and bad management.

I certainly do not support this bill. I think it is a terrible bill, and I do not commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise this afternoon as the MP for New Plymouth, which is a very popular spot, and before the last election, part of my campaign—and since being elected—has been around how do we, as Taranaki, continue to be the energy province for New Zealand. It really excites me because that is what we’re doing, but we’re looking at how to actually be the clean-energy province for all of Aotearoa and be world leaders, which is what we’re doing with initiatives such as Ara Ake and others that we’re doing to champion the causes of what a low-carbon future looks like.

This piece of legislation traversed many a topic. Obviously, one has been—and it has already been spoken about this afternoon—around strengthening the consumer voice. In fact, the Salvation Army submitted on this, and it talked about it from an energy hardship perspective that we wanted to do.

But also, coming back to my initial comments, it’s very much around addressing the need for more adaptive regulation to respond to new technology advances. I know that Colin Bell, who is a constituent from New Plymouth, submitted on it and spoke very strongly in favour of how we ensure that as technology changes, there aren’t just organisations or businesses who have the monopoly but there are opportunities to ensure that we have equitable and quality clean energy for our future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call for the Green Party on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. It’s a good bill, but it doesn’t go far enough. But just going back to the 2018-19 review—Mr Speaker, could I ask you to ask other members in front of me not to talk loudly and interrupt? Thank you, they’ve stopped.

So, going back to what I was saying, this bill does implement a really important recommendation from the 2018-19 review by Miriam Dean QC and others, and that was that there be a consumer advocacy council established, because there was strong evidence to the review that consumers don’t feel that they are heard—they feel unseen and unheard—and they don’t feel that the regulators are listening to them.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, there is substantial energy poverty, largely because of our poor housing stock and low incomes, and that whole area is one which the Green Party, with the Warm Up New Zealand policy, our ideas towards insulating homes and the massive Government effort that is happening there, is helping to address. But as well as the energy poverty issue, we’ve seen major increase in electricity prices. As the review report noted, that electricity is not priced as fairly as it could be in Aotearoa. Particularly in the residential sector, prices have increased by 48 percent since 2000, and that’s faster than almost anywhere else in the OECD, even though our prices were starting from a slightly lower base than some countries.

It is for this reason that we really need this consumer advocacy organisation that the bill is establishing, so that we get, for the first time—because it’s certainly something that the National Government didn’t do when they were in office—a strong champion for the small-business sector and for residential consumers. Our current electricity sector is dominated by the big players, who act, often, in their interests and with a profit motive and don’t give enough attention to the impact of their decisions on residential households and small businesses. So that’s something that we strongly support—this agency—for small businesses and household consumers.

We also really support—though the previous National speaker, Melissa Lee, didn’t—the ability of the Minister to amend the electricity industry code to ensure that changes are made in the interests of households and small businesses if the sector isn’t doing enough. The Minister is accountable to Parliament and to the public, so it’s entirely appropriate that the Minister should have that power, rather than what National wants, which is laissez-faire, hands off, not getting involved, and just letting households have to cope with increasing prices.

We want more flexibility—and the bill does provide it—around new technology, because one of the things that we’ve awfully slow to do in Aotearoa New Zealand is enable the opportunities for distributor generation and also to encourage more households to take up solar panels. There are huge new subdivisions around Ōtautahi Christchurch, with very few solar panels being installed on those homes, partly because, again, past Governments did not focus on changing the building standards to actually make that a whole lot easier.

So these changes in this bill which will provide more flexibility around new technologies are really welcome. We still think, though, there could be much more fundamental changes in the electricity market, forcing “gen-tailers” to sell a proportion of the electricity that they generate on the open market, rather than just trading it internally within their retail arms, and there could be more transparency too, forcing the “gen-tailers” to release information about those internal transfers.

The bill is welcome in terms of as far as it goes, but we do need as well a proper strategy to deliver what is best for our climate in terms of the way the energy sector operates and the way the electricity sector operates so that we have that really good transition to renewables. There are actions in the emissions reduction plan, but that strategic look is something that we need as well. That transition to renewables—the National Party speakers previously have highlighted the continued use of coal at Huntly. That is happening because under National, there wasn’t that transition put in place and there wasn’t the focus. So we need that strategy; we need that transition.

The bill is a good one. It makes welcome improvements, and it is based on quite a comprehensive review, which made a number of the recommendations which then went through into the legislation. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the problem this bill tries to solve, according to the legislative statement, is to provide an effective regulatory framework for the electricity industry to evolve in view of rapidly evolving technology and the business models around supplying electricity from generators to consumers.

The bill does provide the simplest systems to be codified for electricity generators and distributors to come to their own arrangements, and I’ll give you an example of the current situation. When I worked as an engineer on a landfill, we generated 30 megawatts of electricity collected from landfill gas run through containerised generators, which was available to sell to the grid. What we would have preferred to have done was come to an arrangement with our neighbours who ran businesses, who could have used that electricity, but the regulations at the time—and the regulations still make it difficult—meant that it wasn’t possible to create a direct connect 14 ion between the generation from the landfill gas and our neighbours.

So this bill provides a much easier pathway for that to happen for generators—people who produce electricity—to supply their neighbours. Look, that’s a laudable outcome, and yet there are other provisions in this bill which are so egregious that the ACT Party will not be able to support this bill.

We supported the bill at the first reading. We had concerns that we raised. We signalled our concerns about the creation of a small-consumer advocacy agency at the second reading and at committee stage, and our concern around that is that the agency simply becomes a mouthpiece for Government policy.

In fact, our fears were confirmed just last week, when the head of that agency, who does wonderful work in her community and who appears to have now become a mouthpiece for Government electricity and energy policy, claimed that an intervention by the Electricity Authority in a proposed arrangement between an electricity generator—Meridian; and their customer, Rio Tinto, was somehow a good thing for consumers, as if people who specialise in human rights know much about the electricity industry. Yet that’s what this Government has offered us: supposed consumer advocacy agencies, unfortunately, masquerading for the purpose of delivering Government policy.

So the Government claims that a small-consumer advocacy agency would strengthen the consumer voice, particularly households and small businesses. It says they “struggle to make their voices heard and [to engage with and] exert influence over decisions [made in] the electricity sector.”, yet the committee heard evidence that consumers do make their voices heard: 400,000 consumers changed electricity provider in the last year. There’s more than 40 retailers to choose from, and 400,000 Kiwis decided to change provider. So if that doesn’t allow consumers to make their voices heard, what will?

