Wednesday, 31 August 2022

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2022

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau ta‘imālie ‘i ho‘o ‘ofá. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu. Ke ke malu‘i ‘a e Kuiní, mo tataki mai mu‘a ‘emau ngāue ‘i Fale Aleá. Ke fai‘aki ‘a e poto faka-‘Otua – ‘a e ‘ofá mo e ‘ulungāanga malu, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo‘uí mo e nofo melino ‘a e fonuá. Pea ‘oku mau kole ‘a e ngaahi me‘á ni ‘i he Huafá ho‘o ‘Aló ka ko homau Fakamo‘uí. ‘Ēmeni.

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

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

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

SPEAKER: Members, a petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Donna Bridgeman, requesting that the House require Kāinga Ora to immediately purchase land and construct new permanent rental accommodation and emergency housing in Kāpiti.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: New Zealand Productivity Commission, Statement of Performance Expectations 2022/23.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s efforts to increase the supply of new homes. In the year ending July 2022, there were 50,614 new homes consented, up 12 percent from the year ended July 2021. Auckland has seen a 13 percent increase over the previous year, Canterbury 26 percent, and Wellington and Otago 20 percent. There’s been a particular rise in apartments and townhouses, highlighting the benefits of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and medium-density housing reforms. The effect we’re having is clear. Just last week, Kiwibank Chief Economist Jarrod Kerr stated, “The housing shortage has shrunk from 57,000 homes to 23,000 homes”, and that we will, “start … [to accumulate] a surplus of housing over the coming years”.

Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government introduce a bill yesterday to increase the tax on KiwiSaver when the Government’s own advice clearly stated that it would have wiped $103 billion off KiwiSaver balances?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Acknowledging that the member’s assertion in the first half of the question was incorrect, the proposal was around standardising the applications of GST fees and services for managed funds providers. The goal of those changes, which were instigated through a review that began in 2017 under the last Government, was to even out the playing field. When we hear clearly from the sector that their view is that the status quo is preferred—we’ve heard that, because what is most important to us is confidence in KiwiSaver.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I seek leave to table the taxation (annual rates for 2022/23 platform economy and remedial matters) departmental disclosure statement, given the Prime Minister clearly hasn’t read it.

SPEAKER: Can I ask the member: is that publicly available?

Chris Bishop: Well, that’s actually an interesting question, because the bill has been introduced to the House, but I understand the—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s not—it’s either publicly available or it’s not.

Chris Bishop: It’s actually removed from the public domain, because the Government policy seems to be in disarray on this issue.

SPEAKER: That’s not the question I asked.

Chris Bishop: Well, I don’t know if it’s publicly available any more, sir.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Are you speaking to this? I haven’t ruled on this.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

SPEAKER: You can speak to this one.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Members well know that when a bill is tabled, the disclosure statements are tabled at the same time. Raising this issue in the way the member has is clearly designed to be deliberately disorderly.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I have to agree, but responding that way is equally disorderly as well. Can we call that one-all and move on?

Christopher Luxon: Did the legislation to increase tax on KiwiSaver fees go through the proper Cabinet process, and why was it introduced given a day later, the Government has signalled it will not be proceeding?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that it did go through a process. The member will also be aware, by the release of that documentation alongside it, that it went through a consultation process. In the regulatory impact statement, you can see that there were some, of course, who viewed that this would be an advantageous change. There are others who viewed it would not be. We have seen a fairly clear response to an attempt by us to even up the playing field on KiwiSaver. Our view is that if this does anything to undermine KiwiSaver, it is something that we will not support.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that dropping the KiwiSaver GST changes will reduce Government revenue by an estimated $225 million per year, and, if so, will her Government spend less or borrow more to make up the shortfall?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately the second half of that question is irrelevant because it was from 2026 onward. The other point that I would make is that there are a number of caveats around whether or not this would indeed increase to that level. That was not the driver of the change. Evening out the playing field for boutique providers versus large fund managers was the goal. But if we hear clearly back from fund providers that they do not believe it will improve the system, then we’ve heard that.

David Seymour: Why does the Prime Minister think that balancing the Budget will be irrelevant from 2026 onwards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because it is not the basis on which Budget decisions have been made.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does she take it as a vote of confidence in her Government that the leader of the ACT Party is confidently predicting that her Government will still be in office in 2026?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ah, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: That’s out of order.

Christopher Luxon: Is she embarrassed that just a day after introducing a bill to increase taxes on KiwiSaver, the Government has performed a humiliating U-turn and dropped it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I would be embarrassed about is leading a party who once called KiwiSaver a glorified Christmas club; who opposed its introduction; who, for instance, reduced the Government contribution; who have, over a period of time, stopped contributions to the Superannuation Fund, and did everything in their power to undermine KiwiSaver. That is hardly a credible position from a member whose party’s history has been opposed to KiwiSaver in its totality.

Christopher Luxon: Why did her Government introduce a bill to Parliament that would have wiped $103 billion off the value of hard-working Kiwis’ KiwiSaver balances?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also would have accepted that the member may have read a little further down in the regulatory impact statement that also says that stakeholders have also advised that for some managers, that would incur no material transition costs; others may incur significant transitional costs. Of course, if this was about ensuring an evening up of the playing field, in some cases GST was already being applied; in others it was not. Of course, making assumptions, therefore, of how much revenue it will generate would be heavily caveated, but nor was it the goal of this provision in the first place.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Prime Minister believe that the following actions would undermine confidence in KiwiSaver: cutting hundreds of millions of dollars a year from what was going in to KiwiSaver accounts, introducing a tax on employer contributions, halving the member tax credit—

Nicola Willis: Caught red-handed.

Hon Grant Robertson: —and ditching—

Hon Member: You win.

Hon Grant Robertson: —it’s in a question; I’ll start again, Mr Speaker—cutting hundreds of millions of dollars a year from what was going in to KiwiSaver accounts, introducing a tax on employer contributions, halving the member tax credit, and ditching the thousand-dollar kick-start payment, all of which were done by the National Party?

SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to rule on the at least three interjections during that question which were out of order. Yesterday, I warned Nicola Willis about the timing of interjections; there was nothing about the timing on that one. I think that was deliberate. Nicola Willis will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

David Seymour: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Now, further to that point of order, the end of the Hon Grant Robertson’s question was out of order, so I’m ruling it out.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on the content of the question. I mean, it appeared to be about five questions listing a series of different policies, and I just wonder if you view that as an acceptable question, because, if so, we’ll certainly take advantage of that.

SPEAKER: You are absolutely correct. There are two ways I can handle that issue: to interrupt the member while he’s doing it, remembering that we had three interjections during that question, probably provoked by the question itself; or, wait until the member has completed the question, as I did in this instance, to deal with both issues and try to get some fairness in dealing with it. But yeah, I do acknowledge I could have done it that way; I chose not to. In the end, we have the same result.

Christopher Luxon: How does she reconcile her decision to introduce a $225 million a year tax on KiwiSaver yesterday with her statement in May that “We are not doing any work on any additional tax policy”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I’ll point out that this work started under the National Government in 2017, and if they were so oppositional to it, I don’t quite understand why they didn’t stop it being instigated in the first place. The second point is even in the asking of the question you can see one of the issues here. This is on the application of GST service fees. The way the member has talked about this will lead people to believe that it is on individual contributions. That is not what it sought to do. Regardless of that, we were seeking to even up the playing field, because currently GST on services was already being applied to some funds and it was not for others. The sector has spoken and said that they do not believe it will enhance KiwiSaver arrangements, and so we will not proceed.

Christopher Luxon: What other secret taxes, if any, is the Government working on; and will she commit, again, to not introducing any more new taxes on hard-working Kiwis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member well knows the existence of GST is not new. The evening out in the way that it is applied is not a new tax. As I also said, this piece of work had been ongoing with IRD for several years. A final point here is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we consider KiwiSaver so important that we, unlike the other party—who not only have tinkered with it and destroyed it every time they have been in Government—we are here to protect it, preserve it, and grow it.

Christopher Luxon: Does she still have confidence in her revenue Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely.

Christopher Luxon: Will she now do a U-turn on the tenant tax that officials told her would increase rents and put pressure on the State house waiting list?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually believe in ensuring that first-home buyers can buy houses, and I refer back to the first answer that I gave in this House, and that is, under this Government, you’re starting to see a decrease in the gap for housing supply in this country. That is what New Zealanders wanted their Government to do, and that is what we’ve done.

Christopher Luxon: Does the Government have nothing better to do in the middle of a cost of living crisis than to cook up new ways to tax hard-working Kiwis, and to fleece them out of their retirement savings?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about what we’re doing on the cost of living crisis. On Thursday, the cost of living payment will go into Kiwis’ bank accounts, for everyone earning $70,000 or less, to the tune of $116 a week. We’ve already halved the cost of public transport. We’ve decreased fuel at the pump by 25c a litre. We have the winter energy payment continuing to support those on low incomes. And I tell you what we won’t do: we won’t, for instance, halve annual KiwiSaver Government contributions like that Government did. We don’t stop Super Fund contributions, which has reduced our savings for retirement by $32 billion. We will support Kiwis to save, and that’s what we’re demonstrating.

Shanan Halbert: E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Question to the Minister of Finance—

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I said I wouldn’t do this, but there’s a quiet member behind me who’s trying to have a supplementary—

SPEAKER: Sorry, were you wanting a supplementary on the previous question, was it?

Dr Gaurav Sharma: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement regarding the Henry Rongomau Bennett acute mental health centre in Waikato that it’s no longer fit for purpose and, if so, can she give an assurance to the people of Hamilton and greater Waikato that the new $100 million acute mental health unit, promised to have groundwork started in 2022 and due to open in 2023, is on track?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first half of the question: yes.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The export sector is continuing to support the economy. Statistics New Zealand reported that exports rose 16 percent, to $6.7 billion, in July compared to the same month a year earlier. On an annual basis, exports rose 12 percent, to $68.3 billion. The sector is continuing to show its resilience in what is a difficult and uncertain global environment. Global shipping costs are now starting to ease, although they do remain subject to disruptions. Nevertheless, New Zealand finds itself in a good position to face the challenges ahead and support New Zealanders to blunt the sharp edges of the global economic slowdown.

Shanan Halbert: Which sectors are contributing to the rise in exports and the growth of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The main contribution to the rise in exports did indeed come from the dairy sector, rising 39 percent, to $2 billion, in July on the back of higher prices for milk powder, butter, and cheese, while volumes also rose for milk powder and butter. Red meat sales also rose 24 percent, to $935 million, due to higher beef and sheep prices and higher sheep volumes.

Shanan Halbert: Which regions are buying our exports and supporting economic growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Demand among our major export partners has remained resilient despite the challenging global environment. Sales to Asia rose nearly 13 percent for the July year, led by China and Japan, while exports to the US rose 13 percent; Europe up 6.5 percent; and Australia, 2.6 percent.

Shanan Halbert: What reports has he seen on the prospects for the export sector and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the latest quarterly predictions, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is forecasting global demand for the country’s products and services to remain resilient despite the global challenges. The opening of borders will also support a faster recovery in the tourism and education sectors. In its forecast released this morning, ASB economists expect global food challenges and open borders to support our export earnings.

Shanan Halbert: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that the member for Taranaki - King Country will be interested to know that last week, Fonterra forecast a milk payout for the current season of between $8.50 and $10 per kilo of milksolids. The midpoint of $9.25 would represent one of the highest prices ever paid out in Fonterra’s history. The dairy cooperative said that the long-term outlook remains positive.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Minister stand by the Government’s economic and fiscal policy and all Cabinet decisions giving effect to that policy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I said to the member yesterday, our economic policy has led to strong outcomes such as a 3.3 percent unemployment rate, a larger economy than before COVID, inflation below that of many of the countries we compare ourselves against, and some of the lowest public debt in the world. In answer to the second part of the question, I always respect and uphold collective Cabinet responsibility. And as I’m sure the member will be aware, if she has specific questions about the details of specific policies, she should address those questions to the members responsible.

Nicola Willis: Did Cabinet agree to a Government policy to make all KiwiSaver management and investment fees subject to 15 percent GST, meaning KiwiSaver members would have less available when they withdrew funds to purchase a first home or for retirement; and does that remain Government policy?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister being asked the question is not responsible for that. Those are rightly the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. If that’s what the member wanted to know, she should have asked a question to the Minister of Revenue.

Nicola Willis: Responding to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Can you read the question again?

Nicola Willis: Certainly. I asked: did Cabinet agree to a Government policy to make all KiwiSaver management and investment fees subject to 15 percent GST, meaning KiwiSaver members would have less available when they withdrew funds to purchase a first home or at retirement; and does that remain Government policy?

SPEAKER: Is the Minister responsible for GST?

Nicola Willis: Absolutely.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you can speak to this one.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, the question asks whether or not Cabinet decided something. That is—

Nicola Willis: Ducking and diving.

SPEAKER: Oh, gosh. I’m ruling that question out of order. Part of it could go to the Minister of Revenue, part of it to the—probably—Prime Minister, who’s responsible for the Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order.

Chris Bishop: The primary question is a very broad one in relation to economic and fiscal policy. That is well within the remit of the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Finance is not responsible for economic and fiscal policy, it’s a little bit unclear exactly who is. And the question is well within those realms. A taxation policy is fiscal policy.

SPEAKER: No, I disagree. You’ve got a further supplementary?

Nicola Willis: Was the Minister of Finance present at the Cabinet meeting that agreed to introduce a new KiwiSaver tax; and if so, why did that Minister support a tax policy that would reduce New Zealanders’ retirement savings?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was—and this will be a massive revelation—present at a Cabinet meeting where decision was made on the taxation arrangements around managed funds, yes.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it correct that the reason the Minister agreed to the KiwiSaver tax is that he was excited by the prospect of $225 million in extra revenue, fleecing the pockets of New Zealanders to feed his Government’s addiction to spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Much of that question is both hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Nicola Willis: Was the Minister aware that the Financial Markets Authority advised the Government that the KiwiSaver tax would reduce KiwiSaver fund balances by $103 billion; and if so, why did the Minister of Finance agree to that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As already articulated, the questions the member is asking on the detail of the policy are best directed to the Minister of Revenue. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we take very seriously the responsibilities we have to support New Zealanders through their retirement. It’s the reason, for example, why we have made contributions to the super fund in contrast to the previous Government, who denied New Zealanders $32 billion by not contributing to the super fund.

Nicola Willis: If it is, in fact, the case that the Minister does wish to look after KiwiSaver, doesn’t he think it would be appropriate, as the Minister of Finance, that he stay across the detail of the new taxes that his revenue Minister keeps dreaming up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, I am very proud of a Government that has managed, over the course of the last few years, to ensure that we have an economy that is bigger than before COVID, that we have a level of debt that is lower than most other countries in the world, that has unemployment at 3.3 percent. The Minister of Revenue and other Ministers have all contributed to that positive record for New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to rebuild public housing in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is rebuilding New Zealand’s housing safety net with the biggest State housing building programme since the 1970s. We’re seeing the green shoots of progress, with the Government adding more than 10,000 net new public homes since 2017, including 8,240 of these being brand-new builds. To put this in perspective, of the 76,450 public homes in New Zealand today, over 13 percent, or 10,216, have been added in the last five years. This is a significant achievement when you consider the remaining homes have been amassed since the first State house was built in 1937.

Terisa Ngobi: What changes has the Government made that have enabled the rebuild of public housing in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There have been many changes made, from rebuilding capacity at Kāinga Ora through to increasing income-related rent subsidy funding by over 60 percent. But a significant change we have made is enabling the practice of reinvesting the income from Kāinga Ora into maintenance and building new homes. This stands in stark contrast to the $576 million in dividends that were extracted from, then, Housing New Zealand between 2008 and 2017.

Tangi Utikere: How many of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes are in Palmerston North?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has already added 108 net public houses in Palmerston North since 2017. Unfortunately, we’re yet to make up for the houses lost between 2008 and 2017, when there was a net loss of 115 public houses in Palmerston North. I’m happy to report there are currently over 300 new homes in the pipeline, due to be completed by June 2025; approximately half of these homes are already in construction or contracted and all of which have received resource consent.

Jo Luxton: How is Ashburton benefiting from the Government’s 10,000 new public houses?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m pleased to report that our Government has added 14 new public homes in Ashburton over the last five years, with 109 more houses to come by 2025, of which 15 are already under construction, contracted, and already have consents. This was an area where the previous Government did make some progress on: over nine years, they added two houses.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: How many of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes are in Gisborne?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have delivered 52 new public homes in Gisborne since 2017. Unfortunately, there was a net loss of 33 public homes in Gisborne between 2008 and 2017; we’re working hard to undo this damage, with over 300 home builds currently in the pipeline, due to be completed by June 2025. This is the largest housing investment in Gisborne in decades; over 100 of these home builds already have resource consents, including 14 homes in Manuka Street and a further 21 homes on Gladstone Road.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Does she stand by the Government’s policy of introducing an equity index for school funding which “Considers 37 variables that we know relate to achievement, and is based on the circumstances of individual tamariki and rangatahi”, with those variables being based on actual students’ performance over the previous 20 years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the decision made by the Government on the equity index relative to the old decile system. The member will appreciate, when you are taking into account a number of variables, as the Minister has just described, for a detailed analysis, either questions on notice or to the direct Minister responsible will always be much more edifying for the member.

David Seymour: Why is the Government using just one variable, being ethnicity, to determine access to certain types of healthcare instead of targeting healthcare funding to those most in need, based on up to 37 variables, like it’s doing with education?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If what the member is trying to claim is that the Māori Health Authority, for instance, isn’t taking into account the history of our health system, where we have consistently underperformed and underserved Māori, to therefore describe why we shouldn’t have that authority, I have to say, I firmly disagree. The evidence already demonstrates that on the old system, where we had, of course, service provision that was provided under 20 district health boards, we had outcomes that demonstrated we were poorly serving Māori. No one can disagree with that. Our view has been that if we want to improve, we need to change the way the system is delivering services for Māori. I would hope the member would come on board with that system.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that education in New Zealand has also historically and chronically underserved Māori students, and, if so, why is education but not health using an evidence-based, data-driven formula to target human need rather than ethnicity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would argue we are targeting human need. That demonstration of that is our data demonstrates that if you are Māori, your outcomes for cancer are worse for every single cancer except melanoma. That is data and evidence that our existing services are poorly serving Māori. If we needed any demonstration that doing things differently services our populations well, the COVID-19 response and the exceptional work done by Māori health providers was a proof point. I don’t understand, frankly, why the member would be afraid to use Māori service delivery, where it is available, to try and lift health outcomes for Māori.

David Seymour: Why is Pharmac using ethnicity to determine access to diabetes medicine, the Ministry of Health using ethnicity to determine access to the flu jab, meaning that a well-off person, high in every other variable, might be put ahead of a poorly-off person, purely on the basis of just one variable, when education shows there’s a better way to do things?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wish it weren’t true that in New Zealand, health outcomes were worse for Māori and Pasifika populations, but, sadly, they are. If we are going to be data and evidence driven, we need to factor that in.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What support has the Government contributed to help schools to provide learning environments for their students that are warm, dry, and fit for purpose?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government’s got a comprehensive programme of upgrading and expanding and modernising our schools. As of August this year, there are 313 Ministry of Education - led property projects in construction across New Zealand. These include nine new schools, eight new school expansions, 124 redevelopments, 38 redevelopment and roll-growth projects, 77 learning-support property modifications, and 57 roll-growth projects.

Jo Luxton: What, if anything, has been delivered, in terms of redevelopments and additional student places, from the spending?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Twenty seven thousand, two hundred and ninety eight additional student places have been delivered through the building of schools and classrooms so far. This month, the Prime Minister celebrated the opening of a new 12 teaching space block at Waterview Primary School to support the school’s growing roll. We’ve also fully completed 62 major redevelopments worth over $460 million since 2019, and around half of these have been completed in the last year.

Jo Luxton: How is the Government ensuring that schools affected by the Christchurch earthquakes have access to safe, quality learning environments?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme is building new, rebuilding, or repairing 115 schools in the wider Christchurch area—

Hon Louise Upston: Thanks to National.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —affecting around 45,000 students. The programme was, of course, started under National; it’s a shame they didn’t fund it. Seventy-eight schools are now complete, with 23 currently in construction.

Jo Luxton: How are small and remote schools being supported to improve classrooms for their students?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Back in September, we announced a programme to improve the internal environments of over 600 State schools that are in small or remote communities. This programme includes the installation of LED lighting, thermal blankets, acoustic panels, and residual current devices to improve the quality of those classrooms. Already, while it was only launched in September, 95 of those constructions projects have been completed.

Question No. 7—Revenue

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: Is he committed to implementing the KiwiSaver provisions of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill; if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): No.

Andrew Bayly: In what month and what year did IRD commence work on the proposal to introduce GST on KiwiSaver funds?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not aware of the month, but I am aware that it was in 2017, under the last National Government.

Andrew Bayly: When on 2 May the Prime Minister said, “We are not doing any work on any additional tax policy.”, had he made it clear to the Prime Minister he would shortly thereafter propose to increase GST on KiwiSaver fees; and, if not, did he alert the Prime Minister after her statement on 2 May?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This was not a new tax; this was closing a—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID PARKER: GST is not a new tax; this is about closing a loophole. Currently, some providers of these services pay GST and their competitors don’t.

Andrew Bayly: On what date did he specifically discuss the proposal to put GST on KiwiSaver fees with the Cabinet committee, and was this recorded in the Cabinet committee minutes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course it was recorded. I can’t recall the exact date, but it would have been the date when the policy decisions were taken on what matters would be included in the tax bill.

Question No. 8—Pike River Re-entry

8. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What recent announcement has he made about support for families and communities affected by future significant national disasters?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): Yesterday, I joined the Prime Minister; the Minister for Public Service, the Hon Chris Hipkins; and survivors of some of New Zealand’s darkest days—Aramoana, Cave Creek, Pike River, and others—to launch new Working with Survivors model standards for the Public Service. Our public servants are motivated by a spirit of service, and the model standards will support officials with care expectations that apply the lessons of the past and provide for better support for survivors of future national disasters. The model standards were co-authored in true partnership with the survivors, led by the Stand With Pike Families Reference Group, alongside Te Kawa Mataaho, the Public Service Commission.

Rachel Boyack: What are the expectations in the new model standards?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The expectations require Public Service agencies to commit to following and supporting the journey survivors go through following a significant national disaster. In the immediate aftermath, it’s about the necessities of life and reuniting loved ones; next, it’s helping with the adjustment to the new normal; and finally, it’s about getting to the bottom of what happened, learning from it, and promoting healing.

Rachel Boyack: What principles did the co-authors apply for the new expectations?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Three simple principles underpin the model standards. They are to: firstly, empower survivors; secondly, be up front; and thirdly, work together. Additionally, the model standards recognise survivors as including physically injured or psychologically affected people, bereaved and affected whānau, and members of the wider community, including those based offshore.

Rachel Boyack: Which Public Service agency is responsible for implementing the expectations?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The model standards are published by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission and apply to the whole of the Public Service. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the responsibility for upholding the standards sits with the lead response agency.

Rachel Boyack: What response has he seen to the announcement of the standards?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve seen a number of responses, including from survivors of Aramoana and Pike River. One was from the formidable Sonya Rockhouse MNZM, member of the Stand With Pike Families Reference Group, reflecting on her long journey from 2010 until seeing the model standards announced yesterday. Sonya said, and I quote, “I couldn’t see how we would ever get justice, but we did. Throughout all we achieved together and with the other Pike River families and our supporters, we got our voices back.”