Well, actually, there’s something else to support consumers, and that’s the utilities disputes tribunal. That’s a free service funded by the electricity and gas companies, which means that customers can raise a concern and they can actually claim damages, and the disputes tribunal will award damages of up to $50,000 or even $100,000. So there’s plenty of opportunity for consumers and small businesses who have a dispute with their electricity company to either switch service providers or take it to the disputes tribunal. ACT thinks that’s a great thing and it should continue.

Of course there’s no justification for a customer to have influence as to what a company that invests tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars in infrastructure does; that customer has other rights, though. They have the right to be fairly treated and to exercise their rights in terms of the Fair Trading Act, and under the Consumer Guarantees Act and other Acts.

Now, when we asked questions of the Minister yesterday during committee stage, it became apparent from the Minister’s response to questions about the Electricity Industry Participation Code and the fact that this bill gives the Minister the right to intervene and rewrite sections of the code directly—not the Electricity Authority, which currently administers the code, but to step over the authority and directly intervene in the code that regulates the interactions between the electricity generators and their customers. We suspect that the Minister is seeking these powers in order to achieve other Government policy objectives, whether they be social—of course there’s a cost of living crisis. What Government wouldn’t want to see energy prices go down? I mean, they might lose the election if energy prices stay up and Kiwis are still doing it tough a year from now—of course they’d like to intervene.

We also know that the Minister would very much like to see her policy around 100 percent renewable electricity to somehow be delivered, although it looks not just increasingly unlikely but exorbitantly expensive. It’s likely to cost tens or even twenties or even hundreds of billions of dollars; in fact, no one can tell the Minister, and the Minister can’t tell New Zealand, how much that wild aspiration for 100 percent renewables is likely to cost. So, of course, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 100 percent renewable electricity—they can’t be achieved through any other policy means, and it’s unfortunate the Minister herself isn’t available to respond today, because she had a chance yesterday to make her case, and she wouldn’t.

What ACT believes is that Ministers should leave electricity generators and their customers alone, and leave them to come to their own arrangements about how electricity is generated and how they deal with their customers, some of whom use so much electricity, in fact, that entire regions, entire sectors—like Rio Tinto’s Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter, which supports thousands of jobs in Southland—depend on security of supply, and if a Government is going to intervene, they need to think very, very seriously about the consequences and not just be focused on next year’s elections or the next opinion poll. The last time a Government tried to take direct control of and direct and influence the energy sector in this way was in the 1980s, when a former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon, ignored the advice of Treasury, ignored the advice of his own Ministers—some of whom went on to become founders of the ACT Party because they knew about good economics—and insisted that direct Government investment and involvement in electricity generation was the way to go.

Now, there’s a fantastic book that came out recently by a gentleman called John Boshier, who wrote this book Power Surge that details all of the terrible things that can happen to Governments, to economies, to communities, and to business when Governments insist on intervening directly in the energy sector and in electricity generation. In fact, John Boshier writes that when a Government takes a policy position in the market, there is a high risk of malinvestment, a waste of taxpayer funds—whether it’s a bike bridge over Auckland Harbour that proved to be unfeasible, or direct intervention such as building new mega-dams such as Onslow, which is not too different from the Clyde Dam, which went billions over budget and took years longer. I would advise the Labour Government members to read John Boshier’s Power Surge. It’ll be back at the Parliamentary Library soon—when I’ve finished, you can get it out.

Now, those policies that this Government is pursuing in the electricity and energy sectors make people in the private sector very nervous about making their own investments. You only have to look at the Concept Consulting report into the green investment and decarbonisation initiative—the GIDI Fund—which makes the Minister of Energy and Resources, Megan Woods, dizzy with excitement every time she announces it. But what the Concept Consulting report found was that four out of five projects are a boondoggle: nearly $600 million of taxpayer funds wasted by this Government on projects that the private sector would have delivered for itself. But when this Government comes along with backups of taxpayer money to give away, you’d be a fool to turn them down. But I can promise this Government and, unfortunately, all of those organisations which have got used to drinking at the trough, that if ACT’s in power, that’s going to stop.

Now, ACT stands up for consumers and taxpayers, and we believe the best way to ensure affordable energy and security of supply is to retain the current objectives of the Electricity Authority. The statutory objective of the authority is to “promote competition in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of, the electricity industry for the … benefit of consumers.” It’s right there in the Electricity Authority’s objectives. That’s what this Government wants to change.

We’ve seen many examples where this Government has issued a dual mandate to regulators, such as the Reserve Bank. It’s turned out to be a disaster, and that has politicised the institutions that we depend on. If you want to have a healthy economy and if you want our communities to thrive, the last thing we need is this Labour Government intervening in markets, directing investment, and reaching over existing regulatory agencies to change things like codes of participation. That’s why ACT cannot support this bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to rise and say a few words in support of this bill, the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. Look, this is yet another way that this Government demonstrates that it’s looking out for people. One of the ways, one of the myriad of ways, that we do that, day in, day out, is something that hasn’t been mentioned so far in this debate, and it’s relevant to the New Zealanders that many of us will know and some of us will know well, and some of us will have as family members—as I do—where they’re people who depend on electricity in their homes for that critical medical support. As someone in that situation, I can tell you that the concept of the power not being on, or for something to go wrong in that direction, is something that people don’t need to needlessly think about, and this bill provides the authority with the clear power to make the code to prohibit retailers from disconnecting medically-dependent consumers for non-payment of electricity bills.

On the basis of that alone, I would commend that to the House, but, on top of that, at the heart of this it really is about strengthening consumer voice, as we’ve heard from several other colleagues—particularly households and small businesses who struggle to make their voice heard. Not to sort of gloss over the fact, but we have over half a million small businesses in New Zealand, and I think most of us would appreciate the fact that they don’t necessarily have time to make considerations about their electricity. It may be a small part of their outgoings, but they also don’t have any representation. It’s representation that they could do with, unlike the big players, who are represented by the Major Electricity Users Group and BusinessNZ Energy Council.

So, as with the two million residential consumers, we think that small to medium sized enterprises would absolutely benefit from an agency tasked with representing their interests. On those two points alone, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and speak on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill as the member of Parliament for North Shore and as member of Parliament, obviously, for the National Party. This piece of legislation is another example of a complete waste of time and of costs, bureaucracy, and regulation on hard-working Kiwis, and it is another piece of legislation that is a solution looking for a problem.

We had a chat yesterday—and, God, it was a bit of a painful process, I’ll be honest with you—at the committee stage. We were talking with the Minister and we were trying to actually work out, Minister, what is the problem you’re actually trying to fix with this legislation. It’s quite a simple question, I must say, and maybe I’m a simple man—maybe I was being a little bit too thoughtful.

But, I’ll tell you what, we just couldn’t quite get to the crux of what the problem is that we’re trying to look at here, because do you know what? One of the impacts of this legislation is this introduction of this consumer panel, which goes completely in contrast to the fact that the bill is meant to be ensuring we’ve got a competitive electricity sector. Well, as my good colleague Stuart Smith said, we’ve already got a hugely competitive electricity sector in New Zealand with 40 providers—a wide range—and I’ll tell you what: what did Consumer New Zealand say when they did a poll of Kiwis in terms of “How happy are you with your electricity providers?” Well, I’ll tell you what, 52 percent of Kiwis said they were very happy with the service from their provider. If you’re a lucky consumer—and I don’t want to get into the detail of who I use for my power, but I can tell you that Electric Kiwi was 70 percent satisfied; Flick, over 77 percent; or Powershop.

So let’s be clear: we’ve got competition. A lot of these big electricity providers have consumer panels, they have mechanisms to take complaints and feedback, but this Government, they don’t care about any of that—they don’t care. They just think, “Do you know what? Here’s another opportunity to put a bit more regulation into the system and a little bit more compliance.”, because what they don’t understand is that there is a cost to compliance, there is a cost to regulation, and guess who pays that cost! Well, I’ll give you a clue. I know it’s a Thursday afternoon and I know we’ve had a long week—gee, what a week it’s been. But I tell you what, the people that pay for all this regulation that that side of the House is ramming down people’s throats are the hard-working Kiwis out there across rural and provincial and urban New Zealand, who are doing it tough, with a squeezed middle, and they are the ones who are going to pay the price from this regulation.

I tell you what, as members may know, I’m reasonably good with numbers. I don’t often speak too highly of my skill set of being able to add one and one, but I’ve got my chartered accountancy and all that type of stuff. Now, we’ll leave it there, and we won’t—this is about the bill. But I asked a good question, and maybe I was being a little bit out of order when I asked this, but I said, “What’s the cost to fund this, Minister? What’s the cost of all this regulation and what’s going to be the impact on the power prices as a result of that?”, and do you know what the answer was?

Hon Judith Collins: No. What was it?

SIMON WATTS: There was no answer—there was no answer. There was no answer. Those guys on that side of the House are pumping through legislation like this and they haven’t even done their homework. They haven’t done their due diligence. They haven’t thought about the complications and the implications of legislation like this.

Not only do they not know what the problem is they’re trying to fix; they don’t know how much it’s going to cost. They don’t know what the implication is going to be on power prices for hard-working Kiwis, and what does that say for Kiwis out there that are looking for a little bit of hope from the Government in terms of leading them forward from where we are today to where they need to be?

Well, I can give you a bit of a clue that hope is on the way. Hope is on the way for Kiwis across this country, because next year a National-led Government is going to come in and start to unwind and rebuild this country and do what is required for this country to get us back on our feet—a prosperous and aspirational country looking forward to the future, and not putting silly, silly legislation like this through the system, which does no one any benefit. Lastly, I want to just thank the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for their advice to the Minister to say that they thought this was a silly idea as well, because even they know that this piece of legislation is not fit for purpose.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Dan Rosewarne—five minutes.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this short call on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. This bill implements a number of recommendations from the 2019 Electricity Price Review to improve the electricity regulatory system and ensure that it’s more future-fit in light of the significant changes occurring in the industry.

This bill aims to improve fairness in the electricity sector, and the thing I like most about this bill is that it protects the consumer. In New Zealand, we have some consumers that depend on electricity in their homes for critical medical support, such that a loss of electricity may result in the loss of life or serious harm. This bill provides the Electricity Authority with clear powers to make code to prohibit retailers from disconnecting medically dependent consumers for non-payment of their electricity bill, and it’s for that one main reason that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): There’s a time to regulate and there’s a time to leave the market alone, and it depends on what the product is. Clearly, the other side of the House see electricity as simply a consumer product that doesn’t relate to life and death situations and to wellbeing. But for people like Folole Muliaga, who died in 2007 when her power was cut off—she died two hours after her power was cut off, because she was dependent on the oxygen supply that, in turn, was dependent on the power. That is not a fair situation, and that is an example of why regulation is needed in this market.

Yes, there needs to be an efficient market and, yes, the market needs to be fair, but there are consumers whose voices haven’t been heard. There are consumers who feel the impact of pricing in a different way than other consumers do, and that all needs to be tempered by a regulated market that ensures that all New Zealanders have access to the electricity that they need for life support or for medical reasons but also to be able to have meals on the table, for children to be able to do homework, and so on. So getting that balance right is a difficult task. What this bill seeks to do is strengthen the regulatory system so that those balancing decisions can be made in a fairer way so that the voices of consumers can be heard.

We’ve heard about those who are dependent on electricity in their homes for critical medical support, but the bill also seeks to strengthen the situations that we’re seeing increasingly caused through climate change, where there are natural disasters and emergencies where electricity might be required to stay on, regardless of somebody’s ability to be able to pay the bill there and then. Alongside strengthening the consumer voice, it’s also about clarifying the current ambiguity regarding the authority’s regulatory powers, and also adapting to technologies, as we have heard.

One of the issues that has been raised is around the Minister’s ability to intervene should a good regulatory code not be forthcoming. That’s entirely appropriate. There is the carrot of the industry being able to come up with a code that is suitable and appropriate, and there is the stick of the Minister being able to determine in her wisdom that that is not serving consumers. So the industry has every reason to want to get that code right in order to avoid that type of intervention.