Question No. 9—Police

9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Is he concerned by the 518 percent increase in ram raids since the beginning of 2018; if so, why has he not met with a single business owner who has been a victim of a ram raid since he became Minister of Police?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, my focus in my first few months on the job has been getting out and about and meeting as many police and visiting as many police districts as possible, meeting key stakeholders, ensuring that I understand all of the various policy issues that police are grappling with, and ensuring that the police have the relevant tools that they need in order to combat the crime they are facing. I certainly intend to continue getting out and about and meeting with people, and that will include a greater range of stakeholders, including the victims of ram raids.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Wouldn’t the Minister surely consider the victims of ram raids as being the most important key stakeholder?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They are certainly an important stakeholder, as are people who are the victims of firearms-related offending, as are people who are the victims of domestic and family violence, as are a range of other stakeholders that I will also be intending to meet with when the appropriate opportunity arises.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he accept that this offending is being done predominantly by youth gangs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. The police would suggest that the majority of the people undertaking this type of offending are not people who are affiliated with gangs.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How can the Minister make that statement in the House when it flies in direct contradiction to the police intelligence reports that say that this offending is predominantly being committed by youth gangs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure that that is what the reports have actually been saying. In fact, the conversations I’ve been having with police suggest that that is not the case. I can also tell the member that the number of repeat offenders undertaking ram raids is actually declining, which in itself is a concerning statistic because it suggests that there are more young people getting involved in this type of activity.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So is the Minister telling this House that his advice from the police is that these ram raids and youth offending is not being driven by organised youth crime and youth gangs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is the advice that I’ve received from police, yes.

SPEAKER: The member has run out of supplementaries.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order. I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request from a New Zealand Police scanning report on ram raids.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? It may be tabled.

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

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about delivery of the $1.3 billion Government climate finance investments?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): While visiting Tonga and Niue this month, I launched Aotearoa New Zealand’s New Zealand International Climate Finance Strategy - Tuia te Waka a Kiwa. Fifty percent of this fund will support the Pacific, and 50 percent will go towards adaptation. The strategy sets out key principles and goals that will shape our climate finance investment over the next four years. This approach further strengthens New Zealand’s partnership with the Pacific and supports locally led solutions.

Ibrahim Omer: Why does the strategy emphasise a partnership approach to climate finance?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We know that many communities have been living with changes in their environment for decades and are best placed to develop their own solutions and adaptation plans. This is certainly true for the Pacific. For example, Tonga has put in place a climate change fund Act to manage and prioritise its projects. So our partnership approach might involve funding countries’ own adaptation plans or supporting locally led projects to promote community resilience to climate change and disasters.

Ibrahim Omer: How will this partnership approach to climate finance work in practice?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I can give an example: while in Tonga, I announced Aotearoa New Zealand’s new contribution of $8 million to Tonga’s climate change fund. In line with our partnership approach, this will be directed to Tonga’s own priorities, such as projects to strengthen the resilience of public infrastructure, enhance coastal protections, and develop sustainable agriculture. I’d like to also acknowledge the significant contribution of women and young people, who I met in Tonga, tackling their communities’ climate challenges.

Ibrahim Omer: How will the climate finance strategy support the Pacific in responding to the impacts of climate change?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’ve seen time and time again the serious threat climate change poses to the Pacific Islands. We’ve sought feedback from Pacific partners in shaping the principles and goals of this strategy, such as enhanced resilience and adaptation to the impacts of climate change, promote accelerated climate change mitigation, improved institutional capability, and evidence-based decision-making, leveraging our investment by working with other donors to ensure greater climate impact. Our strategy will support their decision making by providing greater access to, and use of, education, science, indigenous knowledge, and local techniques to combat climate change.

Ibrahim Omer: How will New Zealand’s climate finance build Pacific resilience?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Building resilience is woven throughout the climate finance strategy, and will be a key focus of our investment in the Pacific. An example is the $10 million allocated in July to the Fiji-based Centre for Pacific Crops and Trees, which is conserving the region’s collections of 17 crops, including yam, coconut, and 70 percent of the world’s taro varieties. This investment will increase the Pacific’s resilience by ensuring our region’s seeds and plant materials are preserved and protected for future generations. This investment will help to restore heritage crops, as was the case after the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption that occurred earlier this year.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): Does the Ministry of Education meet the full cost of learning support needs for tamariki in Aotearoa?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): We know that there are some unmet learning support needs for some tamariki and rangatahi in Aotearoa. As Associate Minister of Education, I have been very open about that. While we have a suite of evidence-based interventions and supports available, part of the challenge is understanding the individual needs of students and finding the right intervention at the right time. This is why I commissioned a comprehensive review into the support needed for students who are considered to have the highest needs for learning—and need support as an intervention.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Ministry of Education meet the full cost of teacher aide wages?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, we know that there are unmet needs for some tamariki and rangatahi in this country. As such, that is why I have commissioned this Highest Needs Review, which will report back to me shortly. I will be taking recommendations through to Cabinet in October.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it’s reasonable for parents and school communities to fundraise for a shortfall of teacher aide funding?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This is exactly why we have commissioned the review into our highest-needs students in this country. Schools may draw from a variety of funding sources, including operational grant funding, in addition to that provided by the ministry; there’s also funding provided by other agencies and locally raised funds. I will point out that it is inadequate when we hear of those stories of parents supporting teacher aides at that time—it is something that is actually illegal; exactly why we have the High Needs Review in train.

Teanau Tuiono: Is she committed to ensuring all students with additional learning needs receive fully funded support to enable them to thrive at school?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know our Government is committed to barrier-free access to education for all students. But we do know that there is more work to do to address the fact that some students aren’t getting the right support they need and when they need it. This is exactly, as I say, why we have commissioned the High Needs Review.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the High Needs Review include changes to the funding model to ensure the needs of all children are met and to provide fair pay and good working conditions for learning support staff?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The learning support systems we have in place were established over 20 years ago and haven’t been reviewed since then. While I don’t want to go on what those recommendations will be when they come back to me, I have asked officials to be bold. We need to look at the system as a whole; we need to look at a system that works around the young person with that person at the centre, not the young person working around the system. That includes the staffing who support that young person.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with Te Tai Tokerau Principals’ Association president that—and I quote—“We always need more support. Schools are used to putting rubber bands and stoppers around things, but we have so many kids with needs these days that it’s becoming a bottomless pit.”, and if so, what will she do to improve the support given to schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have had many robust conversations with that particular president of the Tai Tokerau Principals’ Association, and I will continue to do so into the future; I’m quite certain of that. I have commissioned the High Needs Review, I await those recommendations, and I look forward to taking those recommendations through to Cabinet.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Members will note that there are 11 oral questions today instead of the usual 12. I understand that, this morning, accidentally, the Office of the Clerk gave the Māori Party advice that they didn’t have a primary question today, and, therefore, they did not lodge one by the deadline. I, therefore, seek leave for the Māori Party to be allocated an additional primary question to make up for that, that it be on a day of their choice, and that it be inserted into the line-up for that day as question No. 4, which would have been the question that they would have had today.

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

Brooke van Velden: Mr Speaker, am I able to speak to the point that the Minister has raised? I noted that a few of us have had correspondence with the Māori Party today. They were specifically wishing to seek leave tomorrow to ask a question. So I wondered whether we could actually delay this discussion until the Māori Party are here to speak for themselves on this?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve already declared—sorry. I’ve already put the leave to the House, and there was no objection. The way the leave was put was that Te Paati Māori can, indeed, choose to have that question tomorrow, should they wish. So I think it’s entirely up to them.

General Debate

General Debate

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

SPEAKER: I call the honourable—Christopher Luxon.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Honourable—I like the sound of that, Mr Speaker. Yeah.

You might have heard that I am a big fan of LunchMoney Lewis. I know his song “Bills”, and his song “Bills” is speaking to New Zealanders up and down this country right now. I promise you, Mr Speaker—and I also promise Mr LunchMoney—that I won’t sing the song again, because it wasn’t the strongest rendition; I’ll say that. But, you know, when he says, “I got bills I gotta pay. I got mouths I gotta feed. I’m going to work, work, work every day”, Kiwis up and down this country really know what he’s talking about. He is speaking to them. But, sadly, this is a Government that is not speaking to them, or not understanding where they’re at, at all. Because if they had been thinking about them, they wouldn’t have introduced a KiwiSaver tax last night, and then they wouldn’t have withdrawn it this morning—as LunchMoney would say, he would love anything that’s gone by lunchtime, so well done.

Here’s the deal: we have a Government that is so honestly the political equivalent of The Office, we only have to look at the last 24 hours to imagine what shenanigans have gone on behind the scenes to get to this fantastic decision today. It has demonstrated, yet again, that it is so completely, utterly out of touch with everyday working New Zealanders and where they’re at, and it’s just stopped listening to them.

Last night, I had this great Facebook comment from Jessica from Rotorua, and she said, “When does it end with the tax? No wonder the working middle class can’t get ahead.” And today, what happened? Jessica and many Kiwis like her, they woke up and they worked out the Government’s busy trying to fleece them out of their hard-earned cash yet again. And she’s right, because, you know, think about it: we’ve had a car tax, we’ve got a fuel tax, we’ve got a jobs tax, we’ve got a tenant tax, and now we’ve got this KiwiSaver tax that was on/off, on/off, now off again, and everyday Kiwis just can’t get ahead.

Let me tell you what they’re going to keep doing: they’re going to keep dreaming up cunning new taxes. Because you can just see David Parker talking to Grant Robertson, saying, “I’ve got a new cunning plan. So cunning you can put a tail on it and call it a weasel.” You can see it. You can just imagine the conversation as they beaver away at lots of new ideas about how they can get even more taxes. And the bottom line is they have to do that, right? They have to do it because they’re so addicted to spending. They love their spending and they’ve spent so much, and yet they’ve also achieved so very, very little. I think they’ve developed a very perverse and unique skill: this Government is uniquely able to spend more money—in fact, $51 billion more than five years ago—and at the same time hire more people—14,000 more bureaucrats here in central Wellington—and at the same time they’ve got worse outcomes in every single portfolio across the House. I think we’ll just go through a few. I could go through all of them, but let’s just take a few.

I think the economy’s a good place to start, because Grant Robertson’s here; he stayed around. We’ve got to give him credit for that; it’s fantastic. But you’ve just got to look at his delivery of the cost of living payment over the last 24 hours. That mismanagement just sums up the mismanagement of our economy. And you’ve got to remember, first and foremost, it isn’t his money, this cost of living payment that he’s designed. He’s got such disdain for taxpayers’ money that he actually makes this scheme up on the fly, under political pressure, against the advice of officials, and then he sprays the cash around to French backpackers and investment bankers in London and even dead people—yeah—and prisoners, I think, as well. The Auditor-General then slaps him down very publicly, like we’ve never seen before, saying, “Hey, listen, not a good use of public money.” And you think: can’t you just apologise to the New Zealand people and say, “Maybe I kind of got that one wrong, really sorry about that.”? Maybe you could tell us how many ineligible people actually got it—would be quite useful. I’ve got to tell you, it wouldn’t have happened under Nicola Willis’ watch. But that’s what it is.

Let’s look at health. Shall we look at health? That’s another good one, because every single health outcome has gone backwards under this Government—every single one. People are now spending entire days waiting for the emergency department, just to see somebody. The numbers of people waiting for surgical weight loss have actually doubled. You’ve gone from 1,000 to 36,000 Kiwis waiting more than four months to see their first specialists. And we’re actually now short 4,000 nurses, 1,500 GPs, 1,500 specialists. It’s amazing! These guys cannot deliver any outcomes whatsoever. And their answer is: Wellington knows best, let’s build bureaucracy, let’s not invest in the front-line services—let’s build more bureaucracy. What we need is a real doctor running health, not a spin doctor.

So I could go on, and I would love to go on, but what I will say to you is that we fundamentally now have a Government where—we know the drill—they are spending so much money, so they need to keep working away and beavering away and coming up with cunning new taxes because they’re so addicted to spending. They’ll talk about openness and transparency, but they don’t deliver it. Here we see a massive, chronic U-turn from this Government around a KiwiSaver tax, and long may the U-turns keep coming, because there’s a lot more taxes to unwind from here.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): Many MPs will be familiar with the game that the press gallery like to play in Parliament, called “the rule in, rule out game”. There’s an issue of the day and you’re asked whether or not you’re going to rule it in or rule it out. Sometimes it’s quite a difficult game to play—you might not have made your final decision on a very complex policy issue—but Christopher Luxon got asked the very easiest rule in, rule out question of all time: would he work with Brian Tamaki?

Now, Mr Luxon couldn’t answer that question. The question I’ve got for Mr Luxon is: did he not take the clue of the so-called people’s court that took place outside Parliament, where Mr Luxon, among other people, was convicted of crimes against humanity? But apparently, no. Now, this question was so easy, David Seymour got it right—that’s how easy the question was. But no, Christopher Luxon ploughed on, he doubled down, he said he wouldn’t rule it out—he wouldn’t rule it out. All that does is tell you just how out of touch and out of his depth Christopher Luxon is. Because if it’s giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders, if it’s his stance on abortion, if it’s the cuts to public service—all of those things put him out of touch. But his response to that question shows just how his political inexperience is affecting him and the National Party.

So now we’re left with the prospect that, if in the unlikely event National were to get into Government, Brian Tamaki would be there, and he would have to decide what portfolio to give Brian Tamaki. Now, this would be a tough question: would a self-styled apostle accept deputy leader? Would they do that? Or would he offer him something that he has experience of, like Minister of Courts, for example? Or would he put him in charge of finance, given his experience in tithing? But no, I think I know exactly the role that Christopher Luxon would end up giving to Brian Tamaki, and that is the role of Minister with responsibility for the Earthquake Commission.

Now, this might surprise one or two people, but I want take you back to 2016, where Brian Tamaki, in talking about homosexuality, said, I quote, “No other sin in the whole Bible has any connection to earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions,”. That’s who Christopher Luxon wants to work with. That’s who Christopher Luxon wants to bring inside his Cabinet. I think, on this side of the House, we know exactly what that means: Mr Luxon will do anything whatsoever, he’ll compromise any value, he doesn’t care. Once again, we see the impact of his political inexperience.

Now, everybody in the House knows that I enjoy taking the mickey out of a National Party leader that makes a colossal cock-up like this, who shows their inexperience. But I actually want to say something serious to Mr Luxon: doing what he has done gives legitimacy to the most extreme views in our community. Doing what Mr Luxon has done gives confidence to those who have threatened and harassed our health care workers, our journalists, many politicians in this House, and citizens around New Zealand. What Mr Luxon has done, by failing to rule out Brian Tamaki, undermines the inclusive and accepting society that I would have hoped he would have been part of.

Now, it’s probably in the Labour Party’s interest for Christopher Luxon to go on deciding that he does not want to rule out Brian Tamaki. I am pleading with Mr Luxon to do the right thing. Do not say to young, gay New Zealanders that they don’t matter. Do not say to the women of New Zealand that they don’t have a place in leadership. Because, Mr Luxon, you will be judged by the company you keep. You have a chance and you have an opportunity to stand up for New Zealanders’ values. Do the right thing, Mr Luxon, rule out working with Brian Tamaki, or else New Zealanders will continue to believe you stand for extremism, you stand for bigotry. Rule out Brian Tamaki.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): He’ll have to do a lot better than that, because the country’s going backwards at a rate of knots, and all the Minister of Finance wants to do is platform the rantings of a crazy pastor who no one wants to engage with. Why does he want to do that? Because this is Labour’s day of shame—this is their day of shame.

Look at them over there: shame-faced, caught red-handed with their hands in New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver accounts. Look at them averting their eyes, lowering their heads—oh, “Napoleon” is looking—because they are ashamed of what their finance Minister tried to do. He, in concert with the Minister of Revenue, thought, “You know what? I’m addicted to spending. I can’t make the books balance anymore, so where am I going to get the cash? I’ve run out of my own money, so I’m going to go after New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver.” And what they did: they cooked up a tax, they put it through the Cabinet, they agreed to it, and they thought, “You know what? Let’s sneak it through. We don’t need to tell anyone we’re doing it.” So they put out the press release, but did they talk about the extra tax? Did they talk about the $225 million they wanted to take? Did they talk about the $100 billion they wanted to wipe from New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver funds? No, because those sneaky members of Parliament thought they could get this one past New Zealanders. They thought they could hoodwink them, but we caught them red-handed.

The Minister of Finance can rant and rave, but none of it will hide the skid marks from the massive U-turn that was executed at lunchtime. None of it will hide the stain of distrust that will remain in this Government, because New Zealanders know that they tried to sneak through a new tax. Because first—that’s right—they came for New Zealanders’ back pockets—the inflation, the robber that it is, eating holes in those back pockets, forcing New Zealanders to pay more tax—but they weren’t satisfied with that. Then they came for New Zealanders’ petrol: they added a tax to that. Then they came for their utes, and they added a tax to that. But such was the insatiable appetite for yet more wasteful spending that they came after your savings, too. This is a Government, bear in mind, that campaigned on “no new taxes”, but, in reality, the Minister of Revenue has a special unit of bureaucrats burrowing away right now in the Piketty unit, dreaming up yet new ways to fleece New Zealanders.

I will say to you: National will not abide it. We will not let them sneak these taxes through; we will oppose them, we will find them out, and we will stop this happening. We will not allow a midnight assault on your savings, a mounting of the guard.

Now, if the Minister of Finance thinks that what New Zealanders are talking about is the rantings of a pastor, I want to give him this email that was sent to the Prime Minister, and it was sent to me as well. This is from a Labour voter; her name’s Rachel. She said, “I am sick of working hard, paying taxes, trying to make a safe and secure future for my family, just to get constantly slapped in the face by you, the Government.” That is exactly what this Government is doing.

New Zealanders are faced with a cost of living crisis. Their wages have gone backwards in real terms. They have less money to spend on their families today than they did when that Government was elected. And what is this Government doing? Are they trying to increase the growth of this economy? Are they trying to raise incomes? No. This Government is obsessed with more spending.

National says that it is time that they learnt their lessons. The Auditor-General agrees with us, by the way. The Auditor-General wrote to us and said that this is a Government that has failed the test of good stewardship of public money, that they did not show due care in the way they designed and implemented the cost of living payment—payments paid for by Rachel and other hard-working taxpayers, that went to French backpackers, foreign investors, and London backpackers. Will they apologise? Will they even find out how many payments were made and how much money was wasted? No, because they have contempt for the New Zealand taxpayers they are supposed to serve. Let’s vote them out.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): That was a lot of humbug, a lot of poppycock, coming from that member there, Nicola Willis. But the one thing I want to say about Nicola Willis is she sounds genuine—a lot more genuine than Chris Luxon.

I’ve listened to Chris Luxon a number of times. I said to him, he would be a great leader, at the start. But you know, after listening to him for the last six or so months, he reminds me of the crown-of-thorns starfish. This is a starfish that secretes waste from all thorns. And that’s what he’s like. You don’t know what you believe about the man. You know, he cries foul about the poverty of people here, but he doesn’t know what it’s like. He’s not made any sacrifices. He sounds more like a John Key puppet, in my view. I mean, he said the other day on social media that he was on one part of the country when he was sunbathing in the other part of the party. This is a man wanting to be the leader of this nation. I’d say bring back Judith Collins. At least you knew where she stood. Or bring back Mark Mitchell. At least Mark has some sympathy for working-class communities out there. But that man there has no, nada, nada whatsoever.

Look, if we’re serious on sides about the cost of living, then let’s acknowledge that there are people who are in need of help and there is no easy fix to the cost of living. But we, as a Government, continue to move forward. I announced not too long ago in this House here that in terms of Pacific peoples, we had over 1,000 people who have benefited from Tupu Aotearoa and have gotten jobs—high-value, high-paying jobs. That is the solution. Not the punitive proposals that they’re saying—to condemn, to blame—but more encouraging and providing positive pathways: 1,400 young Pacific not in education, employment, and training have gotten positive pathways. But the package of the cost of living—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How many?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Hush up, Mr Brownlee. Listen and you might learn something. Hush up, Mr Brownlee. You might learn something about people who are striving to get ahead, and this is the Government that is investing.

Not too long ago, nine long years of the John Key Government, what did they do? They gutted the public sector. They gutted the public sector. And they call themselves sympathisers of working-class people. That is not the case; that is definitely not the case.

So short-term cost of living payments are up, and we—the other day, a young, involved nurse said to me, “Thank you very much, Jacinda and your Government,” for the money that they got to top up during the winter. She earns less than $70,000. Now, here’s the thing: we are supporting the needs of the working communities out there. But we shouldn’t have to be subsiding this long term—because, in essence, that’s what we’re doing: we’re subsidising the need. But when the profits are made, who gets to keep that in their pockets? And that’s that lot here [points to Opposition benches] that continue to champion those inequities, because that’s a system that allows for inequity to be maintained.

I’ve had, the other day, an older man who is retired say to me, “Pass on to your Prime Minister our gratitude for the transport subsidies.” Because they’re able, now, to travel: visit grandkids from South Auckland to West Auckland, without having to worry about the out of pocket.

So when this lot here are crying foul all the time, that just shows how insensitive they are and that every time they’re talking about understanding the needs of working communities, they don’t know—[pauses]—waste—I’m trying to think in my head about the proper word to say on that one there.

But I’d say this is the Government that will continue to move forward in supporting the community and governing for all peoples, making sure that we’re addressing the need—and there are many needs of this community. But we’re not shying away from that: housing, health, education, all of that. That’s not what you can say about that lot when they were in Government last.

And what we know of the kind of colour that National always does is, once they’re in, they gut it. You cannot say, on the one hand, that you’ll give people tax cuts and on the other hand continue to provide social services for needs out there. That just cannot be done.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): How I did not miss being in this space, listening to the petty exchanges, finger pointing, and energy that goes in—people just looking at each other instead of looking at the communities that we are supposed to serve—the energy that we should be putting in serving the communities that actually have been doing it the toughest over the past few years, whether it has been through the inequality crisis that has actually been here for successive Governments, whether it has been the pandemic, or now the inflationary pressures that are seeing more families struggling to make ends meet. We should be paying attention to the fact that people all around the motu are doing their best to support each other and fill in the gaps where successive Governments have failed.

Over the past month, we have seen how, on the one hand, the National Party is hell keen to punish the people who are doing it the toughest by introducing punitive benefit sanctions, when all that they would do is put more people into hardship, starve people out so that they get any job no matter how unsuitable, despite overwhelming evidence that such an approach does not help to reduce unemployment. The National Party is running policy on vibes to punish people, and the Labour members were rightfully critical of this approach and calling out the potential of the National Party putting in place policies that would see disabled people starved out so that they could be forced into work. I congratulate the members for their energy in calling out National, but they should be looking at their own policies as well and the fact that we have a sanctions regime that is still run on vibes, that is not run on evidence, and that is punishing people.

I’ve heard over the past few weeks, when I’ve questioned Ministers on this issue, that they have made sure to introduce some checks so that fewer people are sanctioned and, therefore, we’re starving out fewer people, but one sanction is one too many, particularly when there is no empirical evidence of a New Zealand welfare regime that includes sanctions supporting people into employment. All we’ve seen is a handful of overseas examples where maybe the sanctions regime helped, but all we know is that people are being put into hardship. I encourage all MPs in the House to talk to people on the benefit about their experiences with Work and Income, the threat that people are facing when it comes to that pressure of going to their appointments and knowing that, if they don’t show up, they may have their benefit cut off. But we forget that, actually, this measure does not support our communities. Starving people out will not encourage them to show up at Work and Income to engage in services to see how they can meet their aspirations.