Finally, addressing what Simon Court said about the change of providers, I wouldn’t normally mention a provider, but I’m sure that it is relevant here to be able to tautoko to Nau Mai Rā, which is a social enterprise power provider that is the only kaupapa Māori provider in New Zealand. That was started by Ezra Hirawani, who actually looked at power poverty, which is what we have been discussing on this side of the House today, and saw an opportunity to be able to take the surplus from power bills and redirect that into hardship grants for those who cannot afford electricity. So I imagine that Nau Mai Rā is one of the many providers that Kiwis will be changing to as they do make these choices around providing.

But, again, many people change providers because they are actually solicited to do so by the power companies. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have the consumer voice that can feed into resolving the more complex issues about what pricing should be and how the sector should be running itself. So, for those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is an interesting debate. I’ve heard the member Ingrid Leary, who’s just resumed her seat, who has talked a lot about electricity poverty and she’s talked about how people should be able to change their supplier. Well, they can. I mean—news break—they’ve been doing this for quite some time. In fact, I recall that it’s probably been for well over a decade that that’s been very easy for people to be able to do.

So, looking at this whole new regulatory authority that’s being set up—more regulation, more authorities—we already have the Electricity Authority, and I thought I’d just go and refresh my memory about the Electricity Authority. What do they say they do on their website? They say—and this is a direct quote—“[We] promote competition in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of, the electricity industry for the long-term benefit of consumers.” So they’ve already got the job. They have 65 full-time employees and, having been their Minister, my view is that they were a very well - operating and functioning organisation and authority. So why do they need to have yet another authority to do what is actually their purpose of looking to the long-term benefit of consumers? It’s exactly what the authority already does. Instead of having some supposedly low-cost solution with, no doubt, low-paid people doing this job, which the Government seems to be considering, we’ve got these well-qualified, well-paid people—65 full-time employees—who are already in the Electricity Authority.

Then we take the many thousands of people working in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—MBIE—who have advised the Minister that “This is a really dumb idea. We don’t need to have it.” We all get power bills, and we look at them and think, “Oh, why didn’t we turn something off there?”, but there are also people who get power bills and they wonder how they’re supposed to pay them. Some of those people are in parts of the country where their power bills, or electricity bills, are more expensive than other parts, and a lot of that is around the cost of transmission, so one would think that there would be a commitment in this Government to encourage some generation in places where those transmission costs are more expensive.

I’m reminded of the Waitaha operation on the West Coast, which was trying to get to have an electricity supply, basically, under a waterfall with very little ecological impact—and, as I recall, even the Department of Conservation (DOC) was supportive of it—to provide electricity for 5,000 families or residences. This was in the West Coast of the South Island, a part of the country which does not actually have electricity independence and, as we know, is subject to all sorts of issues around earthquakes and weather events. So it makes sense to have something there for the West Coast, yet this Government, which is suddenly worrying about consumers—at extra cost and yet another authority, and at extra cost to those consumers—wouldn’t actually approve that. If DOC thought it was a good idea, out of all the agencies that we would think of, surely this Government would have thought it was a good idea too, but apparently not.

Then I cast my mind to another authority that already exists, and that is, in fact, the Commerce Commission. They are made up of eight branches already. These are competition, credit, fair trading, infrastructure regulation, legal services, market regulation, organisation performance, and strategy, governance, and engagement. That’s what they’re doing, and they are governed by a board of commissioners.

Now, the Electricity Authority has 65 full-time employees, and one might think that, well, perhaps they need a few more to do this role that the Government thinks it should be doing, which they’re already paid to do, and that is actually in their purpose statement. But let’s look at the Commerce Commission. Maybe they could help out, and how many staff do they have?

Stuart Smith: A hundred?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, Stuart Smith, my colleague, says a hundred, and I’m telling him and the House they have 400—400—staff across their head office in Wellington and their office in Auckland. So, surely, they’ve got some capacity to do something if that’s needed. There is nothing from this Government, despite the hand-wringing and the talking about a very sad instance that happened under the last Labour Government of Helen Clark in 2007, to actually justify this new imposition of further regulation.

I heard the Minister yesterday, in a very sarcastic performance from her, which I thought went down like a lead balloon in Parliament—very sarcastic and lacking the basic understanding of her portfolio. It was really, really the sort of thing that one would expect from a Minister in charge of KiwiBuild. What she said was that, effectively, it’s only another $2, or something, a year for each household or each bill-payer. She talked a lot about industrial users of electricity, and, essentially, said that they should all pay more. That was, essentially, what we got from it—that that was what she was saying.

They already pay more—they pay more than anyone else. So what she’s saying is that we’ll just stick up the cost of living a bit more and make them pay more too so that we can afford to have yet another authority to say, “Gosh, electricity is quite expensive.” Well, renewable electricity is quite expensive, but we are very committed to a high rate of renewable electricity use. The reason is because it is better for the planet and better for our country, and, by the way, we already have a lot of the infrastructure in place.

But the problem is that most of that infrastructure is down the very bottom of the South Island, and we then lose a lot in the transmission to the North, and even to the West Coast of the South Island. So, clearly, it is actually quite an expensive form of electricity generation, although nobody in New Zealand now would want to go around talking about “Ban the dams!” and all the sorts of campaigns that the Values Party, as I recall, were running back in the days when these big hydro dams were being built. Yes, of course it sort of beggared the country, but another thing we’re seeing right now is big government thinking that Onslow, a big dam, or was it pumped hydro, is going to suddenly make a difference, and where have they put it—where do they want to put it? Well, they haven’t put it anywhere, of course, because the good thing with these things—

Stuart Smith: Near Auckland, where there the demand is.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Does Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, think it might be near Auckland, where the demand is? Oh, no, no—definitely not. That would be down the bottom of the South Island again, Mr Smith, and the reason for that is that, clearly, we can afford to lose more electricity being transmitted up north, because the transmission itself loses a percentage of the electricity, up to 10 to 20 percent—depending on what’s going on.

We’ve talked about the cost of a new Cook Strait cable, and when I was the Minister, I asked about that. We’ve heard some different estimates on that cost. We’ve heard it was from $1 billion. I was told back in 2016 that it would be more like $3 billion to $4 billion, and, actually, there was obviously an idea that there might be a Labour Government that would have to sign that off.