We know that the Government’s own advisory group, which gave substantive recommendations on how to overhaul the welfare system, was unequivocal that financial sanctions do not work and that, instead, we should be putting in place a system on mutual expectations. At no point was the report actually saying that what we should be doing is cutting people’s incomes as a way to address the lack of trust that people may be having with our welfare system. So I hope that our Labour members in this House channel the critical energy they have for the National Party with their sanctions regime to look at their own policy, to finally introduce policies that support people and meet their aspirations, because we cannot rely on the status quo. We cannot rely on regulations that simply see a reduction in sanctions, because if the National Party gets back in, what we do know is that if their legislation hasn’t changed, what they’ll do is they’ll ramp up those sanctions, they’ll ramp up that punitive approach.

We have an opportunity right now, and Labour has an opportunity right now, with the mandate that they have got, to put an end to benefit sanctions once and for all, to support the communities who have been doing the mahi to support each other during the pandemic and recognise the diversity of contributions that they make, because employment isn’t the only contribution that people are making right now. People are doing volunteering, they’re doing care-giving, and our welfare system continues to not recognise those contributions as meaningful and as worthy of a life with dignity. I yearn for a system that recognises the diversity of contributions that people bring and that does not have a narrow approach of pushing people into low-paid work. Instead, I hope that our employment schemes such as Mana in Mahi support people into employment that pays at least the living wage. Everyone deserves a livable income, a warm house to live in, and the guarantee that they’ll be supported by Government into employment that meets their aspirations.

So we’ll continue putting pressure on Labour to own up to the values they showed when they were criticising National and to put an end to the sanctions regime once and for all.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This debate started with Mr LunchMoney: “I’ve got mouths I’ve got to feed. I’ve got bills I’ve got to pay. It’s work, work, work every day.” On this side of the House we take those lyrics to heart, and as a hard-working Government we do something about the mouths that people have to feed and the bills they’ve got to pay. So exactly what are we doing about the mouths that people have to feed? We’ve got lunches in schools, literally putting food into the mouths of children. I visited Glenavon School in my electorate last week and had a bit of a yarn with the principal. They get the lunches in schools there. The principal there, John Hunte, said it was fantastic. It worked brilliantly. The kids got fed. They came to school, they were happy, and they were enjoying themselves at school. And it was helping the parents’ pockets. So that’s the first thing we’ve done in terms of schools.

Another thing we’ve done in schools to help those daily physical needs is we’ve got period products at schools—free period products for girls and young women at school. That’s a cost that women between the ages of about 10 and 56, 57, or 58 have to bear every month—the cost of products so that they can manage their periods. From time to time, it keeps girls out of school because their families simply cannot afford to pay for period products. What have we done as a hard-working Government? We have paid for free period products in schools so that girls can get their education, and we’ve relieved a cost on the families.

While we’re still talking about schools, there’s the schools donations package we have. We made sure that if schools went for voluntary donations, then we would put money into schools—$150 per student. Again, it’s something that directly saves costs from parents’ pockets and puts money where it was needed—into the schools.

In terms of “bills I’ve got to pay”, that’s exactly what the cost of living payment is about. It’s an extra bit of money to help people pay their bills. We know that times are tough out there, so what are we doing? We’re giving them a little bit extra to help them through these tough winter months. It’s the same thing with the winter energy payment. It’s an extra bit of money to ensure that people can pay their energy bills in winter and stay warm. All these things are helping people to feed the mouths they’ve got to feed and to pay the bills they’ve got to pay.

When fuel prices were rocketing up recently, we looked at the impact on families. We looked at the impact on working people, and we said we needed to help. So we cut the fuel excise. We knew that energy prices were going up because of the war in Ukraine, because of supply chain issues. We decided to help people through the peak of it. Energy prices are dropping now, and that helps a little bit, but in the meantime we’ve had the cut to the fuel excise. Alongside that we’ve had half-price public transport, making it cheaper and easier for workers to get to work, for kids to get to school, and for people to get about the towns they live in. So we’ve put in place all these measures that have helped people’s back pockets.

All those things, we are doing. Yet all the time that we try to help New Zealanders, what do we hear from the Opposition? Nothing but tax cuts and scaremongering around taxation. They complain that we are addicted to spending, addicted to spending, addicted to spending—I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that. It is their one line. But let’s talk about what taxation actually pays for. I refer the members of the Opposition to page 21 of the Inland Revenue Department’s annual report—the 2021 annual report; the 2022 report will be out soon. It tells us there what we spend our money on. We spend $24 billion a year on health, keeping New Zealanders healthy. We spend $16.6 million a year on New Zealand super, $16.3 billion on education. We spend $6 billion on transport and communication.

I challenge the Opposition, every time they say they want tax cuts, to tell us which services they would cut. Tell us which New Zealanders will have to do without health. Tell us which New Zealanders will have to do without education. Tell us which New Zealanders will have to do without welfare. That is the corollary of tax cuts, and it’s chicken-hearted to scream for tax cuts but not say where they will cut services. Be honest, face up to the reality of what the Opposition is prescribing for New Zealand: austerity, nastiness, and people in trouble. That is why I am proudly part of this Government.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a Government that is falling apart. Yesterday, we had introduced to the House a KiwiSaver tax bill, and I said to the team when we found out about it, I said, “I reckon we’ll wait till Thursday and they’ll do a U-turn. This is so crazy and so dumb, that—after introducing a ute tax and a petrol tax and a tenant tax and a capital gains tax, and all the other taxes that Labour’s introduced—there’s no way that this Government would slap a $100 billion tax on Kiwis at a time that KiwiSaver accounts are doing it a bit tough.” I said, “There’s no way. It is crazy. I’ll give it until Thursday.”

I was wrong, because where are we? Wednesday—gone by lunchtime. The KiwiSaver tax? “Gone-burger”. At 1.15: “We’ve just put out a press release. Oh, we didn’t consult properly.” Even though it’s been consulted on for literally months, the Government’s invented a reason. And we know why: it’s because 20,000 people—and counting all the time—have signed National’s petition, because Kiwis are sick of being fleeced by this Government and they said, “No, enough is enough.” So a humiliating U-turn by this Government.

And what have they got? Grant Robertson spent five minutes of a general debate speech in a personalised attack on the leader of the National Party. And then the second speaker in the general debate, William Sio, spent five minutes talking about Christopher Luxon. He’s in their heads—he is in their heads—and they know that the National Party is back and they know that the National Party was not going to stand up for this addiction to spending that is the raison d’être of this Government. The National Party is standing against Labour’s big-spending, addicted-to-spending agenda.

As Nicola Willis said in her contribution, it shows a real contempt for taxpayers. Twice in the last two weeks have we seen a contempt for taxpayers. Once with the KiwiSaver tax, the $100 billion secretive, stealthy tax on New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver accounts. And then the second display of contempt for New Zealanders was the cost of living payment. This is something that has to be seen to be believed: money that is being sprayed around the world. If you thought KiwiBuild was bad, “KiwiSpray” is even worse: money that is sprayed around the world, to French backpackers who were here 15 years ago who’d forgotten they even picked fruit over summer in Cromwell, to wealthy investment bankers in London. And, look, some of my best friends are investment bankers in London. I’m telling you now: they don’t need $116 paid into their New Zealand bank account; they’re doing quite all right, thank you very much. And, of course, dead people.

So this shows contempt for taxpayers. Have we seen an apology? No. Have we seen any admission of failure or fault? No. Have we seen any attempt from the Government to find out exactly who is and who isn’t getting this “KiwiSpray” payment? No, absolutely not. All we see is contempt and disdain for hard-working New Zealanders.

But while we’re talking about U-turns, we welcome the Government’s KiwiSaver tax U-turn. I’m surprised it happened within the space of 24 hours, but there’s a few other U-turns we need. I think the Prime Minister will be regretting her decision to make Chris Hipkins the new police Minister, or new-ish police Minister. We should be doing a U-turn on that, because we’ve learnt that ram raids are up 500 percent, and I note that the police Minister didn’t refute the premise of that question, as Kiri Allan, the justice Minister, did this morning. But then we had the extraordinary claim from the police Minister today that he’s been too busy to meet with victims of ram raids, of which there were five overnight in Hamilton on Monday night, by the way. He’s been too busy. Why? Oh, because he’s been reading his paperwork and “visiting important stakeholders”. Well, what is a more important stakeholder for the police Minister than retailers who have been the victims of crime like ram raids? There is no more important stakeholder for the police Minister, and it shows contempt. So let’s do a U-turn on that.

Let’s do a U-turn on wasteful and inefficient and incompetent Government spending. This Government is fiscally incontinent. They’ve never seen a tax they don’t want to implement and they’ve never seen a Government programme they don’t want to spend more money on. Let’s do a U-turn on the cost of living payment, but, more importantly, let’s do a U-turn on this tired, hopeless, and useless Government, and kick them out of office as soon as we can.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago, my electorate of Nelson and the wider Te Tau Ihu top of the South region was hit by devastating floods. Initially, the weather was forecast to hit Golden Bay and Westport. What happened next was an incredibly quick change in the weather and the emergence of an atmospheric river that hovered over Nelson CBD and caused three separate rain events. A number of homes were flooded, while more properties were affected by landslips, due to close to one metre of rain falling above the Maitai River; 500 homes were evacuated, many with only minutes to spare. There were many heroic rescues by our first responders, of people and of pets. Vast areas of Nelson lost power, while the main water pipe that supplies drinking water to Nelson was badly damaged. Despite there being water, water everywhere, for some people there was not a drop to drink.

Across the top of the South we have suffered hundreds of landslips. Many, many roads are out of action, and the clean-up and fixing of our roads will take a number of months, even years. I am delighted, today, that Waka Kotahi have opened State Highway 6 between Nelson and Blenheim. My huge thanks to Waka Kotahi for working around the clock to get this key link in our transport network open again for businesses and people to travel.

While the sun has now come out, the situation in Nelson and across the top of the South remains serious. Our beautiful city was built on and around hillsides, some of which are now saturated and at risk of further slippage, threatening homes and infrastructure. Behind the sunshine lie a number of homes that had been red- and yellow-stickered and a number of homeowners and residents who will be facing a long road of insurance claims and upheaval in their lives.

I want to put on record my thanks to all who were involved in the response and, now, the recovery from the impact of the floods in our region. Thank you to the civil defence staff and volunteers who staffed the emergency operations centre (EOC) day and night as a complex situation evolved over a number of days, requiring quick decision-making by the teams working through the night and under immense pressure. Particular thanks to those members of the EOC who were red- and yellow-stickered themselves but still came in to work every day to support their fellow community members. Special thanks to group controller Alec Louverdis; your quick thinking and decision to evacuate homes as a precaution saved our city from a worse disaster. Thank you to the city’s contractors, first responders, public servants, local iwi, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, urban search and rescue, local police, Defence Force staff, National Emergency Management Agency staff from across the motu, the Red Cross, Waka Kotahi, our local councils, and our health and welfare workers. Collectively you stepped up to support our people, as you always do.

Three and a half years ago our region suffered severely from the Pigeon Valley fires, causing devastation in the Tasman District. Our community stepped up then, and they’ve stepped up again now. It’s been heartening to see the community getting stuck in to support people who have lost everything, and in the ongoing recovery; the neighbours and volunteers who have helped with the clean-up and offered accommodation; the businesses offering free coffees and food; Murray and Wendy Leaning for always feeding people; Giving Aroha and Unite Church for housing our homeless whānau; the Student Volunteer Army for coming to Nelson and helping to coordinate our volunteers; the many people offering baking, food, and supplies; and those who’ve contributed to our mayoral fund to support people and businesses.

The recovery from this event will be a long one, and tough decisions will need to be made in the future about where we can and can’t build and where new homes and infrastructure go. I want to acknowledge our mayors Rachel Reese and Tim King, Ministers Kieran McAnulty and Damien O’Connor for their support for our region, and the Prime Minister for visiting and getting a good understanding of the situation on the ground. I also acknowledge neighbouring MP Stuart Smith and Marlborough mayor John Leggett, who are supporting their community as their roads are damaged from weather events again.

These events are becoming more common across New Zealand. It shows how important it is that we invest in decent infrastructure and that central government needs to work with local government on adaptation plans for the future. I know that our community and our region is a resourceful one, an innovative one, and we will get through this. My thanks again to everybody in Nelson and across Te Tau Ihu who are stepping up to support our recovery and the rebuild.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Four months ago, I spoke to the House about crime being out of control and no one would believe it, but, in the last four months, things have got worse—a lot worse. May: 50 ram raids; June: 37; July: 42. I hate to think what August is going to bring. But all of New Zealand knows how bad things have become in the last five years—except for the Labour Government. There’s also smash and grabs, assaults, burglaries, thefts of cars. You name it, every type of offence is increasing. The rhetoric often spouted—that crime, overall, is on the downward trend—is a fallacy, and everyone knows it.

I got an email just yesterday from a woman whose car was stolen. There’s CCTV footage and enough evidence to catch the offender, but she was told just to go to her insurance company because police won’t be following up. They simply don’t have time to do their jobs while dealing with a 40 percent increase in mental health call outs and huge increases in domestic violence incidents.

Just throwing money in their direction isn’t the answer. All Government agencies need to be working efficiently so we can allow police to do their core work, and we must fully support them. They haven’t felt supported in five years. The soft-on-crime ideology is a failure. Eighteen months ago, I attended a meeting of almost 40 business owners and dairy owners in Auckland. They were crying out for help then and told us that the Government just weren’t listening. Despite being invited, the absence of Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party showed their priorities. Bollards would not be necessary now if action was taken earlier.

Unlike the current Government, ACT does put the victims of crime first, and, last week, we released our law and order policy, which addresses the causes of crime, offers alternatives, and, most importantly, looks after the victims—and I’d urge Labour to look at it. They liked our last one so much they stole a policy from it, but we don’t mind, and I’m really pleased for New Zealand that Labour now agree that we should take the politics out of policing, and police numbers should increase with population. It’s a great idea.

Here are just a couple of other policies I’d urge them to adopt as well. We need a review of the electronic bail rules. Using electronic bail as a means to reduce prison population is not only naive but dangerous. There are 6,000 offenders on ankle bracelets. Tampering with these bracelets has gone up from one per month in 2017 to 47 per month in 2021. There’s been a 75 percent increase in child sex offenders on electronic monitoring. Fifty-three of these offenders have tampered with their bracelet. These are people ACT doesn’t want on our streets. Labour is letting them out.

ACT will introduce infringement notices to young shoplifters and make them physically work to compensate for their offence, so that the consequences of a criminal action are felt immediately. Failure to pay will result in a youth aid referral and Oranga Tamariki involvement. This isn’t new. New Zealand has a world-class youth aid system, but they need to be resourced and staffed appropriately to make it work. Many times, I had young offenders cleaning police cars on a Saturday morning. Done properly, it works. Ninety-five percent of young people who enter the justice system for minor offences are not seen there again, and that’s a great statistic. But they have to have had a consequence. Making excuses for their behaviour doesn’t work. Young people want boundaries. I had a poster on my classroom wall for years, which read, “You are responsible for your actions no matter how you feel.”

Here’s another policy that works, for Labour to think about: ACT will bring back three-strikes for serious violent offences. There are 13,000 offenders on the first strike; just over 600 offenders on the second strike; and 24 of the worst violent and sexual offenders in New Zealand serving their third-strike sentence. The fact that Labour doesn’t understand how these numbers show that it actually works is quite bizarre. Every police officer I speak to wants three-strikes legislation. But we’d go further and bring in three strikes for burglary. To be a burglar, you’ve lost all empathy for your victims, and it must be treated more seriously. Most burglars are caught every 15 to 20 burglaries they commit. Get caught a third time, you serve the full sentence. That must be reassuring for the 289,000 victims of burglaries last year.

I’ll leave Labour with one more policy to think about: the Crown will pay the victims financial reparation, and the IRD will be tasked to get it off the offenders. There is $114 million is owed to victims, some getting paid 65c a week back, but, all too often, the victims are getting nothing. It’s time we got serious about looking after victims and stopped pandering to the offenders. We think these policies are a great start.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tomorrow is 1 September, and it has been quite a hard winter for many people in Aotearoa New Zealand. We know it’s hard; we know whānau are struggling at the moment. Tomorrow marks 1 September, which is the day that the second payment will start to roll out to almost 2.1 million people. From tomorrow, whānau will be receiving $116 in their bank account, if they earn under $70,000 per person in their household—the second payment. When I asked those for feedback on the first payment, many said that they appreciated it, that they were able to use to it to put towards clothing for their children during winter, to be able to pay for those extra bills, and so I know that this payment will be welcomed by many, starting from tomorrow.

In terms of what this Government has been doing to alleviate the costs of living, because we know it’s hard for whānau at the moment: when we couple that with the reduction on the taxes for fuel for example—25c per litre—that has been in place since April this year, saving families many hundreds of dollars when they are filling up their cars at the petrol stations. In addition to that, we’ve had increases to Working for Families, to superannuation, to student allowance, and to main benefits—again, from 1 April, benefiting over a million people.

We have been doing significant work in the area of supermarkets to ensure that people are getting a fairer deal at the checkout. We have put in place the commissioner. We have ensured that we are able to have competition by stopping supermarkets from blocking their competitors. We have also looked at fair pricing for wholesale goods and that being passed on, for example. There is more work to do in that space, but I want to commend the Minister, who has been working hard to address one of those most significant areas where whānau are feeling the impacts of the cost of living, and that’s in our supermarkets.

We’ve also increased paid parental leave by over $40 per week. We’ve had the winter energy payment, which I know many people have benefited from—over a million New Zealanders benefit from the winter energy payment. That has got them through those extra costs of heating their house, to buy in wood, for example, and being able to turn on that heat pump so that they do not have to suffer in the cold months of winter.

We’ve also just celebrated two years of our free lunches in schools. We are providing over a million lunches to over 220,000 tamariki in 950 schools across Aotearoa. I have received direct feedback on the difference that that initiative alone makes for whānau, those with two children, those with four children—a significant cost to their families. We’re so proud of that initiative because we know that tamariki with full puku are more likely to get better learning outcomes, and so I’m proud that we are celebrating our second year of that initiative. One of the previous speakers referred to our free period products in schools, another initiative that I am extremely proud of. I know when we were advocating for this issue in Te Tai Tokerau, it is over $20 a month per person menstruating in the household. I had a father who I worked with, he had five daughters, so you know that those costs do add up quickly. So to be able to alleviate that and to ensure that there are no barriers to attendance—I am so proud of that work that we have been doing.

On top of that, we have had minimum wage increases since 2017, which is now an extra $218 per week. GP visits are cheaper, and free for all children under 14. And I want to mention, because we have a baby in the House this afternoon: our Best Start payment is also providing an extra $65 a week for parents of newborns. These are all the sorts of initiatives that Labour has introduced to try and alleviate the cost of living pressures that are on our whānau, not just this winter but in the last five years which we have had the privilege of being in Government: being able to make these Budget decisions, being able to set these policy initiatives to benefit a huge number of New Zealanders—over a million on those main benefits. And with the payment tomorrow, which will start hitting those bank accounts, up to another 2.1 million people will be benefiting from that. I couldn’t be more proud to stand on this side of the House with my colleagues, knowing that we are genuinely supporting Aotearoa New Zealand.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, what a day, what a change, and what a Government in disarray. You could just imagine what went on in caucus around about lunchtime, when everyone was sitting there at select committees and they got that memo from the Hon David Parker: “We’re going to repeal that bill that we just introduced yesterday, because we got it wrong. Oops!” You can imagine: “What are we going to talk about in the general debate? Let’s send out some notes to all the backbenchers who’ve got to stand up there today, and sort of say what a great Government it is.” Not one of them has mentioned the KiwiSaver tax blunder. It is a debacle.

Poor old Mr Parker! Poor old Mr Parker introduced the comprehensive bill—and we do them three times a year—and, as he said in question time, he has already removed it from the ballot. It is a shocker. The interesting thing is that the reason he claimed that he suddenly had a come-to-Jesus moment, if I can put it that way, is that, God, he’s had so many people, fund managers, come to him today and say, “Look, you’ve got to change it.” So one of the interesting things is—I wonder—who those are, because, for instance, the Financial Services Council have been harping on to officials, and I presume to the Minister himself, for weeks, months, to say that this is a bad piece of legislation. In fact, they described it as an overreach.

Then, today, Mr Parker talked about “It’s all about the banks. That’s why we’re turning it over, because they’re using a loophole.” Of course, he’s used that excuse once before, when he said that mum and dad investors, mum and dad homeowners who own a rental, are using a loophole because they’re using interest deductibility, even though it had been the part of the tax system that you should be able to deduct interest against accessible income and that had been the tenet of New Zealand tax law since time immemorial. He decided it was a loophole.

Again, lo and behold, today, suddenly he’s saying there’s another loophole. I would just say to Mr Parker, just for the record: the convention of paying GST on 10 percent of fees has been agreed between the IRD and every fund manager for the last 21 years. So it ain’t a little loophole that arose in the last five minutes.

Anyway, all of this from a Government that’s introduced the ute tax, the extended brightline tax, the tenant tax, the light rail tax, the regional fuel tax, raised income taxes, jobs tax, and, of course, the one that they’ve just stopped.

Of course, I heard all the talks today from members saying, “Boy, have we done a wonderful job. Well, we’ve introduced the cost of living payment. We’ve introduced the winter payment. We’ve done all these wonderful things.” But what these members do not understand is that the ordinary hard-working person in the street is now suffering just an insurmountable level of cost coming their way. Rent’s up, fuel’s up, food’s up, and it just keeps coming.

The other thing is that businesses are just swamped by a tsunami of stress and pressure as this Government just keeps socking it to our small businesses. Our business owners’ backs are up against a wall, and their mental health is also at risk. We don’t hear that from this Labour Government. It’s huge for our small-business owners and for the people that work in their business. What people want, what business owners want, and what people who work in those businesses want, is they want someone to have their back, look after them, think about them, allow them to get people from overseas to work in their business, and stop the added costs being rammed into them. All those big changes that keep coming: cost of labour, rising freight costs, supply line issues. And then the issue of crime: our 4,500 dairies, who are just continuously getting assaulted every day.

It is tough, and all this Government wants to do is impose more costs like the fair pay agreements, which are not fair at all; impose a new workers’ insurance scheme. The confidence of small-business owners has slumped. We need a change because, really, small-business owners are overworked, overwhelmed, and over Labour.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A couple of years ago on New Year’s Day, I woke up to find the sky glowing orange and there was a smell of smoke in the air, and it was the impact of the Australian bushfires coming across the Tasman. A couple of months later, we found ourselves in the middle of a global pandemic, and I think back then it would have been hard to think—fast-forwarding for two more years—that we’d find ourselves with the war in the Ukraine and the devastating impact that that’s had on communities there. But we’re also seeing some of the impacts of the heatwaves happening in Europe and looking at the artefacts that are now rising out of the rivers because there’s been no rain in the heat. I think that all of those things seem really, really far away to us here in New Zealand, and yet all of them are having their impacts here with, basically, the rising cost of living, with fuel prices and food prices and the impact that it’s having on families’ budgets. So I’m really pleased to be part of a Government that’s taking steps to help people through.

I think about some of those immediate measures that we’ve put in place in the last little while. Fuel: filling up the petrol tank is a huge cost for many families. So we’re seeing the cuts to fuel excise tax and to road-user charges but also the half-price public transport, which has made a real difference in terms of people commuting and getting to work.

Looking at the cost of living payments that have been coming into people’s bank accounts and just making that small difference so that people can get ahead, I also think back to the situation we would have found ourselves in if we hadn’t been putting in those things that we’ve put in place over the last five years to help those on lower and middle incomes. Prior to coming into Parliament, my role was around advocacy for children’s health and child poverty, and one of the things that we learnt was that it wasn’t one single policy measure that meant that we had the higher child poverty rates that we had, but it was a series of decisions made over many, many years, with each one having a cumulative effect, taking that little bit away from families and their ability to make ends meet.

Looking back to when we first came into this House as a Government back in 2017, I was so proud to be sitting in the House just before Christmas that year when we put in place the Families Package, when we increased Working for Families. But we also introduced the winter energy payment so that families could afford to turn on the heater during the winter, for those on superannuation and those relying on a benefit.

But it’s also really exciting. We’ve got a baby in the House today, but seeing the Best Start payment—back then, it was $60 a week for newborn babies in the first year, going through to the first three years for those on lower to middle incomes, and that’s been increased to $65. So we’re going to have families being able to have that little bit of extra support so that they can make those choices about whether they can stay home and care for their children in their early, formative years, or whether they want to go out to work.

That’s where, again, we extended paid parental leave and provided that extra support for families so they’ve got those choices. But then, as children grow up, we were also thinking about the costs that come in there, and so what we’ve got is we’ve got the free school lunches. I know that in our community we’ve got many schools benefiting from those, with many parents now being able to send their child to school knowing that they’re going to get a healthy lunch. But also period products: this is a very big expense for many in their teenage years—again, being able to know that you can turn up to school and those things will be provided.

Low-cost doctors visits: again, back when we first came into Government, there was a real issue with the affordability of primary care. So what we’ve done there is make sure that those on community service cards have low-cost access to GPs, because many of those things that you put off and put off end up with potentially a hospital admission, whereas you can see your GP early if you’re not worried about that cost.

The other thing that I think was really significant was the increases we’ve made to benefits. This is something that underpins some of our historical trends in child poverty rates. We saw these big benefit cuts back in the early 1990s, so it’s wonderful to be seeing the increases that we’ve had to benefits—particularly even this year, when they’ve gone up significantly—and also just the rises in superannuation as well that came in this year alongside those, and also indexing benefits to the average wage so that families relying on benefits don’t fall further and further behind. We’re also increasing the minimum wage significantly, so that gap between the minimum wage and the living wage has now narrowed significantly.

So there are a lot of things we’ve done there which mean that as we move through these cost of living increases, we’ve got families that are much better prepared because of all those things that we’ve put in place over the last five years. The more recent things are really great as responses for now, but the things that we’ve put in place over the past five years will make a real difference moving forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

House in Committee

House in Committee

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill, and the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 23 August.

New clause 2A, clauses 3 to 12, and the Schedule (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now come to further consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I remind members that they’re able to participate remotely. If you’re on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” in to the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule stand part. The question is—I just need to take some advice on where we’re up to on this bill. Right, I’m on song, so I’ll give the call to—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. I understand this was being taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is the first time I’ve spoken when you’ve been the Chair, so I’d just like to congratulate you as an ex-transport Minister—rather, as a select committee chair. I note that you have a reformed hair cut as well to indicate a new look. I just wish you all the very best in that new position. Today has been a glorious day—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member can come to the bill at some stage.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the bill is very close to your heart, I’m sure. It’s been a glorious day for the Opposition and for the public of New Zealand, because finally the Government has capitulated on an issue where—like this issue here—they’ve had no real reason to do what they’ve done in the policy dimension. The Minister, we all know, has had his hands tied by the leadership, which required him to do this. And he knows that in the sector there’s a much better solution out there, and it’s unfortunate that a Minister has had his role circumvented by the leadership of the party at the highest levels, but that’s politics, I guess.

I don’t expect the Minister to answer that affirmatively and acknowledge what has happened there. But we all know, and it’s pretty widely accepted in the community what’s happened. It’s just a shame that in a time of sunlight, you could say, on the Labour Party that we’ve seen in the last few weeks and today, we don’t see more sunlight around this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, you can now start putting some sunlight on to the bill before you—please—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I will—and much sunlight is needed. One of the questions I have for the Minister—and this relates to why I was setting the ground as I did, Mr Chair—is about the compensation that the Minister will give to farmers and to those in the sector. When blunt instruments like bans are imposed, there comes a period of time where people have relied on Government activity. They’ve relied on the ability to act in a certain way over a period of time. They’re relied on the good governance of the Government to actually act in a commercially fair and reasonable manner. There will be many who’ll be thinking that that hasn’t happened in this case.

I wish the Minister to answer that question. I don’t want the answer that “We’ve had two years and we’ve given plenty of time, and it’s been through consultation and everybody has known”, and all those things—and that will be line that the Minister will trot out. But they’re not fair. Stock just don’t miraculously arrive. It’s a long process of breeding stock, raising them to a level where they’re able to be shipped overseas. It’s a long period of building up those markets. It’s a long period of adjusting someone’s business model to actually go into that business as part of what they do. So the standard answer the Minister will trot out about the fact that we’ve had two years and the Government’s made it clear simply isn’t justifiable. So I want to know from the Minister what compensation will be out there, and what the mechanism is for people to get that compensation.

This is a blunt instrument. This is the same as GST on KiwiSaver. It’s a blunt instrument, and the parallels are very similar—the parallels of saying sorry and saying you got it wrong, and finding a solution are very similar as well. That’s all the Minister has to do today—stand up and say, “I’m sorry. I did what the leader told me, but things have changed in the Labour Party and I’m willing to stand up for what’s right now. And I recognise there will be people out there that demand compensation, and in all good conscience I can’t carry through with this legislation. So I respectfully ask that it be withdrawn from the House.” That’s what the Minister could do, and he’s had leadership in the Labour Party in the last couple of weeks of how to do that. We saw leadership from David Parker today around how to do that, as well. So the parallels are quite striking. The Minister will, as I said, trot out that excuse.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to further debate this piece of abysmal legislation. In 2009, Minister, and this is as much a question as a statement, farmer confidence surveys were started by Federated Farmers, from 2009 to the present day. It has never been so low in the recent survey—never been so low. Farmers are being faced with a myriad of legislative changes, including the live-animal export ban. I just want to rattle them off and you can cut in at any time when you’re taking into consideration the $261 million that this bill and its revenue seems to remove from the primary industries: significant natural areas; He Waka Eke Noa; an emissions trading scheme; winter grazing; freshwater farm plans—contextualise that, Minister, with $261 million leaving the industry—a ute tax, and goodness gracious knows what that means; animal welfare reforms. Goodness gracious, yet again, a whole lot of unknowns. Again, contextualise that, Minister, if I may: $261 million.

I used these words the other day: I wager anyone—this is near on half a billion dollars leaving the industry. You worked incredibly hard to secure a free-trade agreement with the EU. Well, I argue half of it’s gone with the implementation of this piece of legislation. There are chronic staffing shortages, Minister, in the primary industries. Yet again, $261 million is leaving the primary sector. How on earth, Minister—we canvassed this last week and yet you chose not to answer directly—does the primary sector reconcile that fiscal loss? This is a lot of money and an industry with absolutely no confidence.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ah, Nicola Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Chair. There was a very slight hesitation there, Mr Chair! Look, thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to resume this debate. Last I spoke on this bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, in this debate, I alerted the Minister to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 204 in my name, in which the National Party put forward a proposal that we would insert new sections 48A and 48B, which outlines, effectively, that the director-general must review requirements to meet animal welfare standards for the export of live cattle within three months of this section coming into force.

Now, the logic behind that is that we are very firmly of the belief, and we believe that the industry supports us—and actually we believe that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) supports us—that actually, with the right regulation, this can become a world-leading industry whereby the safe, humane transfer of livestock can occur, thus putting New Zealand at the forefront of this international industry and setting the standard, importantly, globally for other nations to follow. Unfortunately, the debate was interrupted, so I never got a response from the Minister as to whether or not he had considered SOP 204, because we think it actually gives a number of opportunities for the Director-General of MPI to, firstly, review the legislation, review whether or not it’s fit for purpose, and importantly, review what opportunities there are to restart this export industry.

Unfortunately, as I say, Supplementary Order Paper 204 has, apparently, not been considered. So I want to turn the Minister’s mind to Supplementary Order Paper 205 in my name, where, if he weren’t to consider whether or not the director-general should carry out a review and look at a permissive or exemption-type regime, perhaps they could start to look at another requirement whereby we would be allowing for a permissive regime for exporters to be able to apply for approval of animal welfare certificates. When I spoke in the last debate, we talked about the fact that the National Party would put up opportunities for certification, for exemptions, for permissions—all of which have been shouted down, unfortunately, but the reason we are going to continue to prosecute this case is because we believe MPI has been lobbying for at least two years for a regulatory framework to regulate, to license, and therefore to enforce.

We know that this ministry knows that this is a viable option. We know that this ministry is working with a number of New Zealand exporters. We know that they accepted the recommendations brought down by the Heron report that followed the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in 2019. Unfortunately for the ministry, thus far it has not had the levers, so to speak, to pull to enforce these kinds of permissive regimes. So we do ask the Minister: of any of the Supplementary Order Papers that he’s going to consider, would he consider No. 205 and look at the possibility of bringing in a regime that would allow for applications for approval of animal welfare certificates?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, it’s a good day to rise and ask questions on this because we have seen the Government is capable of doing backflips on dumb policy. So earlier today, in less than 24 hours, the Government did a backflip on the KiwiSaver tax. And I see Minister Michael Wood is also in the Chamber, and he’ll be very familiar with the backflip on the fantasy cycle bridge in Auckland. So this Government is developing a bit of trajectory.

But why doesn’t the Minister do the same thing, because the Minister knows, surely, that this is a dumb bill? It’s going to cost New Zealand about $475 million a year. How is the Government planning to pay for the things that we need—like our schooling system, our health system—if they’re increasing taxes, making it harder for businesses to do business? This is exactly what this bill does: it makes it harder to do business, it reduces the amount of income by $475 million a year for our economy. This is an industry that, the Minister will be well aware of, brought in $52 billion to New Zealand last fiscal year. So I’d like the Minister to answer us: why did they decide to proceed with this bill without consulting the primary sector? Because this is, again, unfortunately, another habit that this Government is developing, which is pushing ahead with legislation that affects businesses and affects New Zealanders quite significantly without consulting with them.

Look, I’d also like the Minister to tell the Chamber and tell New Zealanders and tell farmers why the Minister decided to go ahead with this, because the regulatory impact statement stated that there are two approaches to respond to the problem from the 2019 review of the post Gulf Livestock 1. The first was to allow for trade to continue but with stronger regulations, through maintaining strong animal welfare standards, and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. Now, that’s something that Australia has proven is possible. Australia has got gold standard for their live export. They got a fantastic deal with the United Kingdom. Why can’t New Zealand do the same? Why can’t the Minister give our farmers that confidence that we’re going to back them, just like Australia has done?

So the second option, which the regulatory impact statement said, was a ban to the export of livestock with a transition period, something that we’re seeing here today. Why ban when the Government has the option to make the industry better, weed out the cowboys, trade with the world, and make sure we get that $475 million coming in? The Government’s going to get some of that in tax, but we want all that money—our communities need that money. We need it so we can pay for our schools, which are under financial pressure. We need it to pay for our hospitals, which are under financial pressure. We need it to pay for our nurses, our doctors, our teachers. How do we do that? We do it by trading with the world. This is what we’re doing here.

The other thing is this bill, the Minister will be aware of, will increase the number of bobby calves. So we’re creating two problems. We’re reducing the amount of trade. We’re increasing the number of bobby calves. What’s going to happen with the bobby calves? We can’t send them to happy homes where they’re needed, like, for example, Indonesia, which is going to need more livestock. We can’t send them to the Ukraine, which needs a whole lot more livestock. So Minister, I would appreciate some answers to these questions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, Mr Chair, thank you very much, and I’ll take the opportunity to answer some of the questions; I’ll work through them. Let’s start at the top. Just because this trade will stop does not mean that we lose that income, it means that those animals remain in New Zealand and, for the most part, will probably end up being higher-value exports by way of meat products. So we’re not losing the income to our country at all; it just will come in a different form. I accept that there will be, possibly, lower income directly to the farmers who are selling these animals directly in—and they are getting a premium.

But I did ask around a number of people across the country at early stages of this proposition. On balance, it’s probably 50:50 or more. Most of the farmers were uncomfortable with this trade and opted to take what is our position—not the leadership; the leadership endorses my position that, on balance, my job as the Minister of Agriculture is to ensure that the incredible work that has been done through generations upholding high standards of animal welfare is not lost through what we see as an increasing trade and increasing incidence of live exports across the globe. Whether it be in sheep or in livestock, because over half of the boats used in international trade are refurbished boats that are old, that would otherwise be scrapped, but they’re then refitted—yes, they are refitted—but in all sorts of ways. Some are OK, many are not.

So the basis of this was not any drive from leadership, and, in fact, I have to say, it is an honour and a pleasure to work in a Government that does have open debate about many, many issues. And yes, there are some changes from time to time. But I have to tell you that, in my international experience and discussions, all the countries around the world where there is live export from are reconsidering their position. So I have to say, this is about maintaining our reputation because, unlike most countries, we have a high dependency upon animal protein production through milk and meat.

Joseph Mooney: Why can Australia do it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Higher than just about—a lot higher than Australia. A lot higher than Australia. It’s only a small portion of their total exports. Of ours, it’s a very high portion. So our reputation is absolutely paramount—done a lot of good work to get there.

So what we had is a claim that we’ve had gold standards. The reality is that we’re also exporting a long way further than most other countries around the globe. The animals go from temperate climate, through the tropics, and then we’re not quite sure. So as a submitter said, in spite of the best efforts of the people on the boat and the best intentions, effectively, there was no way of significantly reducing either factor—that was heat stress and lameness—that the cows were experiencing on this journey. Cattle didn’t have enough time to adapt to the warmer weather so it really was a brutal period of survival of the fittest. That’s not the kind of reputation that we want as a country that depends on animal protein production.

Mr Bennett raised the issue of compensation. Yes, he answered it himself. There has been two years’ lead-in to this. We have, clearly, had discussions with—and of course there’ll be people who have interests who will object all the way to the end, but, actually, I’ve again spoken to many people who said we’ve got plenty of time to transition out of that, thank you very much, and we’ll move on. In terms of bobby calves, we now have—it’s a whole different issue around bobby calf management, and we have sexed semen. So there won’t be excess animals coming into our system—not the ones that people might have sold and, in fact, are not one and the same thing, as most of the members know that. These have often been bred for purpose; they’ll just be bred for meat or for dairy production.

Mark Cameron says, you know, there’s a low level of confidence across the—what I would say is that it’s hard to maintain the returns that we’re getting for our commodities and for our primary production at this point because they are really strong. Commodity prices across the globe are strong. And we are facing some headwinds with geopolitical instability. We’ve had COVID. And yes, there are some inflationary pressures. So in a situation like that where it’s unlikely that prices will continue to rise—and, indeed, Fonterra have just announced that, you know, pay out might come back 25c—of course there’s some uncertainty, and I understand that from the farming sector. This is not the solution to that, I can promise you.

Can I just say that that the other credit—oh that’s right, I went—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Time is up.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, sorry. I missed the clock. Mr Chairman, if I can continue, Nicola Grigg asked if we’d seen Supplementary Order Paper 204 or 205. Yes, we have looked at them, and we appreciate the intent, but, on balance, we think that ending this and giving clarity is a better way forward than continuing with the uncertainty that we are exposed to by this trade. Indeed, we’ve had just had an incident where farmers haven’t been paid, or traders haven’t been paid for stock that was supposed to go on—those stock were returned back to farm. It’s a bit of a commercial mess. And I’m not saying that that was all the industry, but I’m saying it’s been a little messy across a number of the areas of live export. Let’s move on with confidence, utilising the animals that we do breed and raise here, in the best way possible.

Mr Mooney says, you know, we could do backflips. The problem is, I’m a better forward than I am a gymnast. And so it’s more likely that we will continue with this. In fact, we will continue with this because this is the best piece of legislation to protect the reputation of not just the farmers now but those into the future who want to commit to livestock farming and know that we are the best managers of animal welfare and animal protein in the world, and for the world. That’s why this trade should end.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thanks, Mr Chair. Thank you very much; I’m very grateful. Minister, just to clarify. I’m not sure if you’re aware, and maybe you can enlighten the House, what the value of an animal was—let’s theorise here: what a two-year-old Friesian heifer in calf going overseas was worth versus sale in the domestic market. I’ll offer you this: it was probably about $350 to $500 difference per head. That sort of money is gone per animal out of this, or the cessation or nullification of this trade.

Minister, again, how do you reconcile that some in this industry have invested close on $1 million in livestock-carrying vehicles, trucks, stock crates, and trailers? They’re gone. They’re gone; they’ve subsidised a large portion of their income through this trade.

There’s one thing I think you really owe this House an explanation of: you have offered that our reputation is key. Now, I think we all agree with that; no umbrage there. But how do you reconcile that the Australians can continue under a gold standard and somehow are you insinuating that their gold standard is less meritorious than the continuation of the trade for us to that gold standard, or should we just simply remove it? So, in other words, what I’m asking, Minister: do you think their gold standard is beneath currently where we sit? Because I think we deserve an answer.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister said that New Zealand needs to maintain its reputation as having the best animal husbandry standards in the world, and absolutely—won’t find any disagreement from anyone on this side of the House.

The question is, why has the Minister not looked at the option of improving the regulatory environment to make the sure that those ships the Minister talked about that aren’t fit for purpose, that shouldn’t be carrying our animals around the world, can’t be used to carry our animals around the world, instead of just banning everyone from doing it, and so making sure that only the best operators can come to New Zealand and ship these animals?

And I go back to the question I asked before about the regulatory impact statement, which said that the first option was to allow for trade to continue but with stronger regulations, through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. What advice did the Minister get on that recommendation? What discussion did the Minister have with rural New Zealand about that recommendation? What advice and discussions did the Minister have with the trade groups about that recommendation?

Because, Minister, that seems like, from my point of view, an extremely good idea—to actually allow for trade, enhance New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships, create stronger regulations to make sure the cowboys and the ships that shouldn’t be transporting our animals around the world can’t do it, and maintain strong animal welfare standards. So I would, generally, be very interested in the Minister answering about what advice and discussions the Minister had about that recommendation.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to resume my commentary from my last contribution and turn the Minister’s mind to Supplementary Order Paper 206 under my name.

In my last contribution, I mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would allow for a certifications regime to be implemented. That doesn’t seem to have been sold to the Government, so I would then like the Minister to consider, rather, a regulation providing for exemptions, as opposed to certifications, but on a case-by-case basis.

The Minister, in his last contribution, made a number of observations about the standard of ships that have been used historically to transfer animals around the world. I think I’ve mentioned this to this House before that we would absolutely agree that a lot of that has been substandard. I sat on the Primary Production Committee, and we saw photographic evidence and, indeed, oral evidence of practices that no New Zealander would accept or consider to be right.

And that is the point of the SOPs that we are putting up here this afternoon and, indeed, have been doing so for the last couple of times that we have met to debate this bill. The whole point behind the position that we are taking on this side of the House—I might add, also, on behalf of the industry—is that there is room to regulate this industry. Underneath that regulation would, one would assume, come an insistence of only using built-for-purpose ships that would obviously include high-tech air ventilation systems and, indeed, air conditioning systems. We do understand that animals do suffer heat stress, particularly when they get to the equator on their journey.

But the Minister has not answered the question around leakage and, you know, he’s talked about other shipments from other nations. Well, I put to the Minister: is it not better that the New Zealand export industry lead the world in this, with a world-leading regulatory standard, whereby animals are on custom-built ships from port to port, approximately, weather permitting, for three weeks, as opposed to going from a jurisdiction like in South America where there are no regulations, where those animals are on the water for about seven weeks, and where they are still crossing the equator and are still going to be subjected to heat stress in ships that are probably refurbished container ships.

So, with regard to SOP 206, allowing the regulation to be created that would give the director-general an opportunity to provide exemptions on a case by case basis would answer those questions. And those concerns that the Minister raised, the purpose of the conditional licensing regime is to—and I quote—“ensure that each shipment of cattle is exported in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge.” And that is the crux of the argument that we, on this side of the House, are putting forward. This decision has been made entirely emotionally and entirely ideologically; there is not scientific rationale behind it.

We would, therefore, under a conditional licensing regime, request that exporters have to apply for a licence for each individual shipment of cattle and make certain that exporters maintain consistently high standards, and that, I would also add, would extend to the importers; they, too, would be subject to a certification or a licensing regime on a case by case basis to ensure the ongoing animal welfare standards are kept in the destination country.

We would like an exemption mechanism to be instigated prior to October next year. That gives the industry some time to move. I think I mentioned in my last contribution, as much as the Minister likes to say, “The industry has had two years to transition”, they have been waiting with bated breath that the Minister and the Government might move on this thing. So this is coming into effect in April next year. I’m sorry, that is six months away; that is not two years away. So we do want the Minister to please consider SOP 206, that each export need to apply for export licensing regime for the export of cattle.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have two questions for the Minister. The first is in relation to his response before, where he implied that the returns would remain in New Zealand but in a different form, and then my colleague from the ACT Party quite rightly noted that there would be a different price for a stock unit of that age in the New Zealand market, compared with the international market. So perhaps the Minister needs to enlighten us, on this side of the House, as to actually how his economics work as to how we get the same return in New Zealand.

When we consider that the Minister has said that he wants to see 800,000 hectares of dry stock land go into forestry, where are these animals going to go? What are we going to do with them at that age? We’ve already had peak cows. We’ve got cows reducing. Are these heifers that are in calf going to suddenly become part of the New Zealand dairy herd? What’s going to happen to them?

How does the Minister explain that that money will, in his words, come in a different form? It won’t. There will be a loss to the New Zealand economy. If he says that there is no loss to the New Zealand economy, I would love to hear it. Now, the only answer I think he can give is his fanciful thing about “This is all part of ‘Brand New Zealand’ ” and that we get more return from it from that. That might be his answer, but that will be lovely to see, because he can’t even get a free-trade agreement in Europe for dairy. He actually took that out of the agreement.

Rachel Boyack: What?

Hon Member: Shocking.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, they did. The Labour members are going, “Oh, really?” Well, that’s what happened. The week before the free-trade agreement, your glorious leader said, “We don’t need to negotiate that. We don’t need to talk about dairy”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, I’ll just remind members this debate has been going for half an hour before we started today. So we are now looking for, as the previous speaker did talk into Supplementary Order Papers, in particular—so I’ll be looking for new material; certainly relevant material, Mr Bennett. So I’ll invite you to continue.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Chair. It certainly is new material, because the Labour members are over there, going, “What? Really? Never heard of it.”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Relevant material, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s new to them that the Prime Minister, basically, put the kibosh on the dairy industry in the free-trade agreement.

So where are these heifers going to go? Are we going to suddenly miraculously have more dairy conversions, Minister? I don’t think you’re going to do that. It’s not going to happen. Are we going to have more sheep and beef farms? That’s not going to happen when everything that you want goes into forestry. Where are you going to put these animals? Where do we get that return? Your words were: “They will come in a different form.” So explain it. Just tell us how you made that economic judgment.

My second question to the Minister is a very simple one. He just has to say “Yes” or “No”. Did he ask the Prime Minister to tone down the policy in this area? At any point, did he go to the Prime Minister and say, “No, we can’t do the full ban. There’s a practical solution here that we could look at.” Did he have that conversation? Just a simple yes or no. If he didn’t have that conversation, fine, everybody knows that he didn’t. But if he did have that conversation, the public and the farmers of New Zealand deserve to know that.