The fact is that we need electricity generation and we need more of it in the places where it is needed, and not necessarily down the bottom of the South Island. At the same time, that Onslow project is actually stopping other people who want to be able to produce electricity from actually going through with their plants, and the reason is because they know that the Government is committing taxpayers and—for generations—those paying for it to this enormous, big project, which, thankfully, will never get done because it will not be happening under the National-led Government after the next election. It will not be and, by the way—this is one of those little things we can get rid of—I’ll be going through looking to see what is unnecessary and what needs to go. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I have the privilege of being the last speaker on this bill, and so I wanted to speak about it, rather than other things. One of the things I wanted to come back to, because this is a debate, is this issue who this is for. This bill is for consumers. It’s for the middle—the squeezed middle is often the reference made. These are the people who need a break on their electricity bills. The bills have been too high for them and their voice has not been heard, so this bill helps that.

Miriam Dean is the QC who did the original review, and she recommended changes which meant that there would be a standardisation of terms. That was to increase competition, and this bill will do that.

In addition, there will be an advocacy body which will actually look after interests of those small consumers—an objective of the authority, which does the same. That’s a really important thing if we’re going to really address the cost of living for people, because energy is one of the great costs, and it’s the one that my neighbours cross the street to talk to me about. They want to see lower energy prices for the middle-income and lower-income people of this country, and I’m proud to say that this bill will do that. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): I present a legislative statement on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.

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

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I move, That the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

I want to thank the chair and members of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen and all the parties involved in that. I acknowledge that this bill received cross-party support at the select committee, and I want to thank the parties for their constructive participation in the consideration of this bill. I also want to table my acknowledgment of the submitters who took the time to express their view on this bill.

This bill enhances public confidence in our judicial system by changing responsibility for determining the remuneration of some of our judicial and quasi-judicial officers. Judicial independence is a core pillar of any democracy, and an independent judiciary protects people from the arbitrary use of power by the State. Security of remuneration is one of the measures that enable judicial officers to discharge their duties free from undue influence from the executive.

There are currently two mechanisms in New Zealand for determining the remuneration of judicial and statutory officers. One is the Cabinet fees framework administered by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission. The framework classifies judicial and statutory officers into categories and prescribes a range of fees for each category. The responsible Minister makes the final decision on the fee to be paid to each type of officer within that fee’s range. The other mechanism is the Remuneration Authority, an independent statutory body that determines remuneration for judicial and statutory officers, such as judges and ombudsmen, that need to be and to be seen to be free from external interference in their decision making. The Remuneration Authority Act requires the authority to take into account a range of factors when determining remuneration. These include the requirements of the position, the conditions of service, and a range of other things—and the committee of the whole House will be able to delve into—and, lastly, fairness to the person whose remuneration is being set, and to the taxpayer. These factors are very similar to the assessment criteria set out in the Cabinet fees framework for the determination of remuneration for each category of officers.

The key difference between the two remuneration-setting mechanisms is the degree of independence from the executive and their decision making. Ministers make the remuneration decisions under the framework, and the Remuneration Authority Act requires the Government to implement the remuneration determinations of the authority for officers specified in that Act.

I understand and endorse the principles that underpin the Cabinet fees framework. It ensures consistency of fees-setting across a broad range of judicial and statutory officers, as well as other bodies in which the Crown has an interest. Some of the judicial and statutory officers administered by the Ministry of Justice will continue to have their remuneration determined under the framework. I consider these officers require a lesser degree of independence from Government than the officers that this bill is transferring to the Remuneration Authority. I consider judicial and quasi-judicial officers who make decisions in courts, and in directly comparable bodies, need to be, and to be seen to be, independent from any potential for interference in their decision making by the executive. Similarly, officers who hear appeals against decisions of Government Ministers need a greater degree of independence from the executive to ensure that they are, and are seen to be, independent of the Government and unable to be influenced through their remuneration to favour the Government.

This bill amends the Remuneration Act and six other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration of six groups of judicial and quasi-judicial officers, administered by the Ministry of Justice, from the Cabinet fees framework to the Remuneration Authority. These officers are disputes tribunal referees, tenancy tribunal adjudicators, community magistrates of the District Court, commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court, the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and, lastly, the deputy chairpersons and members of the Immigration and Protection tribunal. This transfer will enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of these courts and tribunals.

The disputes tribunal and the tenancy tribunal hear cases that would otherwise come before the District Court. They have had significant increases in their monetary threshold and the legal complexity of their cases over the past couple of years. This warrants a greater degree of independence from the executive. Disputes tribunal referees hear property disputes of up to $30,000. The disputes tribunal is a division of the District Court and hears most of the substantive cases in this court’s civil jurisdiction. Tenancy tribunal adjudicators hear disputes between landlords, including Kāinga Ora, and tenants of residential properties of up to $100,000, and disputes relating to unit title developments, such as apartment buildings, of up to $50,000. The tribunal enforces the healthy homes standards and can impose pecuniary penalties of up to $50,000 on non-compliant landlords.

Community magistrates hear lower-level criminal matters in the District Court that would also otherwise come before a District Court judge. Environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners sit in the Environment Court, either with an Environment Court judge or alone, to hear appeals about the contents of regional and district plans, and appeals rising out of applications for resource consent. The Human Rights Review Tribunal hears claims relating to breaches of the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. It has the authority to declare an Act of Parliament inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Immigration and Protection Tribunal hears appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration and Immigration New Zealand relating to residency, deportation, and refugee or protected person status.

To implement these transfers, the bill creates new, permanent legislative authorities in the legislation governing these officers. These authorities will enable the Remuneration Authority determinations to be implemented without a specific appropriation from Parliament.

In conclusion, I consider the transfer of responsibility for determining the remuneration of these six groups of judicial and quasi-judicial officers from the Cabinet fees framework to the Remuneration Authority is necessary to reinforce their independence from Government and to maintain public confidence in our courts and tribunals. Again, I thank the chair and members of the Justice Committee and the submitters. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister has ended by thanking the Justice Committee and I’ll pick up where he’s left off; adding my thanks to that august body. It’s known as the second-best select committee in Parliament, like every select committee other than the Regulations Review Committee, of course! But the Minister is right to acknowledge that, and I do acknowledge that he has also pointed out that there was bipartisan support for the bill at select committee, as, indeed, there had been at first reading, and from National’s perspective, nothing has changed in that regard.