Hon Willie Jackson: No one cares.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No one cares? This is Willie Jackson. They obviously don’t understand that one of the biggest farmers in New Zealand is iwi. Guess who makes a lot of money in the sheep and beef industry! It’s iwi. Guess who’s going to have a big future in New Zealand sheep and beef! Iwi. But “who cares?” for Willie Jackson because he’s the urban elite; he’s not actually of the Māori who are looking after the land and the whenua, and building the base of the industry.

So, Minister, answer those questions. Did you at any point ask the Prime Minister to tone down the policy agenda in this area? Secondly, explain how this money’s going to come in a different form, when, as my good colleague has said, there is a completely different market for those animals. And where do you expect those animals to go?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. It’s good that the member David Bennett sat down so I could answer the questions. Look, it’s good that he also acknowledges the significant role that iwi play across agriculture. It hasn’t been recognised as it should be, and I have to say it’s a pleasure to see the development across many iwi Māori entities in agriculture. And not one of them called for a change in our position on this.

When I was farming—and it might be different for Mr Bennett—but if you have an in-calf heifer and you don’t send it away, that doesn’t mean to say the value of that animal disappears. Indeed, you have a heifer that will produce a calf that has value in itself. You then can actually milk it if you want, or, in fact, actually, there are some that produce beef that will say there’s a really good return on beef heifers.

Can I just say that the equation that stopping this trade ends the value of the animals in New Zealand is completely false. So I—

Hon David Bennett: We never said that. We said “lower value”.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Maybe the member should just take a different—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Mr Chair. Both myself and my colleague never said it ended the value; we said it has a lower value, and the Minister needs to answer—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, that is not a point of order. That is a debating point. [Interruption] No, sit down please, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I just point to the fact that—and I think Mr Cameron’s actually got his figures wrong. I think he underestimates the premium that many farmers were getting—underestimates them, because I think my brother was certainly selling animals for about twice their value for the export market, and so I accept that there would be less money available to those farmers who might have sold directly to those markets. It does not mean there’s less money for New Zealand, and I explained that biological process to Mr Bennett.

Can I just go through a couple of other points. Mr Mooney asked—

Hon David Bennett: Did you ask the Prime Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, did I ask the Prime Minister? I asked her, “Can you continue to support my view that we should end this trade, because that will protect our reputation?” That’s the discussion I had, and I’m happy to say that I led that on the basis of all the information, the discussions, and the reading that I’ve done in this area.

Can I just go back to a couple of points made by members over there. Nicola Grigg says that, you know, a lot of the boats have been substandard. Indeed, that has been the case, and if you look across the history of the trade, there was a boat from Chile having to refuel in Fiji that was locked out of the port, because Fijians didn’t think that this trade was ethical. A number of people across the globe are concerned about what has been happening and what is still happening, which is why we’re trying to stay ahead of that. We can still assist the people we had as customers through genetic transfer, through embryos, through sperm transfer, and we can have air travel for very high-value animals. This does not stop us assisting in the genetic improvement of animals around the world. We simply just will not be doing it through transport on boats.

Can I say finally: look, Mr Mooney says, you know, we should just use the best operators. The problem is it’s a subjective judgment on who they are, and it gets really, really tricky. If we end up with one dud operator, as we did, one tragic accident, as we did, then the reputation of this country is at stake. That’s why we’re moving on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I do warn members that there hasn’t been any real new material here, so I will be looking for new material on all new speeches.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Mr Chair, I’m very pleased to let you know that I have five Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and I’m up to number four of five, so this is certainly my best attempt at new material, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on this one too.

So I would like to draw the Minister’s attention this time to Supplementary Order Paper 208, which we haven’t yet canvassed in this Chamber. Now, to be fair, though, I do feel like I’m repeating myself, because I have—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You are.

NICOLA GRIGG: —asked the Minister—oh, you still haven’t given me an answer, Minister; not a satisfactory one, at least. We have asked the Minister multiple times, the industry has asked the Minister multiple times, to provide a framework for regulation to tidy this industry up. It’s really interesting that a Government that purports to be all about just transition is prepared to cut this industry off at the knees in six months from now. So despite our best attempts—you know, we’ve asked for the Minister to consider things like permissions regimes, regulations, export certificates, exemptions, case by case basis, etc., etc., etc. The primary SOP we’ve put up has been asking the Minister to ask the director-general to carry out a review within three months of this thing coming into force so that he can look to the viability of implementing a world-class gold standard regime.

But this time around, SOP 208; I really would like the Minister to at least consider this one, and that is implementing new section 54A, whereby the Minister himself would review the ban on live animal shipments within three months. Now, the reason we are asking for this is that it would require the Act arising from the passage of this bill, which we presume is going to happen, because that’s what happens when a Government has an absolute majority and it knows it’s in its dying days; it’s going to pass anything it blinking well can for the next 12 months. It would require the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to review the prohibition six months after it comes into force. So hypothetically speaking, perhaps if it were to be a change of Government after September next year, perhaps by about March 2024, the Ministry for Primary Industries would review this thing.

This SOP has been put up because it recognises, and we on this side of the House recognise, the haste with which this Government is operating, the haste with which it made a decision. We supported the immediate cessation of shipments immediately after the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in 2019. We felt that was right and proper. We supported it. We then supported the Heron recommendations that MPI chose to implement as well. We believe, and we know MPI believes, there is a way to regulate this thing. So we think that this is a knee-jerk reaction. It is ideological; it is emotional. That is why we are putting up this SOP, because we believe this thing needs to be reviewed and we do think that if and when it’s reviewed, it will be found to be wanting. This SOP also introduces the review mechanism, so we’re putting all the frameworks in place where MPI must start to look. In the context of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act, it will review the prohibition on the application of issuance of animal welfare export certificates, and it will consider whether the animal welfare export certificate process could be reinstated under prescribed conditions and criteria. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The Minister has said in the House a number of times now that this is to protect our reputation. Last year, the Minister said that, in effect, this trade puts $33.7 billion in trade in animals and agricultural products at risk. However, the Ministry for Primary Industries thought the reputational impacts were real but difficult to quantify. So I would like to ask the Minister: has the Minister gone to our trading partners and asked them what their view is on this trade, in terms of them buying our products?

Now, if I look just at one example, China, alone, took about $20 billion of our goods in 2021. Most of that was dairy, meat, and wood. And China is also rebuilding its dairy herd, because they reduced their herd in a culling programme in 2015-2016 by 50 percent, but now they’re trying to rebuild it so they can rebuild their ability to produce milk domestically. So that is obviously a big trading partner, an important one. Has the Minister gone to any of these trading partners and our biggest ones and asked them, rather than just putting a finger in the air and being like, “I feel like it could affect our reputation.”? Has he gone and actually asked them and got some data to inform this decision about whether it will in fact affect our trade with them or not? Because that would seem to be an absolutely critical point, to actually have some metrics underpinning the decision, and it is one that would give some confidence that the Minister’s actually making a principled decision, rather than just a “feels” decision.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There hasn’t been any new material, but at this stage I’ll look with hope that one of the two speakers—Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. In the last answer from the Minister, he talked about there being a compensation, I guess, for not having the live trade in that you can use sperm and embryos and suchlike to enable New Zealand to have access to genetics and suchlike, and this hasn’t been discussed in this House before. But, at the same time as this bill, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has, effectively, cut the trade in embryos and sperm from overseas. So the new rules and regulations around it basically mean it is impossible to bring in a lot of those products to New Zealand. That’s a relationship back to the M. bovis days, and MPI have tightened up the rules. So, effectively, for those that aren’t here, they basically have to put radioactive—give a good whack to those products, which basically knocks them out, and a very small proportion will actually ever survive.

So if the Minister’s using as an excuse that we don’t need to trade in animals that are live, but at the same time his excuse for that is “We can still get embryos; we can still get sperm”, but at the same time his officials have, effectively, killed that market, how does he reconcile that? How does he explain it? The Minister knows what I’m talking about. He’s had the correspondence that I’ve had from people in that sector who say they can’t do it any more. It would have been on his desk, and he’s seen it. He has seen that; his officials have seen it. They can’t in this House ignore it; they can’t in this House say that’s not true. There are officials here that have seen those letters. They actually made the policies that do it.

So the Minister needs to explain why, five minutes ago, he said, “Don’t worry about the live trade; you’ve always got the embryos and sperm.” We don’t, actually, because he’s killed that market. His officials need to explain to the Minister how he’s going to reconcile all that, and then he needs to reconcile to the farmers in New Zealand how they keep getting the best genetics in the world. If you’re the racing industry, you don’t rely just on New Zealand genetics. You get some of the best horses around the world and bring them in. He’s called Sir Tristram for a reason—you know, he came from Ireland. What are we going to do with our beef, our sheep? How are we going to have a sheep milking industry if we don’t get—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, you were vaguely on the bill before. You’ve now stretched quite a way away. So can we come back to the bill that’s actually in front of you and the provisions of it? It’s been wide ranging, but we are now at this stage of the debate—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: This bill bans the import of livestock, and the Minister has said in his answer, “Don’t worry about that; you can do semen and embryos.” Well, you can’t. Theoretically you can, but by the time you nuke them, they’re basically dead. So, you know, they’re not coming through. The Minister knows—he’s looking very sheepish at the moment—but maybe he needs to explain it. What are New Zealand farmers going to do around genetics, going forward? They can’t have a live trade, and they can’t have the genetics come in through those other forms. That is new material that hasn’t been discussed, but it’s a direct implication of this bill, and the Minister raised it in his answer as an excuse for this bill. He says, “Don’t worry about this; you don’t need live trade. You can have the others.” Well, you can’t, because the rules are so difficult now that it makes a lot of that impossible.

So can the Minister please explain his rationale, please explain what’s happening there, and to actually identify what’s going on and acknowledge that there is a problem there around semen and embryos, and say what he is going to do about it. Because is this “Fortress New Zealand” coming back again in the primary sector, where we’re not allowed to have genetics from around the world? Is that what the Minister truly wants for New Zealand? I ask the Minister to answer those questions.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, sir. Thank you. Minister, I will push back on your statements that I had the figures wrong. Do you know what the national herd scheme is, sir? I’d hope to think that you did. F12s—I’m not sure if you know what the acronym was; it was for Friesian 12s and it was to do with their pedigree status.

The average price for the national herd scheme when these animals were being traded versus the value of the animals domestically: the value of the animals domestically was $1,600 to $1,750 on average through the national herd scheme. This was average prices for F12s in the last two fiscal seasons. The average price for animals going offshore was about $500 more than that per head. Now, I used average figures.

Now, I want to add to that just to keep some new material flowing here, given that Mr Chair has asked for it. Pre-departure condition score, Minister: do you know what the pre-departure average condition score for animals going offshore is versus average Friesian dairy cows being dried off—theorising here—on 15 or 20 May? I guarantee you, sir, the pre-departure conditions—the half a condition score that these animals are putting in terms of weight gain in transit is not indicative of a problem.

I want you to clarify yes or no, sir, do you know what the average of mortality of bovine livestock is here in New Zealand versus in transit? Because every suggestion we’ve had: in transit, it is infinitesimally small compared to what is happening on average on an everyday New Zealand dairy farm. So can you clarify that, because there’s a massive distinction there?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): There was a little bit of new information there and I’m happy to do that. The fatality rates—and we’ve been monitoring those—on the face of it might seem relatively low. But actually, when you look across the reports, I’ve had to scrutinise those reports and challenge them from time to time to ensure that we—indeed, lately we have been having a more accurate report-back system.

But there are a lot of injuries—they’re mainly foot injuries, but one of the things that is indicated in reports but doesn’t necessarily result in a fatality is huge heat stress. I think, by any animal welfare standard, it would be considered unacceptable.

Can I just very briefly touch on a couple of the other things. Nicola Grigg said, you know, this is a hasty bill. It’s taken two years: clear notice to the industry. I think recognition of that, even though they don’t agree, recognition of the time that we gave them in the lead-up to this—and it is important that we move on with certainty, that we don’t offer false hope, which is I know what the National members have been trying to do. But we will move on with this.

I was a little confused, as I was from the two interventions by Mr Bennett: one that was completely false regarding the EU trade deal; but the second one here, I wasn’t sure whether he was talking about the importation or the exportation of genetics.

We’re actually talking about the export of products, and we can—and indeed, if the member thinks there’s blockage to the importation of genetics from our country, that people want to do that, then please come and see me and I will address that with officials. But I think they facilitate that as best they can, given the biosecurity requirements of the countries into which we would be exporting.

But I think on balance, we’ve been through and we’ve canvassed most of the issues here. I can accept the perspectives put forth by the Opposition. We don’t agree with them; we think that on balance we still need to uphold the reputation and protect it for all of those generations of farmers that’ve got us to where we have got to, and for those who will get us to where we need to be in the future.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Nicola Grigg’s amendments inserting new clauses 2A and 11A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to clauses 5, 7, 10, and the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Nicola Grigg’s remaining amendments to clauses 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Nicola Grigg’s remaining amendments to clause 10 and the Schedule and inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Nicola Grigg’s amendment inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Nicola Grigg’s amendment inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Screen Industry Workers Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Screen Industry Workers Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, well, look, thank you; an unexpected initial call. I thought the Minister may have started; I’m not sure of the general protocol. So apologies to the Minister there if I’ve jumped in front of you, or—

Hon Michael Wood: Go ahead. My folder’s open.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you. Look, I’m very conscious this is, obviously, the committee stage. I think it’s important to say that National does oppose this, but not all aspects of it. There remain elements of the bill which we are quite happy to see strengthened. But, overall, we see that this goes far too far in the overall intention—and this is, ultimately, the first question of many to the Minister. The ultimate intention, we think, is going to actually harm the screen industry. So I just want to draw the Minister’s attention, if I could, to his department’s impact statement, where it makes very clear that he believes that this is a low-wage industry. I would welcome some examples from the Minister of that. I’m not disputing whether it is or not. I think it would be just really interesting if he could provide some examples, or his officials could, of what would be perhaps, I don’t know, the average wage of a producer or a grip or a stagehand.

And, importantly, as well, in the spirit of rather short questions, where and how were these wages compared to? So we get in the impact statement—on page one, if it assists. Granted, the officials know; they wrote it. In section A it says that the low wages in this industry were compared to others. I’d welcome knowing what those industries were. So again, I’d like some examples of what the wages are that he sees, and what they were compared against.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Apologies; I didn’t stand up as expeditiously as was expected. I was just carrying my things over to my chair here and the previous Chair got things under way very quickly. But I’ll make some opening comments in respect of Part 1, which we are set to debate at this point of proceedings in this committee stage hearing in the Chamber.

Part 1 of the bill primarily contains the preliminary provisions of the bill, including key definitions, including the critical definition of screen production workers who are the group of workers who are covered by the provisions of this legislation. Can I, at this point of proceedings, just acknowledge the work of the Education and Workforce Committee that did consider this bill. It was, of course, about two years ago now. So it was a select committee of the previous Parliament who considered and reported back the bill that the committee has in front of it at this stage. The main change that the select committee made to Part 1 of the bill was to enhance wording in this part of the bill to ensure that workers do have the freedom to make complaints without any fear of there being any comeback on them. That’s an important part of the bill. It was something that was heard from the sector, that there was a strong desire from workers—from workers’ unions—but also producers in the sector, that we have strong prohibitions against practices such as bullying, harassment, and discrimination. So I think that’s a good improvement that’s in there.

I’ve introduced a significant Supplementary Order Paper. When I say significant, it’s a relatively large one that we’ll work through as we go through the different parts of the bill in the course of the debate today. It’s fair to say that many of the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are relatively small and technical and quite often relate to a reordering and restructuring of the bill to make it more readable and easy to interpret. The most significant change in Part 1 of the bill that’s reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper relates to the fact that we’re ensuring that workplace relationships as defined under the bill are not just restricted to the bargaining period. We need to understand workplace relationships in the broader context of the relationship between workers and engagers in the sector, and Part 1 of the bill confirms that that occurs across the entire scope of the employment relationship. Those, I think, are the key opening comments I’d like to make in respect of Part 1 of the bill, and I’m happy to answer any questions that do relate to the provisions of Part 1 as reported back to the committee by the select committee.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the issues raised in Part 1 of this bill—this is the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which is seeking to undo the legislation that was called the “Hobbit law”, which was introduced by the National Government back in 2010 or 2012, I can’t remember which, and which was put in place in the context of a big union fight, which was, frankly, threatening the arrival and production of The Hobbit films. It was an arrangement that the National Government of the time brought in in order to ensure that they went ahead. And since then, the New Zealand film industry has gone from strength to strength. It is in a reasonably good shape, although, of course, it has been battered severely by the COVID restrictions over the last couple of years—just starting to come out of that. And I’m bound to say that the feedback I’m getting from many in the sector is: “Great! We were just finally getting our head above the water post-COVID. There’s still lots of issues that we’re having to deal with—lots of sickness and things like that. Oh dear, I just wish we weren’t having to deal with very significant labour relations changes at the same time.” So the timing of this bill is a questionable one.

And the most fundamental question I have for the Minister relates not just to Part 1 but to the bill itself, which has been in the freezer for two years. It was introduced by a Minister many Ministers ago, I think, back before the last election in 2020 with a hiss and a roar, and then put in the freezer, and it has been pulled out, stuck in the microwave two years later, and is suddenly being pushed quite rapidly through the last stages. And so the fundamental question I have for the Minister is why—I suppose to talk through the timing of why he thinks this is a good time to be undergoing very substantial reform in an industry that is still battling the effects of COVID, just getting itself back on its feet again. There’s quite a bit of stuff going on. There’s also, of course, the merger of TVNZ and Radio New Zealand, which nobody seems to understand the logic therein.

Hon Willie Jackson: No—only you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m getting slightly off topic. Old Willie Jackson probably understands it. Well, who knows what goes on in Willie’s mind. But anyway, that’s going on at great expense, and will have implications and consequences for the industry, unknown at this stage. And so they’re dealing with that, they’re dealing with COVID, and they’re wondering why on earth we need to be dealing with this now. So that’s a question around timing.

The second question is a more substantive one in relation to Part 1, which talks about the exemption from prohibition of restricted trade practices. And this is potentially a very significant change in our employment relations. Here it’s just listed as it relates to the screen industry, but there is, of course, deep nervousness that this is, I suppose, the first cab off the rank of a wider Government agenda to enable contractors to ignore the Commerce Act, which is all about individual companies and contractors not being able to collude in a cartel fashion with each other over pay and conditions and arrangements and cost. So the idea of an independent contractor meeting with all the other independent contractors and collectively coming up with a scheme is what’s called a cartel, and it’s been ruled out in the Commerce Act. So this legislation is wanting to change that, and have an exemption for this industry. So I suppose the question I have for the Minister is: can he be open about his thinking there in terms of what his intentions are for—well, why just this sector? And does he have plans for other sectors?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I mean, the member took all of about 15 seconds in his first speech to stray into striking irrelevance in respect of this particular debate, but let me respond briefly—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Minister, order! I’ll be the judge of that, and the member did qualify his comments very well, if you listened properly.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: And I’m very generously going to briefly respond to his questions around the timing of the bill by contrasting it with the fact that the National Party made its previous changes, which stripped away fundamental international worker rights, in urgency, overnight. This Government has actually worked through a careful process of consultation and collaboration with the sector itself to develop these proposals. So the member’s opening utterances, suggesting that there’s deep alarm or concern in the sector, are entirely baseless. This piece of legislation is based on a tripartite working group, which had both unions and producers at the table, which brought back joint recommendations which have formed the basis for this piece of legislation, and the detailed provisions of it have been worked through very carefully with them over recent months. The member may have blinked and missed it, but there were a couple of other events over the course of 2020 and 2021 which did somewhat disrupt the Government’s legislative programme, and we are returning to those important things now.

The relevant matter which the member did refer to was clause 7 of the bill, which relates to prohibitions on restrictive trade practices. This is quite an important part of it, because, effectively, the grand bargain of the recommendations that came through from the screen industry working group, which are reflected in this bill, is that the contractor status will largely be retained for workers in the sector—and there are seen to be benefits for that from people in the sector—but those workers will have the ability to collectively bargain. It is unusual for people who are contractors to be able to collectively bargain, but that was the joint recommendation of both the producers and the workers who were involved in this process to try and strike a balance which ensures that those rights which were taken away by the previous Government, and which mean that workers in this sector uniquely—remember, workers in this sector uniquely—under the previous legislation were prohibited by that previous Government’s legislation from being able to test their legal status in the courts. Let’s remember, that’s what that lot did to workers in this sector. They took away the right of these workers to go to the courts and test whether they should lawfully be able to be considered employees or contractors. That was the starting position that we’ve had to try and work through and get to a collaborative outcome on. So the outcome, as recommended by the group, is that people retain their status as contractors but they’re able to exercise collective bargaining rights—a right which employees in New Zealand do have. So that was the balance that was struck, and that is the reason that we have clause 7 in this bill in the way that it is set out.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just responding to a couple of issues raised by the Minister in terms of the widespread support in the sector for this which he claims, I suppose the question I have is: is he aware that a large portion of the funding that drives this industry in this country comes from the Government, and does he concede that it might be possible that many people in the sector are reluctant, therefore, to be openly critical of this Government, which provides much of the funding for them? So I’d be interested to know just on what basis he thinks that everybody is happy about the timing of this legislation, and whether he has really understood the realities of people trying to survive in business in a difficult post-COVID environment where—as every other industry is aware—people are having large sicknesses as a result of COVID.

There are a lot of just practical difficulties of trying to restart a business that was rather frozen during the so-called COVID process. He thinks this is a great time for a major change. I’d put it to him from people that I’ve spoken to that there is no great enthusiasm for it right now, but he may know better.

The second point he raised was that he rather flippantly sort of passed on this notion that, yes, we’re changing this basic arrangement that we have in New Zealand law that contractors cannot and should not collaborate with other contractors to set prices and terms and conditions. It’s called cartel behaviour. That’s why it’s against the Commerce Act, and what this law is proposing is to exempt this industry from that.

The point that I wanted to get some clarity from the Minister about is that he says that this is highly specific—and it is in this legislation—to this industry, and I just wanted to get from him the exact elements of this industry that make this unique, requiring this change. I would also be interested—and he may choose to or not—in whether he can give a commitment that this approach would not be extended to other parts of the economy, because if it was, it would be a fundamental change to the way our markets work. It would be a dramatic change in the way that we organise companies and the way that we organise how things happen, because there are many, many contractors, of course, in many, many industries, and if we were to say that all of them could now—I mean, the Government contracts out billions and billions of dollars of work. If he was to suggest that those contractors could now all sort of get together and collectively bargain over Government contracts, that would be a very interesting thing to conclude, but it would also have a very large impact on many industries.

There is nervousness out there around the Government’s intentions on this and the line between employee and contractor, of course, is a very contested space, and it will continue to be so. So I’m just curious if we could get any more clarity from the Minister around exactly what it is about this industry that makes it a unique case on this particular issue around an exemption from sections 27 and 30 of the Commerce Act.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The particular features of this group of workers that are unique are the ones that I described in my previous comments, which were that the previous Government, by legislative fiat, took away their fundamental rights to be considered employees, to test those rights in the courts, and to be able to collectively bargain. If the member feels very strongly that there should be a consistent position here, he’s very welcome to put up a Supplementary Order Paper to reclassify these workers as employees, if they wish, but I don’t see any particular inclination from him to do that. In respect of the timing of the legislation, the member might take some comfort from the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 234 changes the commencement date of the legislation from one month to three months.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m delighted the Minister’s taken calls and I thank him for that. I’m going to reiterate my earlier questions, because even though they draw from the impact statement they very much apply to Part 1 and, actually, arguably to all parts, which is the premise of the bill—that those in the screen industry are paid low wages. And that could well be true. I honestly do not have a list in front of me of what these people are paid, so I would welcome some examples, including from Marja Lubeck, who is the expert in all things and I suspect is not paid, accordingly, the millions she should be.