We’ve heard about some of the particular changes that are being made. We’ve heard about some of the reasons behind them. Those are the reasons that we share, essentially, so I’ll just touch on a couple of those as we go through and just add a couple of other comments about how we see this fitting into the broader context of our court system and its relationship to Government, and so on.

I mean, it’s worth noting, I suppose, at the risk of sounding churlish, it’s a relatively minor matter and it’s not going to change the world in any great way, in any major way, but as far as it goes, it’s a worthwhile exercise for the Government to conduct, and, as I said, we support it for various reasons.

To separate the branches of Government, the executive branch, which is of course, roughly speaking, the Cabinet, and I’m just gesturing vaguely in that direction, and I’ll return to the role of Cabinet in setting fees and salaries in a moment.

But it’s appropriate to separate that from, of course, the judicial branch of Government, which we often think of as “the Courts” with a capital C. Of course, there are court-like bodies—or judicial-type bodies staffed by judicial-type officers who perform a similar role and for similar reasons should be kept separate from the executive branch of Government. One is just that theoretical separation—which every law student knows from 101 onwards—but also in a practical sense because, as the Minister has referred to, we don’t want a scenario whereby Government Ministers could use their ability to reduce the salaries of judges or judicial officers in retaliation or by way of threat and the chilling effect for decisions that are made reviewing Government decisions. So it’s appropriate for both those reasons, in terms of the branches’ relationship—sort of theoretical but also practical reasons that this move be made.

There are a number of different groups of officers that are affected and, again, the Minister has mentioned those. I won’t spell them out in detail, but I think it’s worth noting, as the legislative statement has done, that they actually have three different categories, I think it’s probably fair to say.

The first of those is the group of community magistrates, disputes tribunal referees, and environmental and deputy environment commissioners. Those are judicial decision-makers, says the legislative statement. Judicial decision-makers is a bit of a tautology, of course, because a judge is one who makes decisions for a living. But the point is made that they should be remunerated in a way that’s independent of the Government. And for the reasons we’ve discussed, that seems appropriate.

In passing, I will note, at the risk of straying too far from the scope of this bill, that National has proposed previously that community magistrates be given more responsibility, more of a caseload in terms of the types of cases that they can hear; we think that would be appropriate, certainly as a way of reducing the backlog and processing time for court cases. Similarly, with the disputes tribunal, we think that its jurisdiction could be expanded to take some of the pressure off the rest of district court jurisdiction. That’s another story for another day, but it’s consistent at least with what the Government is looking to do here, in terms of treating them in the same way as District Court judges, for example, that additional responsibility should be given to them.

The next category—well, it’s a category of one, but—the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I suppose it’s a bit of a special case. The legislative statement notes that it’s appropriate for those deciding matters in front of the Human Rights Review Tribunal to be regarded in a way equivalent to judges because they, like our senior courts, have the ability to declare that rules are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

That’s been the subject of quite a lot of the discussion already, of course, this week within this House in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, which relates to those courts rather than this tribunal. But again, it all just fits together and I think it’s a matter of consistency, as the legislative statement points out, that those who are making decisions at that level and in that way should have the status of judges and the protections that go along with it.

The final category is where we say in relation to a couple of particular tribunals that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal also need to operate independently of Government. I think that this is sensible because these two bodies not only decide matters, as does any tribunal or court by definition, but these are quite political and often politicised areas of public policy. Immigration, of course, is hugely important to the way that a country operates, and a Tenancy Tribunal—often, you know, these matters are characterised in a way that’s quite political. So in making those decisions and setting precedents and interpreting the law, and to the extent that they’re filling in gaps, even making law, it’s appropriate for these tribunals to, again, enjoy that separate status, they’re independent, and that acknowledgment of their role in our constitutional set-up and its separateness, again, from the Government of the day.

The mechanism by which this is to be achieved, if it’s not to be the Government and it’s not to be the Cabinet fees framework that’s employed to make these determinations, we have a Remuneration Authority, which is also used for setting the salaries of members of Parliament, a subject dear to the heart of everyone in here who’s listening to it—probably not anyone outside here who’s listening to it, but I think it’s probably a reasonably small issue at this time of the week. Anyway, but, of course, MPs don’t set their own salaries for reasons of what would be otherwise a conflict of interest. So for slightly different reasons, it’s appropriate that the Remuneration Authority operates in that space, and they do a bit of other work as well but we need not go into that for now.

So there is the authority, but there are also what are called PLAs, which is not the People’s Liberation Army in this context, but the permanent legislative authority. That’s created as a mechanism or as a vehicle for making these payments. That will apply to all these bodies that are going to be determining funding, with the exception only of community magistrates, because, I have learnt from reading the legislative statement and I did not know before, it’s not required in relation to these magistrates because they’re already funded through a PLA, a permanent legislative authority, in the District Court Act 2016. So there we go; we’ve learnt something, haven’t we, all of us today, and we’re all much the better for it.

So the Cabinet fees framework: obviously “Cabinet” being synonymous with Government, and in these troubled MMP times—I say “troubled” because we’re not currently the Government, but, you know, in these MMP days, Cabinet isn’t exactly a synonym for Government but, roughly speaking, it’s controlled by the Government of the day. So whereas that has been used, but now more appropriately determined to be in the remit of the Remuneration Authority, again we say that’s appropriate.

I don’t know if there’s much more that I need to say; I’ll just check my notes. Actually, one other point I did want to make, and I might not use all my time, unusually—[Interruption] But I think I’m being encouraged—I think I’m being encouraged.

Hon Member: No you’re not!

CHRIS PENK: I’m not.

Hon Member: We were listening!

CHRIS PENK: Oh, you are listening, thank you. Thank you very much. And now I don’t have anything to say—no, just kidding. I didn’t have anything to say nine minutes ago either; it didn’t stop me.

No, the other point I did want to make was one that the Minister sort of touched on in passing, and he said that the officers who have been named need to have, and be seen to have, independence from the executive in performing their function. I think that’s an echo of that notion that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. It’s that idea that we need transparency, we need confidence, we need open justice for the system to work overall; not only a lack of corruption, but an apparent lack of corruption. And it is, I suppose, again a similar distinction to perceived versus actual problems, for example, in relation to conflicts of interest. But that really is a bit further out. So I won’t dwell on that point any further, but I thought it was worth making, at least to that extent.