Secondly, the Minister’s premise, which also reflects into Part 1, are the industries that it was compared to, and I think it would be very useful if the Minister could assure the committee of what industries his officials compared the screen industry to. So that’s reiterating those questions.

A third question is somewhat in response to his timing. We on this side of the Chamber are very aware of his exceptionally large Supplementary Order Paper. The issue is not whether it was a month or, obviously, moving out to three months; it’s the fact that he’s bringing the whole legislation in now when, arguably, we have a screen sector in crisis, and so to that end I would ask him again—in the whole point of Part 1—what conversations, if any, his officials had with Amazon, and have they indicated their reasons to him for why they were leaving? And was part of that a concern about the very legislation that he’s bringing to the House right now?

I turn now—I’m on a bit of a roll and I’m enjoying having my mask off—to clause 11, “Meaning of screen production worker”. Can he give me and the committee some assurance of just how widely this goes? Honestly, the best boy, the gaffer, all of these make sense, but does the caterer or, say, the security guard who’s protecting the production get included? I’m not trying to be silly. This is something I don’t fully know, and I just want to know how far that goes, because if we agree with his purpose—and we don’t—that he’s trying to keep this limited and this goes far too wide, are we going to see in effect collective bargaining pushing through into those sectors? So that would be really interesting to see. I have another question around clause 12, but I think, for the meantime, if that’s all right, I’ll leave it there.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I agree with my colleague—it’s good to have the mask off to have this conversation. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr O’Connor. I’ve got a couple of points or questions I want to get into actually—raised in the legislative statement but linked to Part 1 in terms of purpose, and then a question in regards to clause 10. But I guess it builds on some of the comments made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith regarding the consultation process. I would be interested to hear from the Minister in regards to the engagement process around the purpose of the bill with international providers in particular as part of that tripartite group that he has referenced. In particular to that, I refer to the legislative statement where it talks about a strong and world-leading film industry, maintaining competition—and I quote—“between businesses offering this production.” Obviously this sector is an international sector. It involves multiple players from multiple countries, and one would simply assume and hope, no doubt, that we have included dialogue and feedback from those providers as part of the process that’s been undertaken to draft this bill. So I think some clarification as to what that looks like would be very helpful.

Again, still related to Part 1, Section B of the regulatory impact statement is around any assessment around cost benefits, revenue implications in regards to this. These players, global players, will be assessing pros and cons of each jurisdiction. They’ll be assessing the implications of such legislation on their underlying ability to produce the film, both in terms of access to workforce but also other aspects. So I’m keen to understand whether that group actually undertook any assessment, peer review, or comparative analysis between where New Zealand sits pre and post this legislation in regards to the context of other providers internationally. I can only assume that we would have made sure that we were still competitive in that sector, but some clarification from the Minister on that second point would also be interesting.

The third question and then I’ll sit down—I have a large number of other questions, but I’ll finish for now on this one at the moment. [Interruption] I do like to make predictions—you’re very much on script, Simon, in terms of your feedback. So I’m looking at clause 10, “Interpretation”, under Part 1. I’m interested to see there that game developers are actually included in the scope of this bill. Maybe I’m just old-school but I was thinking about making movies and making films. The skill set around game developers being included in the screen industry is something I’d like a bit of clarification on. Why is that the case? It looks like an addition in terms of the way it’s been drafted, so a bit of context around that would be helpful. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just a further sort of clarification around the meaning of screen production worker, which is set out in clause 11. Again, one of the arguments put forward for this bill is that it’s a low-paid industry, and, of course, the regulatory impact statement points out on the post-production side, that highly skilled workers are in high demand globally and earn, on average, $150,000 annually, which most New Zealanders wouldn’t describe as a poorly paid industry. So I just wondered whether he’d given any consideration to limiting this to the production side, as opposed to the post-production side, and, if not, why not, and how far it goes. I mean, does it include the people in charge of transport, the contractors there, the contractors for catering? Broadly speaking, all these elements being sort of contracts, does it mean the hotels that people stay in, and the workers in the hotels, the planes they go in—I don’t know. All these issues, I suppose it’s just a sort of a question of the rationale for where he drew the line in this legislation, including production and post-production, and what he was trying to achieve by that would be useful.

So if we come back to the broader point, this is legislation that’s been quiet for a couple of years. The Minister mentioned COVID, but, of course, this was introduced early in 2020—

Marja Lubeck: That was kind of when COVID started.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Pardon?

Marja Lubeck: That was kind of when COVID started.

Hon Willie Jackson: Do you understand that or are you just stupid in the head?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No; I didn’t pick up what the member was saying.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, you can’t understand English!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, ah—

Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t understand anything.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and I’m coming under withering fire from Willie Jackson, who I thought had only one topic, which is the new democracy that nobody had voted for, but, obviously, he has other topics that he can talk about.

So, anyway, getting back to this bill, I’d be keen to get some better understandings from the Minister about the nature of the screen production workers, so we can get a better idea about that, because just remember that all these people, most of whom are individual contractors—this bill proposes to do away with that basic sort of section of the Commerce Act which says that independent sort of contractors and different companies cannot and should not collude or form cartels to negotiate things. So we’re taking a slice out of our economy, and a kind of random one which sort of goes out from all sorts of directions—there is transport and catering and post-production and, presumably, marketing of movies; I don’t know—and extracts them from very important provisions in the Commerce Act. So I just wanted to sort of get a sense of why he chose to include what he included and what his thinking was behind that.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In respect of the question about why the workers who are included in the provisions of this bill are there, I have responded to that in previous answers. It may not be to the satisfaction of members opposite, but I have provided that response.

In answer to the questions that both Mr O’Connor and Mr Goldsmith asked about peripheral sort of work as a security guard or a catering company that delivers the odd meal, or someone like that, those types of worker are specifically considered to be peripheral within the terms of the Act and are not captured by its collective bargaining provisions.

In respect of the questions around timing, I’ve actually just confirmed for myself that the commencement of the bill, of course, is not actually covered in Part 1, so we can, I’m sure, talk about that later on in the debate when we do get to the relevant part there.

In respect of broader costs and benefits, those are reflected in the regulatory impact statement. The costs are generally assessed to be in the low to medium zone. And, of course, the main thing I would note in respect of this and in respect of our engagement with international production houses is that this is the norm internationally. It’s generally normal that workers in this sector are able to collectively bargain. What’s actually abnormal, in this case, was that the previous Government took that right away from workers in New Zealand. So I don’t think there’s anything that’s going to be particularly alarming to international companies who deal with this on every production they do in most other countries, to have to do the same thing here in New Zealand.

In respect of game developers—there was a particular question around them—they were included in the provisions of the—we’re using the colloquial term here, so I’ll carry on using it—“Hobbit law” and so they’ve carried over in that respect.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to reiterate the question again to the Minister, for him to give some examples to the committee of the premise of the low wages and who he or his officials compared that with. It’s feeling a bit like a saga now—not the sort of Norse sagas, we’re not quite at that level yet; more a Tolkien-esque saga—that he won’t actually address that question and the very premise that underpins all parts of the bill.

Secondly, and to get really particular—and he can get the legal beagles on to this—we’re sort of switching into, I don’t know, Law & Order sort of mode, can he confirm that, in the likes of clause 11(1)(a), an individual actually means a natural person? I suspect it does, but let’s just get into that, and then explain why.

Maureen Pugh: It’s a bit messy.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know. I’m just trying to actually sound, really, like I know what I’m talking about, but actually I sort of do. But, anyway, just to make it really clear that, when they talk about individuals, they’re meaning a legal person. Think of that as more of a documentary question.

Another question he might choose to engage with is why, again, in this massive opus of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), he decided to strip out the overview of the Act. It’s sort of like the precursor in a Star Wars movie, which gives you a bit of an overview of what’s going to happen. So why has that been removed? We all know that’s the exciting part of a film, and I’m sure, by extension, the exciting part of the bill. So why, in his SOP, has he stripped out clause 4?

Then, switching now to what is clause 12, before Part 1A, talking about what productions are in and not in. That’s in Schedule 2, as the Minister will know, but, of course, because he’s very fastidious, it relates to Part 1. It’s building a little bit on what Simon Watts asked, and the Minister accurately said why computer-generated games are in, but I’m a little miffed as to why the likes of recreational leisure programmes, for example, or variety show programmes are not included. I’m not going to give specific examples; that could be seen as a shout-out. I suppose, as an MP, I’m allowed to do this, unlike Ministers. But why we’ve ultimately done this split—I can understand why some live-event programmes, religious programmes, talk shows are exempted, but one can think of examples where there is, if you will, a wider production of ongoing variety programmes or recreational leisure programmes, which, arguably, could have fitted into clause 1 of Schedule 2. So it’s really just trying to tease that out a bit, Minister, as to why we’ve done this.

But I may, if I might, come back to your earlier point, which was the earlier legislation. You keep referring to the “Hobbit law”—it had this split. So we’d just sort of welcome a slight expansion on that.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I must say I am enjoying, and I do appreciate, the Minister coming back with responses to all those questions. On this side of the Chamber, we’ll maintain to ensure that we’re covering our new content. So we’ll move to looking at—

Simon O’Connor: It’s a sequel!

SIMON WATTS: It is a sequel, actually. The NeverEnding Story, maybe? Who knows! This is going to be good; I’m enjoying this.

Part 1, clause 11—and I do apologise to the Minister, because I’m going to give him a little bit of income tax—a little bit of income tax. I just couldn’t help myself. The reason why is because I think there are few questions here that we need to explore. So it’s clause 11(3)—and particularly there looking at paragraph (a). The comment here in clause 11 (3) is around the definition around “company, partnership, individual … does not primarily engage in work relating to the creation of screen productions …”, and all that’s reasonable, and then there’s paragraph (a), which says“ derived less than 50% of its … annual gross income (within the meaning of the Income Tax Act …)”, etc., etc.

The point that I’ve got a question about for the Minister is around the statement saying “from work relating to the creation of screen productions in the previous 3 financial years”. Why I’ve got a question on, obviously, as we all know, the impact of COVID and the impact of us transitioning out of COVID, and acknowledging when this bill will start, that three-year period looking retrospectively is obviously going to include the implications of periods of time in which there will be very little, if any, production work undertaken here because of the implications around the closed border. My question to the Minister or officials in regards to that is: what consideration has been given in regards to why the three previous financial years was decided upon? How is that going to work in the context of—because it’s a de minimis around 50 percent—if, for example, the last two years have been impacted heavily by COVID, what that may have? And what, if anything, in terms of that will be—and I guess the question is: is there any consideration or transitionary options in regards to that specific point? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to foresee that as we transition out of where we are at the moment, there may be some implications or some unintended consequences, I guess, in regards to that point of the bill. It would be helpful in terms of getting some clarity on that. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In answer to a number of the questions that have been raised: firstly, in clause 11—I think it was Mr Simon O’Connor who asked this question—yes, we are referring to natural persons in that clause.

The wording in clause 4 was removed. It wasn’t an operative provision, and further consultation and engagement with stakeholders basically said, “Well, look, this doesn’t add anything. It’s unnecessary.” and good legislative design tends to tell us that if something is not really necessary, it potentially gets in the way and creates confusion. So it was just seen as a good matter of legislative design to remove that, given that it wasn’t particularly doing anything.

In respect of which types of productions are included and which are not, this was largely arrived at as a result of that tripartite process with the producers, unions, and guilds who are involved, who had an assessment as to which types of productions it would be appropriate to include.

Similarly, looking back for three financial years, as I understand it, came out of that discussion, in the tripartite working groups as being an appropriate level time to look back and provide some useful information.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I appreciate the question that I asked in regards to income tax was probably reasonably complex, and I acknowledge that officials, no doubt, are beavering away and coming up with a simple response. So I want to buy a little bit of time just for the officials to be able to advise the Minister in regards to the question I raised on Part 1, clause 11(3)(a) and (b), in regards to why it’s three financial years and what the implication is around COVID—and I’ll keep going.

There’s another aspect I just wanted to seek clarification on as well, just while we’ve got a little bit of time—and I’m sure that that answer is coming because it’s pretty important—and it’s in regards to clause 11(4). This refers to the comments around support services in regards to the “peripheral contribution to the creation of a screen production:”. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “support services”—paragraph (a), particularly—all seem reasonable, but paragraph (b) is the one which raised my eyebrows a little bit, and it’s one of those catch-alls: “any other services of a similar nature”. When you look at what it’s referring to, and I’m assuming it’s referring to paragraph (a) above, there are such words like “management, and representation services:”, and so those are pretty generic terms. Then you’ve got a follow-up of paragraph (b), and my question to the Minister is what is his expectation of what will be captured by paragraph (b) in regards to any other services of a similar nature?

Following on from that, why then is—I’m just trying to quote the linkage around that definition of “volunteer”, which is then directly below that, and I’m struggling just to understand. Maybe it’s just the way in which I’m reading that. How the volunteer statement, or the definition of what a “volunteer” is—maybe just helping me a little bit in terms of that. Is that linking to paragraph (b) above, or is it just sitting there? It doesn’t seem to be linked to anything in the bill. So a little bit clarification by the Minister just on those two points would be preferable.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I’m not entirely sure just in terms of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 relating to Part 1 of Schedule 1. It talks about contracts entered into “before commencement of this Act”, and I’m not sure whether this is the right part to be discussing it. I think it is, but the Minister’s SOP changes it so that when a screen production has occurred, like all the ones that are occurring at the moment, and everybody has entered into their contracts and everything’s fine under the one set of rules, this legislation says under the Minister’s SOP—originally, it said that “The terms and conditions of the … contract [would] apply for 12 months after the commencement of this Act, as if the Act had not been enacted.”, which would mean that after 12 months, if it was a long production, whatever people had arranged could be unarranged or rearranged following this Act. But that was changed under the SOP to say that “The provisions of this Act, … apply to a … contract from the date [that] this Act comes into force.” So I’d like to know why the Minister changed it and what impact does he think it will have on current productions and what advice has he had on that—does he know what it would mean?

So we’re talking about the industry’s perception of this country, because he mentioned that everybody else in the world does this. OK, not everybody else in the world is quite as remote as New Zealand. We’re the last bus stop in the world and there are a lot of other places in the world that you can go to, and so it’s a big decision to come all the way here. International companies look at the situation in New Zealand and wonder what the environment is. If they find that they’ve made an arrangement, got contracts signed, got a budget in place, and got themselves all organised and know what they’re doing and know where they’re going, and then the Government passes a law and says that all of that can be rearranged by collective bargaining, potentially, in certain circumstances—and I’m not quite sure what—then that could be potentially alarming.

So I’d just like the Minister to explain that and what his rationale for change was, what advice he’s had on what impact it will have on existing arrangements, and, if there is any significant impact, what impact that would have on the broader confidence that the sector has in terms of planning things which are of great cost and substance.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Chair, if I can respond to a couple of further questions. The two questions from Mr Watts are, effectively about threshold questions—who’s brought into the ambit of the Act and who’s not, so clause 11(3)(a) and (b) refer to, effectively, looking back three years and the 50 percent threshold. As I said before, you’ve effectively got to have some sort of an assessment as to the degree to which people are primarily employed doing this kind of work. You wouldn’t want a situation where you have a de minimis, which is very low, and maybe, you know, 1 percent of the person’s earnings over a period of time have been from this kind of work—you wouldn’t necessarily be wanting to catch them within that. So the provisions at clause 11(3)(a) and (b) are, effectively, about establishing a reasonable threshold, and, as advised previously, that was worked through with the screen industry working group, which included the producers, the unions, and the guilds, and they thought that was reasonable.

In respect of how that impacts the tax affairs of the person concerned, given the nature of the employment relationship is that the person is a contractor, the individual will need to work through what their tax obligations are there. But I don’t actually think there would necessarily be a huge impact for them there.

In terms of volunteers, clause 11(4) is simply confirming that people who might be there in some sort of a volunteer capacity, the legislation will not provide to them, and the various bargaining rights and other things that are contained in the legislation will not apply to someone like, perhaps, a student who has come in to have a look at a production for a few hours and get a bit of experience about how these things work and is sweeping the floor—they won’t need to get brought into the ambit of the legislation. So the meaning of the volunteer is simply the normal meaning of the word “volunteer”, and that is there to ensure that we don’t inadvertently bring in a group of people for whom there was never any intention to do so.

In respect of Mr Goldsmith’s questions, I mean, they really go to the fundamental reason why we have this piece of legislation in place. The Government’s view is that we’re actually dealing with some pretty fundamental rights that workers have, and should have, and that are generally internationally recognised—that being the right to engage in collective bargaining. It’s not the view of the Government that we should be taking away what are fundamental international labour rights for any reason, including the whims and wishes of international companies. Those are basic building blocks of a decent, civilised society. International labour rights, including the right to collectively bargain, are generally considered, under international jurisprudence, to be an important part of the human rights framework. So we simply don’t have any truck with the arguments that there might be someone who wants to invest here that wants us to remove fundamental rights and, therefore, we should do that—we just don’t accept that. The member opposite might, but that is a fundamental difference of view.

In respect of when the Act comes into force as reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper, that is simply a pragmatic and straightforward arrangement, as I’ve described before.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I think the Minister sort of missed the point of my question—I think, perhaps, wilfully. The point I was making was that normally when laws are changed, they apply to new decisions going on from after the law been has been passed so that people know what they’re dealing with.

In this circumstance, what is being envisaged by the bill is that a production that all been organised, been set in place, under rules that were clearly understood and established, now are being told, midway through, that the rules can change and it could be very different. And it’s not just applying to new decisions, where companies are deciding, “OK, where are we going to do this? Are we going to do this in New Zealand? What’s the situation here?” and they see the legislation in place and they know what they’re doing and so they make a decision about that. And if the Minister is right that nobody is worried about this sort of stuff, well then they’ll continue to invest in New Zealand.

But what’s happening in this bill is that midway through, the rules of the game will change for existing arrangements. I would have thought there was a pretty good argument for not applying it directly to pre-commencement contracts. I would have thought there would be a good argument, certainly, at the least, for extending it 12 months, as the bill originally did, so that most productions apart from, presumably, a very few long-term ones will have been concluded.

So to moot the change under the Supplementary Order Paper, which is not debated on—I presume it wasn’t something that the working group debated; the group that the Minister seems to say came up with everything in this bill, and clearly didn’t. I’m sure they didn’t recommend that, but I’d be interested know from the Minister whether they did and whether there has been widespread enthusiasm for it.

Secondly, on the question of the industry, sort of, views at the moment around timing, I wonder if he could just tell us whether he had received any correspondence from elements of the industry encouraging him not to pass this bill or make it happen immediately and alerting him to the fact that they needed more time. I’d just be interested to know if he could give us any indication around that.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I’m going to take a call from Simon Watts, but I think you’re starting to scratch around the chicken coop a bit.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I haven’t seen that movie, but I will get into it. Look, I’m referring to the regulatory impact statement and particularly section B and the subsection which, I quote, says that, “Given labour costs make up a large proportion of production budgets, any increase to worker earnings as a result of bargaining could mean that New Zealand becomes less cost-competitive destination for production companies compared to other countries.”

And to the question I asked earlier, the Minister provided an indication that it seemed to be that there was some input in regards to feedback from where New Zealand will sit with international peers in regards to this, and the Minister said that this seems to be consistent across other countries. But can the Minister just be specific in terms of the fact that—well, just give us confidence that we’ve compared ourselves against what we would consider our partners in this space, our neighbours, etc., and just be categoric around the fact that the assessment has been undertaken. Because, obviously, the officials have highlighted this concern, as well, in the regulatory impact statement. And so that adds further substantiation that this is actually an issue that does need to be considered appropriately, because no one wants to see us becoming less cost-competitive as a destination for production companies compared to other countries.

The second aspect is just a small bit of clarification around when the Minister said that the costs to this would be low to medium. If he can just provide context in terms of range, of what low to medium actually means in terms of dollars, that would be very helpful.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. The saga continues. The increased trilogy of four parts. Part 1A—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Four parts?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, it’s the increasingly misnamed trilogy in four parts; a very bad joke. Part 1A, which we haven’t touched on—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well, I’d just advise the member that Part 1A is the next part.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Is part of Part 1? Yup. So why has he inserted the term “good faith” along with “freedom of association”? I think he would need to explain that to the committee, because in—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well, that is part of the next debate.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, is it a separate debate? Oh, well, look, this is something to look forward to.

Hon Member: You’re ahead of your time.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know. Well, something to look forward to. Well, look, I’m not going to take up any more time. And I’m looking forward to that being a whole separate part.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I call the honourable Minister Michael Wood. Oh, he’s sat down again. I call the honourable Minister Michael Wood.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m enjoying myself so much. I can point Mr Watts to the regulatory impact statement, which I think he has, which provides, I think, some further information about possible costs. There is just a fundamental difference of views here. This legislation is proceeding because the Government has a view that it is a fundamental right of people to be able to engage in collective bargaining. We think that’s important. We think it goes to important rights. We think it was wrong that those rights were taken away by a very targeted Act of Parliament at the time that that occurred. Now, that might well result in some increased labour costs, because collective bargaining, by its definition, is about addressing an imbalance in terms of bargaining power. But there is no evidence and no information we have to suggest that that will be significant or deleterious to the industry.

In respect to Mr Goldsmith’s questions around the pre-commencement period, it’s worth noting that in respect of Part 1—it’s one year—we’re just talking about the inclusion of the mandatory provisions in Part 1 here. And those are very basic things like the right to raise a complaint, there being a dispute resolution process, and those sorts of things. I don’t think they’re going to particularly alarm anyone in respect of the provisions of Part 1. I think those are probably the key remaining questions that I had to answer there.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended stand part.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 1A Freedom of association

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to Part 1A. This is the debate on clauses 12A to 12E, “Freedom of association”. The question is that Part 1A stand part.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Previously, on an earlier episode or part—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Start again.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, I’m just trying to understand why the Minister, in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), has inserted “good faith” alongside “freedom of association.” It’s not that we’re against good-faith bargaining—that’s, of course, important—but I mean, the very nature of what this bill is doing is in many ways taking away the need for good faith.

Or rather, put in other terms, he’s skewing the field—the Minister is skewing the field of negotiations in discussions between screen industry workers and their employers, which makes it a little bit odd to then talk about “good faith”. So I want to be really, really clear to the Minister and to the committee that we’re all for good faith on this side, but good-faith bargaining, good-faith discussions—whatever it is—generally works on a level playing field, and the copious amounts of pages here indicate that the Minister, as I say, trying to skew the field a little bit.

The second question is just for him to elaborate for the clarity of the committee—because we are bouncing between the select committee’s version of the bill and now his SOP—and to define for us what he deems to be a “worker organisation” and an “engager organisation”. The only reference I find is I think—I jump now to clause 65A, in his SOP—“incorporated society”.

So I suppose I’m just trying to get a quick understanding—and please, I’m not trying to trifle, through the Chair, with the Minister—to get a bit of a handle on it. Because if I’m reading the legislation right—or wrong, both are possible; perhaps the latter—is it implied that a worker organisation or an engager organisation has to be an incorporated society? Because that’s all that I see referenced in clause 65A. Where do unions fit within this? Is it arguable that a screen worker does not have to be part of a union? Is that covered within it? I hope that clarifies it enough; I’m sorry about my confusion.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will return at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the committee is resumed on Part 1A of the Screen Industry Workers Bill. I call on the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Just before we headed off for dinner, there were a couple of questions from Mr O’Connor which were about the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled effectively shifts the good-faith provisions of the bill from Part 2 into Part 1A. The member was questioning why that was; they’re now in clauses 12AA and 12AB.

Effectively, if one looks at the structure of the bill, Part 2 primarily deals with individual contracts. As we looked at the structure of the bill, it seemed more appropriate to put these provisions into Part 1A. We don’t want the provisions that relate to good faith just to apply to processes around individual contracts.

Good faith is one of the fundamental constructs of employment relationships in New Zealand. It’s been an established part of the framework since the 2001 commencement of the Employment Relations Act. It’s well understood by people generally, albeit its provisions are generally a little bit narrower in the context of this legislation. Really, just moving it into Part 1A is about ensuring that good faith applies across all of the actions that parties might undertake under this piece of legislation.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): To thank the Minister—and look, it’s not worth the debate in terms of what he perceives as narrowing versus this side of the House.

Would he mind just clarifying for the committee the definition of “worker organisation” and “engager organisation”? I apologise to him if I’ve completely misread things, but it references, I think, clause 65A and that’s incorporated societies. I’m just trying to get a bit of a handle on whether I’ve misunderstood whether these organisations need to be incorporated societies or not, and where the place of unions are—as I quickly try to scroll to it and I apologise to him.

Yeah, if I have it right, it is referencing clause 65A, that talks about “Incorporated society may apply to register as worker organisation or engager organisation”. I’m just wanting to make sure that that’s not exclusive, and just to define it more widely if that’s possible.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to that question, the member’s right that this references through to clause 65A, which talks about worker and engager organisations. That’s appropriate because it’s Part 5 that effectively brings together some of the mechanisms that sit behind the bill and the way that things will work.

Both worker organisations and engager organisations will need to be incorporated societies, so they’ll have a particular legal form. Worker organisations, for example, will likely be unions and guilds who represent the collective interests of members. They’ll need to have requirements as per clause 65B(2), such as having the objective of promoting their members’ collective work interests and having democratic rules.

So there’ll be nothing here that’s particularly unusual or new for organisations who engage in this space, say through the processes of the Employment Relations Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Wood’s amendments to Part 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1A as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Workplace relationships and individual contracts

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 13 to 20, “Workplace relationships and individual contracts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 2 deals specifically with matters pertaining to individual contracts under the bill. It doesn’t deal with occupation or enterprise-based bargaining. It focuses purely on individual contracts and relationships between workers and engagers.

A couple of things that are worth noting here, in terms of changes that have been made since this was last in the House: the select committee, I think, has made a couple of useful changes. My understanding is that, from the select committee’s report, I think there was broad support for these, including expressed in the National Party minority view, in terms of just improving some of the baseline protections that will play out in individual contracts. The first is that engagers will be required to tell workers that they can seek individual advice before they engage in a contract, or be required to give those workers reasonable time to consider that advice before they confirm their intentions. And there will, secondly, be enhanced protection against terms that might prevent complaints being raised by the individual worker under those individual agreements.

I think probably the most noteworthy change that’s proposed in the ministerial Supplementary Order Paper is additional provisions in clause 17, which extends prohibitions on retaliatory actions to include the non-renewal of contracts, which is a relatively significant tool, which you can imagine in this sector—given that people are, by definition, contractors—could have a significant impact on people. So it’s just making it very clear that there can’t be retaliatory action, in response to complaints that have been made, through the non-renewal of contracts. So, again, effectively, the changes from both the select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper are about extending some of those basic protections for individuals who are engaging in contracting with an engager.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s actually to pick up on clause 17. I agree with the Minister: we do not want people being fired or having their contracts terminated because of that reason, but how does he perceive this working in reality, when, for example’s sake, a screen worker is doing a very poor job but just claims that they are being retaliated against? How does he perceive that’s going to work? Is this going to become an excuse, and how does he see that being moderated?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Ultimately, the provisions of the bill will give the worker some basis to go to if they believe that they have a grievance in this area. They will have to resolve that grievance through the dispute resolution processes that are set up in the bill. Often that could be through directly raising the concern with the employer, it could be seeking the assistance of mediation services, or more formal legal processes—so not dissimilar to the processes that we would expect to see playing out in other employment relationship issues. We can’t guarantee any outcome through the legislation that we provide, but we can set very clear standards which can then be tested legally based on the evidence that’s available.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just following up on that, I mean, just how does somebody enter the mind of an engager, as it’s called here—it’s a film producer presumably or something like that who’s hired somebody. Clause 17(1), included in Supplementary Order Paper 234, says, “An engager must not terminate or refuse to renew a screen production worker’s contract if the decision to do so is motivated, wholly or partly, by the exercise or proposed exercise by the worker of any right”. And so somehow, somewhere along the way, when it comes to renewing a contract—which usually most people would regard as something that you have a right to do, or not—somehow we’ve got to get into the mind of the motivations of the person, and I’d just be intrigued, from the Minister, as to how you think that would work in in practice.

I’m also interested in the question of—so all individual contracts have to have everything, it seems, included in a collective contract, if there is one in place, and then can improve on it in terms of conditions. But you’re limiting the ability to have any lesser conditions as part of an individual contract, and I was just curious—I could understand partly the thinking behind it, but is not the purpose of an individual contract, assuming that it is within all the other laws of the land, in terms of minimum wage and all those sorts of things and provisions—why it has to be exactly the same as the collective contract.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the first question raised by the member, it goes back to my previous comments, really. We can provide wording in the legislation to make it very clear that it is not appropriate to take this kind of retaliatory action in response to people raising complaints. The fact that there’s an intents-based test here, and I think the precise wording—where am I?—in clause 17 here, is “if the decision … is motivated, wholly or partly, by the exercise or proposed exercise by the worker of any right, power, authority, or remedy”. I mean, ultimately, this is where authorities who are hearing complaints will need to make judgments based on evidence that is presented by the different parties.

That is no different from other aspects of employment law where intent may come into it, or indeed criminal law or other aspects of the law where competent authorities need to assess the evidence that parties with different views put before them to determine whether it is likely that that happened. And so we need to leave it with those authorities to determine. The important thing here is to draw a very clear line in the sand and say that it would not be acceptable, in the view of this Parliament, for someone to have their contract terminated purely because they had raised a legitimate complaint, for example, about discrimination, bullying, or harassment, which I don’t think is something that any of us would wish to see.

In respect of the member’s second question, the building blocks of bargaining, under this legislation, are, effectively, that we look to put in place minimum standards, should worker organisations choose to initiate for them at the occupational level, then potentially the enterprise level, and then the individual level. So it’s about having base standards that are developed at the occupational level, which will likely be more general. But then the bill very specifically provides for the additional flexibility for there to be individual conditions that are negotiated at that level. This is partly a response to some of the critiques that have been put forward that this is about inflexibility. Well, no, it’s not, because we clearly build into the legislation that leaves the ability for there to be individual bargaining on top of that core basic set of terms and conditions that will get bargained at the occupational level.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to move on to a different section of Subpart 2, and that is in regards to clause 20, which relates to penalties relating to individual contracts. The specific clauses that I’m interested in there are 1AAA and 1AAB in particular, in regards to noting that “An engager is liable to a penalty under this Act if the engager enters into an individual contract that includes a term that has the effect of breaching …”, and then 1AAB, again, relating to those penalties. My questions are in regards to the scope of these penalties, and seeking clarification from the Minister in terms of how he sees these new arrangements working in practice, particularly around the penalty aspect.

The second point of that is around the scope of what those penalties could or will entail. And the third aspect is in terms of the process or if there will be any process in terms of when these arrangements are in play, what arrangements will there be in regards to subsequent review or monitoring, in regards to ensuring that that aspect around penalties relating to individual contracts is appropriate and fit for purpose and, I guess, balanced in regards to the nature of, you know, penalties applied to the circumstance of the individual.

So that’s the three or four questions that I’ve got, again, in regards to Part 2, clause 20 of the bill. [Bell rung] Thank you much, Madam Chair. I do know and I do acknowledge the Minister that we’ve had a reasonably good session in terms of back and forth. So we’ll just go to another area of questioning just to provide a little bit of time and capacity for officials just to come back on, on a couple of those previous questions, because I think they are appropriate, and we’ll keep moving.

So I think in regards to the penalty portion that I was referring to before, I think the element that, in particular, I’m interested in hearing about is in terms of the scope in terms of the range in which those penalties involve, and in what is the expectation in terms of baseline in terms of the de minimis in terms of when those penalties will come into play and when they won’t. In particular, what are the agencies or what are the groups that are going to be involved in terms of enforcement around that penalty regime? As I mentioned, I think the clarity around the monitoring and review of that would be useful context just so that we can understand the scope of the implications of that clause within the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member for his questions about penalties. These provisions link through to Part 4, which does set out much more information about how the penalty regime will apply. They can potentially be applied by the Employment Relations Authority, and depending on whether it’s an individual or a body corporate, penalties of up to $10,000 or $20,000 can apply for various breaches of provisions.

In terms of there being a testing out as to the appropriateness of that regime, really, it’s the same as the rest of our employment relations legislative regime in that parties are able to test their cases with that particular authority and then will have appeal rights if they believe that they have been treated inappropriately. Of course ultimately, there is a role for this House to keep an eye on things and to ensure that they are being applied appropriately.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In his opening intervention in Part 2, Minister Wood made some interesting comments about National’s support for aspects of it, as set out in the National Party view in the Education and Workforce Committee report. That is true, but that doesn’t mean we can support Part 2 in its entirety. One of the reasons for that is that it’s largely redundant: it sets out a range of obligations that are already in law. The most obvious one of those is the Health and Safety at Work Act. The bill, basically, requires the parties to comply with the Act. Well, we don’t need another piece of legislation to say that the Health and Safety at Work Act should be complied with. Whether one is an employee, a contractor, an employer, a host: they all form a part of the transaction, in the Health and Safety at Work Act—as I’m sure the Minister knows, because he’s responsible for it.

An obligation to comply with the Human Rights Act—well, of course those are obligations. An obligation to act in good faith is actually set out in a wide range of contract law, both black-letter law and judge-made law. So, really, when we look through Part 2, nobody can disagree that people shouldn’t mislead or deceive, that they should act in good faith, that they should describe the nature of the relationship and embark on the responsibilities that are set out in Subpart 2.

But this is kind of emblematic of this bill overall: it is a solution looking for a problem, and the biggest problem, frankly, is the fact that the unions want to look after people who want to have it both ways: (a) the benefits of independent contractor relationships, and the protection of employment if things go wrong, which was the uncertainty that the film makers had in 2009 when they wanted to come and make the hobbit movies. So I say to the Minister—and he can take a call and disagree with me if he wishes, but there is very little, if anything, in Part 2 that is not already set out either in case law or statute.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m happy to take a call on those matters. My understanding is that in respect of the references both to the Health and Safety at Work Act and Human Rights Act obligations, it was a particular request of the working group for these provisions to be reflected in the legislation so that it was crystal clear that they applied, given that we are dealing with a relatively novel piece of legislation and a new set of employment relationships. It was their wish that these be in here. The member is right that those provisions would apply regardless—one can consider it to be belts and braces, if we want to describe it that way—but that is why that is reflected here.

It’s a little bit different, I think, with the good-faith provisions, in that it isn’t the case that good-faith provisions would naturally apply to contractor arrangements. Good-faith provisions are embedded in employment law to guide relationships between employers and employees; they wouldn’t automatically flow to contractors, unless they are specifically embedded in the legislation, as we’ve done here.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, I would make two points—I appreciate Minister Wood’s response, but I would make two points in that regard. One, the very fact that a working group asked for something doesn’t compel a Minister to grant it. Actually, one of the roles of a Minister is to say, “Good idea—we’re not going to do it, because it’s not necessary.” I think, again, that’s emblematic of a Government that seems to be led more by working groups than by independent thought and careful consideration. There is no need to reinforce the Health and Safety at Work Act in this bill, or the Human Rights Act.

As far as duties of good faith, that’s not entirely correct. A person can take a course of action for breach of contract for a number of reasons, not the least of which could be misleading or deceptive behaviour in the contract negotiation process, particularly if the courts deemed that to be harsh or oppressive behaviour, or if there was misleading information. So, again, this is kind of belts and braces, but it’s wholly unnecessary.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Collective bargaining

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 21 to 55, on “Collective bargaining”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you kindly, Madam Chair. I’m happy to say a few words at the beginning of this part. Part 3 primarily deals with collective bargaining matters. As we’ve traversed over the course of the debate, this is a substantial part of the legislation that’s before the committee this evening. The bill and the entire working group process that preceded it was established to deal with this fundamental problem that collective bargaining had, effectively, been taken away by a targeted piece of legislation under the previous Government, and we did not believe that that was a fair, equitable, or appropriate situation to have. As I’ve said specifically before, that was by dint of workers in the sector being classified by legislation as “contractors” rather than “employees” and having their ability to test that right in the courts was taken away by that legislation—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: They classified themselves.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —that was put through under urgency, Mr Woodhouse. So the grand bargain, as I said at the beginning, effectively, under this legislation, is that the contracting arrangement is kept in place, but the workers concerned are able to access collective bargaining mechanisms. There are two collective-bargaining processes that can take place: occupational-level collective bargaining and enterprise-level collective bargaining, depending on how worker engagers wish to engage with those processes.

There are a number of changes which are worth noting. The Education and Workforce Committee has proposed a number of changes to streamline the bargaining process, in particular the process around variations to collective contracts. In Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234, the things which I would draw to the attention of the committee are that there has been a change to put in place, in terms of ratification of collective contracts, that they need to be done by a majority of those who vote, rather than a majority of those who are covered by the contract.

Secondly, that there is a simpler process around replacement signatories, in the event that that is necessary, given the passage of time.

And, thirdly, in terms of the fact—and we discussed this in the Part 2 debate—that there is, effectively, a cascading situation whereby occupational-level contracts form base terms and conditions; enterprise collective contracts need to be as good as, or better than, the underlying occupational contract than the individual agreements more so. There’s been a change here, whereas previously it was proposed that there would be sort of an overall test as to whether an enterprise-level contract was better than the occupational contract; that will now be done on a term-by-term basis. That was as a result of feedback and ongoing engagement with both sides—unions, guilds, and producers—as to what would be a more simple and streamlined and clearer way of making that assessment.

So those are some of the changes, both through the ministerial SOP and from the select committee, that are proposed to Part 3. I’m happy to take any questions that do relate to Part 3. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yes, we do come to the crunchy part of the bill in relation to introducing collective bargaining to the screen workers industry areas, which hasn’t been the case in the past.

People might be surprised to learn that films have been made in the past in the absence of this collective bargaining and people haven’t been driven to the edge of extinction. Actually, it’s been a highly successful and prosperous business that has created many opportunities and jobs and livelihoods for many New Zealanders, and great films have been made and that’s something that we’re all very proud of. My favourite, well, in recent times, is probably Boy, actually—we sat down with the family over the weekend and watched it. What a gripping film, very great film. I’m not sure of the union arrangement in that film, but, nevertheless, it was made and it was good.

The point is that the industry is in good heart. It continues to have many opportunities for these things to happen. So the Minister is out here, driven, we believe, primarily by ideology around this and is imposing, on this sector, significant changes.

Some of the languages that we’re getting from people in the industry, firstly, are concerned about the adversarial sort of tinge that is coming back into the sector—memorable from the bad days of the initial incidents that led to the initial legislation—regarding painting the sector as the wild west and some of the sort of language that was bandied about. The us-and-them kind of attitude that sometimes goes with these sorts of situations is of concern to some in the sector when the area is struggling. Post-virus, nobody’s had a chance to stop and take their breath; they’re stressed; they’re coming from a difficult sort of period and now having to face what could be very long, intensive negotiations.

I suppose a starting point is that the legislation, at the start, says that an incorporated society has to be formed for both the worker and engager organisation. The engagers are the ones who are, you know, producers who are putting together these films. So they have to sort of form these societies—Screen Production and Development Association might be one of them; I don’t know—who would engage in the negotiations.

There’s a very sort of obvious question that needs to be asked: well, who pays for all this? Because this could go on for months. It’s complicated; a very complicated sort of process that could drag on. And the organisations don’t have the people who—well, nobody’s really done this sort of stuff in that industry. So you’re going to have to hire a whole bunch of new people with new skills, engage in long-winded processes. Who’s going to pay for it all? How is that going to work? I’d be interested if the Minister had given much thought to that.

The second thing is that there’s been a very significant sort of shift, and I’d like the Minister to just set out, if he could, the differences between what the working group came up with—again, not particularly operating in the voluntary sort of circumstances as an industry where Government funding is very significant; Government wants something and is determined to have it. The industry doesn’t, you know, and they have to, you know, kind of do what they have to do. They have no choice.

They recommended a few things in the space. But the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper have moved a long way from there in terms of detail—a long way towards the fair pay language of legislation that’s been developed as well. There seems a lot of some similarities between those two pieces of legislation.

So I’d like the Minister just to, if he could, outline the differences between the original recommendations—arguably made under a bit of pressure—to where we are today.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair; I didn’t want to interrupt the Minister if he wished to speak. Look, one part I want to echo is where Paul Goldsmith has gone. It’s, effectively, the question as we look at collective bargaining, and particularly when we think of the loss of the Amazon production around The Lord of the Rings. Does the Minister believe the insertion of this Part 3 on collective bargaining is going to see more or fewer—note the important grammar—productions coming into New Zealand when they are already leaving? I’ll acknowledge that was leaving under the old arrangements, or existing arrangements. Does he think this Part 3 is going to lead to more or fewer productions? I’d love to have that on record. As the Minister will know, of course, the new Lord of the Rings starts tomorrow—the last time it’s been in New Zealand. Get into it now.

Clause 26 in Part 3 once again talks about good-faith bargaining. I just want to come back to when we were cut short in Part 2; how does the Minister feel we can have good faith, which implies equal treatment, when his bill is slanting the whole process to one side? So how does he reconcile that?

Then to move to clause 31, in particular, but not exclusively—particularly in the context of plain language. The context here is that it prescribes in clause 31 what the collective contract might be like, and I’ve got no particular issues with that in the various—well, actually, it’s clause 31 and following. But I noticed in Part 2, clause 16A, which we were cut short; we Gloss-ed over—which, for those of you who follow television, is a very bad and aged pun. We talked about plain language as required; I’m wondering why in Part 2 there must be plain language and yet here we are in Part 3 talking about the nature of collective contracts, and there’s no prescription for plain language. I’m just wondering why there’s an inconsistency there.

Carrying on what has been a very bad set of puns, Minister, throughout the evening—because I’m sort of wanting to reference the Minority Report and Looper, looking into the future—one of your colleagues, Rachel Boyack, has a bill that’s going to be read tomorrow around plain language. I’m curious to know that if, through the bill, where you’ve mentioned plain language, whether you and your officials have had any thought to what that actually means. And by that I mean what does plain language mean legally right now? Do you have any conception—not an Inception; again, a very bad movie reference. But any conceptions of what this bill, in the future, that one of your party is pushing—what does plain language actually mean? And, again, to draw it back to Part 3, clauses 31 and following, why is it that the collective contracts, their form and content, is not prescribed to be in plain language in the same way that we’ve seen it prescribed in Part 2?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to a couple of the questions that have been asked by members, Mr Goldsmith asked a couple of questions which—generously, I think—are linked to this part. He made the claim at the outset that this is something that has been forced on the sector, which, of course, stood in contrast to the remarks of Mr Woodhouse, who sort of said this is something that’s been put up by a working group and that the Government should have taken more of a direct role in saying what’s what with it.

This has very much been a process that has been genuinely collaborative, and I would really encourage the members, if they have a genuine concern in that respect, to go and talk to SPADA—go and talk to the Screen Production and Development Association—who have genuinely engaged in this process, who genuinely went in with an open mind, who will speak about that process, who will speak about some of the concerns and anxieties they had at the outset, and who will speak about the fact that, through a good-faith, engaged, problem-solving process, they came to a point where they strongly support what has been proposed by the working group and is now transferred into legislation by the Government. I say that quite genuinely because that is the process that has played out. It has generally been seen as a model by all of the parties who have been engaged in it. There was no obligation for them to do that, but they did.

In respect of who pays, again, not necessarily linked to the part, but I can give the member some comfort there. The member, as I know, is a strong supporter of the fair pay agreements legislation that we are putting forward and the framework that surrounds that. One of the decisions that Cabinet did make in terms of the Budget funding—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. The Minister is clearly misrepresenting my position on a topic. I’d like him to correct that. I am certainly not a supporter of the fair pay agreements.

Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Goldsmith can take a call if he wishes to disagree with the Minister. It’s clearly a debating point.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Would the Minister like to complete his response?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I would, thank you. As a part of Cabinet’s decision to provide financial support for the bargaining process under fair pay agreements, at the same time as we made those decisions we did also make the decision that parties who engage in collective negotiations under this piece of legislation would also be able to access that financial support of up to $50,000 per bargaining. I note that in the general employment law scene, parties as a matter of course do need to factor in and cover bargaining costs. That is a part of business as usual for most organisations, whether it’s individual negotiations or collective bargaining. So it’s not unusual that organisations will need to consider and fund some costs in a bargaining process, but we will actually provide a bit of additional support in this area, in recognition of the fact that it is a new process, particularly as it gets under way.

In respect of the question that Mr O’Connor raised about clause 26 and the good-faith provisions, I think the important point to note here is that we’re talking about how good faith must apply during bargaining. In fact, in clause 26(1A) it’s very specifically set out what those provisions are. I just think these are basically things that are very difficult for a reasonable person to argue about as being conditions for reasonable conduct between parties in bargaining. Parties should use their best endeavours to agree a process for conducting the bargaining in an effective and efficient manner. They should agree to meet with each other. They should consider and respond to proposals from one another. They should continue to bargain about matters if they haven’t quite got to a point of agreement and try to find a way of getting through that. They should recognise the role and the authority of another person, not undermine one another.

These are basic and well-tested good-faith provisions that have been embedded in our employment relations landscape for over 20 years now, and we think it’s just a reasonable thing to be clear that they should be processes which should guide fruitful bargaining processes, and this piece of legislation as well.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, I thank the Minister for his actually quite comprehensive response. I suppose the paradox around good faith is not the concept but the fact that he is becoming very prescriptive in legislation. The very nature of good faith is that it is open.

Marja Lubeck: He has to because some people don’t know what good faith means, like yourself; it is not equal treatment.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Right. That’s brilliant. So we once again have the great sage of Marja Lubeck deciding what is and isn’t out of good faith, which is the exact point that good faith is about a discussion, not a heckling. And so, drawing it back to Part 3 again, I think, Minister, we all agree with the nature of good faith; it’s just does he understand the paradox that to prescribe what is and is not in good faith is, in fact, counter-productive?

The second is to come back to the earlier question: does he believe, as he’s just answered—and, again, thank you for that—all the various conditions and processes and costs are going to lead to more or fewer productions in New Zealand? I think that’s a fundamental question, because he’s right to mention the Screen Production and Development Association and others, but I know a number of people—and I keep bringing up the Amazon production of The Lord of the Rings, but, actually, they have left the country; they left the country. They are unlikely, I’d suggest, to come back. And the worry that I genuinely have is that legislation like this is going to make life even harder.