So, with that, on this side of the House, I emphasise that we do continue to support the bill for these reasons and look forward to its further passage through the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This is a bill that will enhance public confidence in our judicial system by making some very important changes relating to the responsibility to determine the pay of some of our statutory and judicial officers. It’s, essentially, about the separation of powers.

This is particularly important as these officers deal with cases that everyday New Zealanders are greatly affected by. They make decisions about the conditions of living, disputes between individuals, and also grievances against parties or even a business. So it’s very important and does affect the daily lives of people in New Zealand.

As a brief background on the bill, I’d like to touch on what the Remuneration Authority actually does. It’s independent from Government, and, therefore, it’s very important that the remuneration of judicial officers and statutory officers with those judicial responsibilities that they have are seen to have and to be independent from Government. That’s really at the heart of what this bill is changing.

The bill aligns with recommendations that were made by an independent review conducted by Mr Martin Jenkins back in 2018. The really important part of this review was that it concluded that the principal difference between the Remuneration Authority and the Cabinet fees framework was the degree of independence from the Government of remuneration decisions. So it’s important to have that distance in place. The review noted that community magistrates, disputes tribunal referees, environment commissioners, and deputy environment commissioners are judicial decision-makers, and their pay should be determined independently of the Government, by the Remuneration Authority.

It also looked at the Human Rights Review Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and thought that it was comparable to that of a judge because the tribunal has the power to declare legislation to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So this bill transfers the responsibility for determining the pay of the legally qualified members of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the chairperson, and also the deputy chairpersons, to the authority.

Finally, I would say that the Government has also concluded that the remuneration of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal also needs to be determined independently of Government, by the Remuneration Authority.

So, consequently, what this bill does is it amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and six other Acts to transfer that responsibility for determining the pay for following judicial officers from that Cabinet fees framework to the Remuneration Authority. Those are: the disputes tribunal referees, the community magistrates for the District Court, the chairperson and the deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the deputy chairpersons and the members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, the environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners, and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.

To quickly summarise what happened at select committee, although this is riveting stuff and I’m particularly fascinated with the separation of powers, evidently not so, because we only received four submissions at committee, and two of those were ruled out of scope because they didn’t directly relate to the bill. But the two submissions that we did receive were in support of the bill, which is good news. Subsequently, the bill was reported back unanimously without any changes, and the ministry did not recommend any subsequent changes to the departmental report.

So, in conclusion, this is a good bill. It helps the Government become, I think, more transparent; it’s clear when decisions are being made, and separating out those things from Government where they need to be done. I’m pleased to see this bill progress, and I commend it to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to filibuster on this bill, like the previous speaker did. It is a very simple piece of legislation allowing the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration of a number of people in the system—the Human Rights Review Tribunal, a few magistrates, and so forth, and that makes sense.

I look around the country and I see the rise in violent crime, I see the rise in gang membership, I see the ram raiders going on everywhere, I see the huge delays in the court system—and the Government’s making very little progress on that, very little legislative focus on that. But its focus is on this bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. I suppose they need to have something at the end of three years to point to in terms of their justice area. What have they done? It looks as though when we pass this bill, they will have done that, and that is, I suppose, small mercies for this country.

I don’t see any point in dwelling on it any further. It makes sense, let’s do it, but please—please, I say to the other side—let’s make some more progress on the things that really matter in the justice space, to keep New Zealanders safe, to keep them safe from the rise in violent crime, the increase in gang membership, the ram raids that are going unchecked in our cities, and also the huge delays in the court process. And while we’re at it on justice, we could also focus on equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, which has been lost over the last little while in Canterbury, and we need to restore that to this country. But I’m getting a little off the topic, Madam Speaker, so I won’t go any further in that direction, other than to say that the National Party supports this bill. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very tempted to go down the garden path as well, like my colleague Mr Goldsmith, and respond in terms of what this Government is doing, actively doing, purposefully doing to address community safety. But, Madam Speaker, I won’t; I will speak to the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —this afternoon. I won’t speak to much of the detail, which has been traversed by the Minister and by colleagues across the House, but I will speak just to what I believe to be the core of the bill and its purpose.

There was a former US Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, who drew on an analogy to describe the importance of the independence of the judiciary. She talked about the importance of having an “impartial referee at a basketball game”, which is an easy concept to grasp: it keeps the game controlled, it ensures an objective eye in controversial decision-making, and allows the fans to feel the outcome is fair. So the analogy is, of course, to the limbs of our democracy. Courts and judges often perform that referee role. Often, it’s Government and Parliament who set the rules, but sometimes Government is one of those players; it’s at those times, in particular, when independence is really critically quite important.

The Supreme Court Justice who I referred to didn’t just recognise the importance; she also recognised that “Judicial independence doesn’t happen [all] by itself.” In fact, she said, “It’s hard to create, and it’s easier than most people imagine to damage or destroy it.” So that’s really why it’s important for us to periodically consider whether the architecture we have in place that protects that independence is still appropriate or whether the threshold, the radius which that independence covers at the moment, needs to be shifted. That’s essentially what’s happening here, with the six categories of decision makers moving from the Cabinet fees framework to the remuneration authority.

My colleague across the way Chris Penk made the comment that this is not a bill that will change the world, necessarily, but I suspect that perhaps—we both agree that it’s got a bit of a constitutional flavour about it, and it’s always a pleasure to speak to bills with a constitutional flavour like this, which are significant in terms of protecting our democracy. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party supports the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and I’ll be taking a very short call.

Mr Goldsmith should not be so cynical. The judiciary is independent because we act constitutionally to protect that independence. This is a small bill, but it does protect the independence, because the Cabinet fees framework is controlled by the Government and that fees framework does classify judicial and statutory officers into broad categories. And then it allows the Minister responsible for those statutory officers, or the decision of the whole of the Cabinet, to set the fees for the category of work that they do depending on the nature of that work, the expertise that’s required, and the extent of the decision-making powers.

So this bill, with those six categories of officers, including Environment Court commissioners and deputy commissioners and referees of the disputes tribunal, ensures that the fees are not set by Government but are set by the Remuneration Authority, which is independent of Government, and there is a permanent legislative authority which provides a permanent tranche of funding which Ministers don’t have any discretion over. It is a small but important mechanism in ensuring that the judiciary is independent of Government and ministerial decisions cannot influence the salaries which in a corrupt Government could be seen as Ministers or a Government wanting to reduce those salaries to impact on the work of the judiciary and the referees of the disputes tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators and others. So it is a good step forward and the Green Party supports it.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to once again support this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. It’s a straightforward bill that transfers the responsibility for determining the remuneration of some judicial and statutory officers away from the Cabinet fees framework and to the Remuneration Authority. The Cabinet fees framework was first introduced in 1997 and is administered by the Public Service Commission. The commission give guidance to agencies around setting fees that are not set by the Remuneration Authority or by the fees methodology managed by Treasury. The bodies that are covered by the Cabinet fees framework include Crown entities; some trust boards; advisory boards; royal commissions; public, Government, and ministerial inquiries; some statutory tribunals; and other statutory bodies not covered by the Remuneration Authority, and some subsidiary bodies.

What this bill seeks to do is to remove some of the judicial and statutory remuneration settings away from the Cabinet fees framework and into the realm of the Remuneration Authority. Those being transferred from the framework to the authority include referees of the disputes tribunals, community magistrates of the District Court, the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal, and the environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court. This bill will also create five permanent legislative authorities, which are needed to determine the remuneration of those affected by this change. This doesn’t mean that they get an immediate pay rise or a drop; in fact, their pay will remain the same in the immediate future, at least until the authority makes its first determination. The Remuneration Authority Act 1977 itself actually prevents a pay drop, citing that at the very least, any of the officers transferred to this new authority from the framework must retain their current level of remuneration.

We only received four submissions on the bill, as has been canvassed. Two supported the bill and two made recommendations that were outside the scope of the bill but did raise some pretty good points. Mr Baker suggested that we should also be running courts at night, to clear the backlog of minor infringements. With the backlog we are experiencing in our courts, that does, on the face of it, actually sound like a great idea. But, sadly, it is outside the scope of this bill. But it does go to show, however, that people are putting their brains into gear, trying to figure out how to ensure access to justice is timely, utilising all the avenues that they can to get their points across that our justice system is breaking, if not already broken, in many of our towns and our centres. But this bill is about removing remuneration settings from Cabinet and to the authority, and, unfortunately, not about how we improve timely access to justice.

There is a constitutional principle that our courts are and should be independent of the executive so that we can ensure impartiality in our judicial systems. This principle also depends on institutional independence. Independence of the judiciary is a founding principle of democracy, and thus is of the utmost importance. Moving the responsibility for setting the pay of these judicial and statutory officers away from the executive is justified and, in our view, a positive move. And with that, we do support this bill through the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on what my colleagues have called a straightforward bill, to be able to make a short contribution about why it’s so important to have public confidence in our judicial system and our justice system as a whole, and how this bill improves that public confidence. Because it is the Government’s responsibility to determine a system and a framework for maintaining the independence between the executive and the judicial branch, and this bill will put in place those criteria which distinguish the group of officers being transferred to the Remuneration Authority from the Cabinet fees framework through this bill.

I also just want to touch on my colleague Vanushi Walters’ comments about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the American Supreme Court. It reminded me of how we should not take for granted in New Zealand the independence of the judiciary and all of the constitutional framework that goes with that, because there are democracies around the world with very different systems of appointing judicial officers and of determining the way and the conditions that they operate under. That is a very different judicial system to our own, and I think New Zealand’s system can be admired for the way that our justices practise completely independently. What this bill does is it continues that degree of arm’s length independence between the Government and these judicial officers. And so for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Joseph Mooney.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in regards to the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill at its second reading. This is an omnibus bill that amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and six other Acts, to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for a number of judicial officers from the Cabinet fees framework to the authority. Basically, the purpose of this is to ensure that the remuneration of those officers will remain the same until the authority makes its first determination. However, if the Remuneration Authority determines that any of the officers should be paid less than their current remuneration, the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 requires that the remuneration remains at its current level. These officers would be: the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the Disputes Tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

Maybe I should just touch, a little bit—briefly, I have had the pleasure of appearing before community magistrates of the District Court from fairly early in their tenure in the District Court. They were brought into place to take some of the workload away from the District Court judges, who, in a number of courts around the country, have got a huge workload and struggle to deal with simply the volume of work coming through. I remember, for example, in the Manukau District Court, the massive volume of work coming through, with a lot of excess breath alcohol charges and other lower-level offences that the community magistrates deal with on a daily basis. They deal with a lot of the work that the duty lawyers see when they’re coming through the courts and are able to deal with those lower-level offences, which are a very, very significant volume. I, obviously, saw it in the Auckland District Court, I’ve also seen it in the Tauranga District Court, and also it’s been brought in more recently to the Southland and Otago District Courts. They perform a really valuable service and it’s good to see that recognised, as well as the other authorities in this bill.

There is an important principle at play here: that this adds an additional layer of political neutrality to the remuneration of judicial officers, which these are. It’s an important principle of our democratic framework in New Zealand that we have this political neutrality in respect of the remuneration of judicial authority officers, who make decisions that are important in terms of their impact on people’s lives in this country and in that there is confidence that it’s not only seen to be the case but it is the case that these officers are independent. This is important for our constitutional framework. For example, here in the House, in which I’m speaking now, there are particular constitutional responsibilities that we have, but the judicial officers are independent of the members of Parliament and make decisions independent of Parliament. They are not connected to or influenced by the decisions of members of this House and the decisions that they make. So bringing this additional layer of political neutrality to the remuneration of those judicial officers, to ensure that they are seen to be independent and are independent of Parliament, is important and it’s a good step forward, one I am pleased to be able to support on behalf of the National Party.

At its core, this is a straightforward and useful change which will move the decision making from the executive to the Remuneration Authority. This is especially important given that Government decisions are often examined by the courts and also by these various bodies that these judicial officers perform their functions in. The remuneration system will certainly be less susceptible to any perception of ministerial influence, as it sits with the fair and independent Remuneration Authority, which performs an important constitutional role in our system. It also provides more consistency to the remuneration of officials, as the Remuneration Authority is already responsible for determining the fees of various officers, including judges, those who sit on the Supreme Court, coroner’s court, District Courts, and the High Court, amongst others. So I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, this debate is interrupted and is scheduled for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 August 2022.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.