So we can opine, like Marja Lubeck here, wonderful great diatribes, but, actually, we’re going to have fewer people working in the industry because of this legislation—we’re going to have fewer people. So two ultimate questions: how does he reconcile good faith, the concept, with adding quite a prescriptive formula through his legislation; and, secondly—and to repeat again—does he believe, because of this Part 3 in particular, we are going to see more or fewer productions in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly, in answer to the two questions—firstly, as I said, good faith is a very, very established framework for productive collective bargaining. The argument that the member makes that somehow it’s overly prescriptive or burdensome doesn’t hold any water. It was retained by the previous National Government for its entire nine years as one of the building blocks of the collective bargaining framework under the Employment Relations Act. The code of good faith, which was promulgated by Margaret Wilson in the early 2000s, was kept in place by that previous National Government to provide guidance for people engaging in bargaining processes for that entire period. I don’t see it as particularly burdensome in any particular way. Actually, in amongst the wide range of debates with employers and unions about the nature of our employment relations framework, that is not a point that I can say has ever particularly been raised with me in my time as a Minister or someone who has been engaged in this area. If anything, I think it provides some certainty and some structure to the way that bargaining will be conducted to ensure that it’s productive and actually results in outcomes.

Secondly, in respect of any expectation that I might have about there being fewer or more productions as a result of there being collective bargaining provisions: I don’t have any particular reason to think that it will be here nor there in that respect. The main example that the member referred to, of course, was Amazon shifting production elsewhere, which was driven by other factors—as I understand it, primarily by tax treatment and subsidies that are often probably, actually, amongst the most significant drivers of where productions settle internationally. But I really just don’t accept the fundamental premise that basic labour rights should be on the table in this area. If you go down that rabbit hole, well, maybe we should remove the minimum wage, maybe we should remove basic provisions to sick leave and ACC and others things that are a bedrock of decent terms and conditions because international businesses would prefer that we lowered their cost base. We just don’t think that is a way that we should conduct ourselves. We think that we should have basic decent terms and conditions for people who do work in New Zealand, and then aim to be competitive in other ways other than a race to the bottom.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You can sense the anticipation on this side, both between myself and the Hon Paul Goldsmith, to stand up and speak. But I want to refer to clause 32A of Part 3—there’s a little segue—in regards to bargaining fees. It’s interesting—I’m not referring to the recent movie release called Bargaining, which is actually a Korean film, an action film called Bargaining; it’s about a kidnapping, so a bit more dangerous than what we’re talking about tonight, Minister. But a little segue, because one of the things we’re trying to do is to try and make this relevant.

The questions that I have in regards to clause 32A, in particular—and I’ll get into it, Subparts 2 and 3—is getting the Minister’s perspective in terms of how he sees this aspect will work in practice. My point, more detailed around the border concept, around the bargaining fees clause here, is in regards to enterprise-level collective contracts, which is obviously throughout this section but highlighted here in particular at Subpart 3, and really I’m keen to get an understanding in terms of the, I guess, key contrasts between how the bargaining fee arrangement will differ between occupational-level collective contract and enterprise-level collective contract. For those that aren’t over the detail in regards to that element, I think that would be quite helpful because I think there is some complexity. With the enterprise-level collectives, I guess it goes back to the point that Simon O’Connor was referring to, in terms of some of these, you know, big production companies or production companies working with employee collective groups—just how that will work, and, I guess, an expectation also, or some perspective from the Minister around the expectation around what those bargaining fees and the terms could look like. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to dig into clause 37, which is around the initiating of bargaining. And I’m intrigued on this one, when we’re talking about an occupational-level collective contract. So this is kind of the fair pay agreements of the screen industry, which is a significant move away from the practice of the country for the last 30 years, which has been enterprise-level based. This legislation pre-empts the fair pay agreement legislation looking at occupational-level collective contracts, and I’m mystified as to why the Minister thinks that’s a great idea, but he might be able to come up with some reasons why.

But the issue is, to initiate it, he’s saying that if the union is organised—you know, a worker organisation is initiating this occupational-level collective contract, it needs to go to the members and get a majority of its members supporting the initiation of these contracts, which is quite different to the fair pay agreement where you only have to have a 10 percent of the sector as a whole, or a thousand members, or, even better than that, some sort of vague idea that it’s a good thing or required. I can’t remember the exact phrase. I’m pleased that he’s at least expecting half the union members to sign up to the initiation. But I suppose my worry is what happens if you’ve got an occupation—I don’t know what it might be. It might be, I don’t know, if you divide it up between—what is it? What’s the term used for people who are sort of just in the background of a film, bit-part players or—

Hon Members: Extras.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Extras. Extras, for example. Extras. And—

Chris Bishop: A bit like the Labour backbench. They’re sort of bit-part players; they have no role. They’re all going to lose their seats.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: You shouldn’t be unkind to Marja Lubeck like that—I’ll defend it. So, we’re talking about extras—we’re talking about extras. If there was an extras union, and there might be over the course of the year, I don’t know, a thousand extras, there might be 5,000 extras if there’s a big film going on which included a lot of extras—a lot of orcs, for example, or something like that—and the union only had a hundred members out of the 5,000 because it wasn’t much chop, you’re saying that it might only be 50 people, half of the hundred members of the union required to initiate collective agreement for the whole occupational level.

So I just want to sort of clarify how all that works. If one is negotiated, does that automatically apply to the other thousands who might have had nothing to do with it, didn’t want it, didn’t want to be involved in it in any way, shape, or form, but were sort of, effectively, dragooned into the arrangements, whatever they may be. And one of the arrangements might be that, I don’t know, as an extra you need to have half hour breaks at this time, or whatever; it might be all sorts of rules and regulations. So I’d be keen for the Minister just to clarify: (a) why the difference with the fair pay agreement? And what rules are there in place to ensure that, actually, if you’re dealing with an occupation, that there is a majority of people in the occupation that actually want to do this, rather than just who might join up with one particular union? Then, thirdly, why does this apply to everybody? Is that sort of a form of compulsory union or something like that? If you could give some clarification on those issues, I’d be grateful.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): A couple of questions which have come up there: one around bargaining fees from Mr Watts, and then some questions around initiation from Mr Goldsmith. In respect of bargaining fees, these only apply to enterprise-level bargaining, and they only apply where a non-member of the union or guild concerned chooses to sign up to the enterprise-level bargaining. So, effectively, it’s about recognising that that person, if they choose to do so, will be receiving the benefits of that collective contract bargaining process, and it’s reasonable to ask them to make a contribution towards the costs of that, but others do not have to if they do not wish to sign up there. The fee is struck, as I understand it, at the lowest level of what the applicable union fee or guild fee would be in that particular case.

In respect of the bargaining initiation process for occupational-level contracts that Mr Goldsmith was asking about, once the initiating body—the worker body—has put forward an initiation request to the authority, the authority will then test support with that occupational grouping. So it will be run by the authority across the whole grouping—not just the union or guild members, but across that whole grouping of workers—and they will have to test that there is majority support before that proposal proceeds.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh, come on, I—[Chair confers with the Clerk]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Wood didn’t answer all my questions, obviously—but if he chooses not to, he doesn’t have to, I suppose. But it was a question around the numbers and the impact that these occupation-level collective contracts have on everybody in the industry.

I suppose, if, again, we’re thinking of extras as an example, presumably there might be a very big difference between a production that had thousands of extras—in a big film or a set of trilogies, and so forth, if you think of the hobbits and all that sort of stuff—and a very small production, which may have just two or three for a very short period of time while something is being produced. I’d be keen for the Minister to explain how life is going to be improved by fitting those two different situations into one box when it comes to pay and conditions. What may suit or may be affordable, even, for a larger production with large amounts of money—well organised, huge numbers of people, huge flexibility with those numbers of people—may not be appropriate for a small operation with a very small group involved. It may make life difficult. So I’m just curious as to why he thinks that in an industry that requires, many times, a great deal of flexibility and in a huge variety of situations, a kind of one-size-fits-all occupation-level approach is wise? Will it lead to better outcomes?

Then, when it comes to the question of—I’ll presume the outcome that the Minister is after is higher wages and additional benefits, whether it’s more breaks or better arrangements in some place, and that, ultimately, leads to higher costs. Does he think that the costs are irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether to do a particular production here in New Zealand or not? He seems to be implying that the only thing that really matters is the subsidy regime, or the tax treatment of it. But I suppose I’d just like to know whether he’s got any evidence to support that, or whether the cost structure of the whole process and the flexibility within arrangements will make a difference. He’ll probably say, “Oh, well, everybody else does it.” I suppose the point is, in a global world, when you’re trying to attract things into a very remote location in New Zealand, does a little bit of extra flexibility make people more likely to come here? That’s not an unreasonable proposition, so I’d be interested in his thoughts around that.

The other thing that he didn’t really respond to is: why the different approach taken to the approach taken in the fair pay agreement around initiating occupation-level contracts? Is this a hangover from the desires of the working group? I’m not sure what the working group had to say on the initiation process, but it would be interesting to know whether he has on this occasion listened to some degree to that group, or not.

The other aspect that I was trying to figure out was, again, if the union representation in a particular occupation group was very low, does that just draw everybody else in, regardless of whether they want to be or not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The questions around the initiation threshold—yes, that is a part of the recommendations that we received from the working group in terms of what they believe would be an appropriate and workable structure. We listened to them very carefully.

In answer to Mr Goldsmith’s question that sort of went to the broader issue of flexibility, I think the answer to that lies in the graduated structure. So for a worker, for example—taking Mr Goldsmith’s example—an extra who might, as a contractor, move from production to production, employer to employer, the occupation-level bargaining will ensure that that worker has the certainty of there being a basic level of fair negotiated terms and conditions that apply across that occupation wherever he or she moves. But over the course of a year or two years, that worker might move between different productions and different employers, and, to Mr Goldsmith’s point, yes, one of them might be large and have more means, and one of them might be small and have lesser means. And that’s where the enterprise-level bargaining, should it occur, in the individual-level contracts will allow differentiation which is fit for purpose for that organisation and its ability to engage. So I think the graduated nature there is the answer to his question. Whether he agrees with it or not, that is the way the system is set up.

In terms of his final question, “Does cost structure matter?”, well, of course it matters in any industry, in terms of being viable. As I’ve outlined, there’s no particular reason to think that giving people the basic, fundamental human right of being able to collectively bargain should be a particular prohibition in that area. I do note there are other sectors of the New Zealand economy that attract offshore capital and ownership in which collective bargaining is very normal.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I must say this committee stage does remind me of the 2015 movie Everest, you know, as a tough struggle; hopefully, unlike that movie, which had a bit of a sad ending—this is probably where this bill is going to end up as well.

But, anyway, let’s get to clause 33—a new clause that we haven’t talked about tonight. I’m particularly interested in clause 33(4)—again, a new area that we haven’t touched on, but let’s get into it because it’s one that raises a few, I think, important points that I’m keen for the Minister to provide some context on. So what I’m referring to here is around the exemptions for terms of occupational-level collective contracts, and, in particular, the subclause (4), which refers to “significant disruption”—[Interruption] what’s that, Mr Goldsmith?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, no, no.

SIMON WATTS: Oh no, just want to give me some tips. The “significant disruption to a production”. That’s reasonable. We all expect that there may be cases where you’re going to face a significant disruption and aspects like that.

But clause 33(4)(b) is the one that captured my eye, and that is because it refers to “the availability of essential personnel” in particular. Obviously, we’re acutely aware around the workforce shortages and crises that exist at the moment across multiple sectors. I’m in no doubt that the film and production sector are, no doubt, probably facing similar challenges around the availability of essential personnel, which this clause is referring to.

So I’m interested, from the Minister, in terms of how he sees this specific clause working in practice. The definition of “significant disruption”—I mean, there can’t be too many people with skill sets in this space in New Zealand, with respect, and, no doubt, quite a few of them have probably jumped on the plane and headed to other places to sell their wares in terms of their experience; hopefully not, but that’s probably the reality. So how will that work in practice? I guess, the practical reality of this working in the context of right now is we do have an acute workforce shortage; the likelihood is that that’s going to be around into the future. So, you know, is the reality that is defined as “significant” actually going to be more mainstream in terms of the triggering of this clause, in particular?

So those are the three questions that I have in regards, again, to clause 33(4)(b). Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I suppose I have just a few more questions around the whole engager representative that, as far as I’m aware, there’s only sort of one floating around at the moment, and that’s the Screen Production and Development Association. There may be some others that come along. Who knows? But they haven’t involved themselves in these sorts of negotiations at all. So I suppose I’m just trying to think how the Minister thinks this is going to work if there were five different occupational negotiations started—one for the extras, one’s for the camera people, another one for the writers, another one for the main actors, and another one’s for the stunt people; I mean, you could have half a dozen under way, you could have a whole lot of enterprise-based ones as well—all requiring a completely new skill set for the industry to do this sort of stuff, and an enormous amount of work and cost.

I’m just struggling as to why the Minister thinks this is a great idea and a useful thing to do at the moment, at a time when the industry is just, again, blinking its eyes just coming out of the COVID crisis, struggling with shortages of workers, struggling to get access to people to do the basic job that they want to get done, wondering what’s going to happen when Willie Jackson fiddles around with the TVNZ - Radio New Zealand merger, and New Zealand On Air and what that all means, trying to figure out a whole bunch of other stuff, and somehow it’s got to deal with what could be multiple occupational proposals put forward.

As we’ll go through all the other parts—and I’m sure the poor people who are tuning into this will be struggling to stay awake, and it just goes on, page after page after page of rules and regulation and dispute processes and challenges and this, that, and the other thing; page after page after page, adding time and cost and frustration, and gunging up the system and distracting people in the sector away from getting on with the job at hand.

But, in particular, given the current sort of smallness of the industry bodies and how they operate, how on earth does the Minister think that they’re going to be able to cope if there is half a dozen of these things initiated pretty quickly? Does he think his $50,000 is going to sort of cover the cost in any way, shape, or thing, when the authority starts its long process? And then, once it gets to the authority—this is the Employment Relations Authority—of course, as we know, I think the average waiting time is about a year and a half for them to get round to dealing with a personal grievance. I don’t know how it’s going to get round to dealing with these things in a timely fashion. Does he have any indication from them that they are going to get to these things within a year or two? He’ll probably have 30-day turn-around somewhere on page 500 of this bill. But will they be like the many city councils around the country that have perfected the art of just asking for a little bit more information on day 29, and then starting another 30 days and then they’ve perfected the art of extracting these things or coming up with reasons why they don’t have to meet the deadline? So I’d be interested to know how he thinks it’s going to work in terms of that, which will, again, drag things out and make it even more difficult.

So the broad sort of picture I’m developing here, and one which I think will be of concern to many in the sector, though they won’t mention it, presumably, because they are conscious of the fact that so much of their existence depends on the good will of the Government of the day, and this Government has shown itself to be pretty rough with people who disagree with it, and so that’s always in the back of the mind of everybody—but how are they going to actually do this and how is it going to actually help the sector right at this time?

I did ask him a little bit earlier, and he didn’t answer, whether or not he’d received any correspondence or a letter from people in the sector, pleading for a bit more time, and asking him not to do this right now.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll briefly answer a couple of the questions that were asked. Mr Watts asked about clause 33(4) in the version of the bill reported back by the select committee—just for ease of reference for members, that’s now clause 49C under Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234, which I have tabled. It’s probably useful to understand the particular examples that were in the select committee report back. At clause 39C—sorry, I’m getting my numbers confused myself. At clause 33(4), the particular examples that are listed there under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) have actually been removed from the final version of the bill under the SOP, just to create greater clarity.

Effectively, the purpose of this provision is to allow under exceptional circumstances for there to be some limited exemption from provisions of occupational contracts, except for provisions which relate to pay. So that’s about building in a little bit of flexibility.

I think Mr Goldsmith’s arguments are largely about a fundamental objection to the bill, rather than particular provisions here—a fundamental objection to there being collective bargaining that occurs and an assumption that is always going to result in burdensome cost and complication. I just repeat my comment before that many other sectors are able to manage that, and this process has been arrived at through a joint good-faith process. I think that people in the sector would reject his assertion that hard-working, innovative producers and companies “rely on the goodwill of the Government”. It’s a bit like Mr Luxon’s comment that businesses in New Zealand are soft, somehow. These are serious, innovative, creative, successful businesses and organisations who have come together, sat down with unions and guilds, and agreed on a positive and productive way forward in this area, and a fundamental part of that is the ability to access collective bargaining, as most other workers in New Zealand can.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will come back to this side of the Chamber, but I will allow a call for Hon Michael Woodhouse, who has not yet had a call on this part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to clause 27, a fascinating clause, which says, “The parties bargaining for a collective contract must conclude a collective contract.” Now, one would normally expect that to be the desired outcome.

So my question is, what does this mean in relation to two parties who don’t previously have a relationship, and could the conclusion of the collective contract bargaining be such that it’s concluded by both parties walking away, without an agreement being reached?

And the reason why this is important is because this is not like an employment relationship where the union—or the bargaining agent—and its members already have an employment relationship with the employer. It may be that a production company comes along to an organisation representing a group of—what used to be independent contractors, but we’ll call them something else for the purposes of this—and saying, “We’d like to engage your actors, lighting staff, grips, whatever”, and they get around the table and they commence bargaining and they’re not able to reach an agreement.

My question about clause 27 is, does conclusion involve walking away without an agreement being reached? Because if you take The Hobbit example from 2009, and let’s, sort of, replay that through this process: there wasn’t already a relationship, in respect of that production, with these two groups of people. So they get around the table, and my question is, what then happens if they cannot agree? The bill, at clause 27, basically says they “must conclude a collective contract.” I want to know whether that was the intention, or does conclusion include the possibility of walking away?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is worth noting that there continue to be relationships between unions, guilds, and employers in the sector, and there have been right across the last few years; albeit, that there has been in a change in some of the formal relationships because of the previous piece of legislation.

The answer, in respect of clause 27, is that parties can, even if they face difficulties in that bargaining, then access the dispute resolution provisions that are contained within this piece of legislation to try and meet the objective of concluding a collective contract.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, that’s a fascinating answer, because I think I interpret that to be: an agreement must be reached. And the Minister’s right. There are a number of existing and ongoing relationships between production companies and actors and production staff, but there will also be new ones and there will also be a series—this is unlike a continuous employment relationship where there are actually a series of discrete contracts, job and finish arrangements. That’s the nature of independent contracting. I wonder if the Minister—because it goes back to the question that Simon O’Connor asked at the start of Part 3 about whether there would be more or fewer engagements when this bill is passed.

It would seem to me that because of clause 27, the answer is going to be emphatically fewer, because no production company would come into New Zealand with a big budget and a chequebook to write for these contractors if before they even start the conversation about “Are we going to engage with each other?”, they’re under a legal obligation to conclude that bargaining with a contract. They’re just not going to take that risk. And, actually, they’re over a barrel before the negotiations even start.

So you know what they’re going to do, Minister? They’re going to go to Poland and Czechoslovakia and India and Australia and the United Kingdom with very mature—

Melissa Lee: Korea.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And Korea—great movies coming out of Korea. But what they won’t have in those countries is the obligation to conclude a collective contract before they even get going. The answer to Simon O’Connor’s question must be: fewer. And New Zealand will be the worse for that and so, incidentally, will be the very people the Minister is trying to protect.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Dispute resolution, challenges, reviews, penalties, and offences

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 57 to 65 and Schedules 4, “Dispute resolution, challenges, reviews, penalties, and offences”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 4 of the bill is a relatively discreet function, and, really, it does what it says on the tin: it focuses on dispute resolution, challenges, reviews, penalties, and offences. So we’re moving away from the court processes of bargaining now, to what happens if parties need support in terms of their employment relationships.

Two changes to draw the committee’s attention to: one which is proposed by the select committee in its report back is a change to ensure that there is no longer a requirement that the parties have acted in good faith before they’re able to receive facilitation. That was, effectively, about not having a perverse outcome, whereby an act of bad faith by one or the other parties could prevent staircasing towards that form of dispute resolution. And, secondly, in the Supplementary Order Paper, there is a clarification that, when an agreement is fixed by the authority, it is treated as signed and ratified for the purposes of the bill so that there can be no doubt about that matter. Once again, I’m happy to answer any question relating to this part.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Two initial points: this is not a dispute—we’re going to go after nomenclature—and, secondly, I don’t think the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) are minor. Look, they’re not substantial—making sure I’m on the right SOP. There’s quite a number of changes in Part 4. I don’t think they’re to be disputed, but, yes, it’s some substantial changes.

Look, it’s probably quite easy, again, for the legal beagles to reply to, but it’s twofold. Firstly, in clause 56, we’re now talking about “persons”. Earlier on in the legislation, we’ve been talking about “individuals” and, very kindly, the Minister or his officials noted to me about individuals in earlier parts actually being “natural persons”—always useful to know—but now we’re talking about “persons” in clause 56. I just want to be really, really clear, and I can see two doctoral legal beagles over there on the other side just getting fired up with excitement between—exactly, I can even see thumbs up between “persons” and “individuals” and “natural persons”. I just want to get absolute clarity on that.

Then, to not dispute, let’s move on to clause 57, where we are referencing the “chief executive”, which is jolly decent. But the chief executive is there. I’m assuming the chief executive is in reference to the Employment Relations Authority, but why I raise it, Minister, is that—first and foremost—it is not abundantly clear, particularly when one jumps back into the interpretation. It is quite important that we get this very clear, because the chief executive, according to the interpretation, means the “chief executive of the department”. Then we carry on and find that, actually, the Minister’s SOP has removed the definition of “department”.

Now, I’m not a legal eagle—I’m a philosopher, and, actually, a politician, which is possibly a weird mix—but, long and short, who is the chief executive? And has the Minister crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”—what’s known as a “tittle”, just for those people who are into linguistic and English interest. So I am being a bit flippant, but, actually, it’s a serious point: I just want to know, through officials, that we’ve got this absolutely right. First and foremost, with clause 56, is a “person” also an “individual”? And ipso facto is the “individual” a “natural person”? And then, with clause 57, is it absolutely clear through the way that this has been structured—or do we need to make a quick fix?—that the chief executive is that of the authority, at which point we need a very quick change to clause 10 of Interpretations to say “ ‘chief executive’ means the ‘chief executive of the authority’ ”.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I think I can assist with these two matters. In respect of clause 56, “persons” includes individuals and groups who are covered by the legislation, including bargaining parties. In respect of clause 57, “chief executive” refers to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). It’s MBIE who is responsible for the provision of mediation services.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you. Simon Watts was probably a better choice but at least it’s a Simon! Look, it’s just to be absolutely clear, Minister, is that now clear in the bill? I may have missed something but I don’t think to this point—as I’ve read it and I’ll be honest, I’m not going to flick through all 82 pages. But is it clear in the legislation that “chief executive” means the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), because that’s no longer there. Particularly if I have seen it correctly in your Supplementary Order Paper 234, departments being struck out. So is he able, or his officials, to point us as a committee of the whole House to be clear? Because I’m very, very happy—I want to be abundantly clear—very happy that it should be MBIE, but just want to make sure that we’ve got that correct.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As we work our way through this bill, I want to move—and it’s actually related to a question that I asked earlier in regards to penalties, and the Minister acknowledged that section 4 would be the point in which the bill would cover this detail. So I’ve been waiting here in anticipation for the moment to be able to get into the questions around penalties and get a little bit of clarity on that.

So, specifically, what we we’re looking at is under Part 4, clause 63(3)(a) and (b). We’ve got two penalties there: one in regards to the individual and the other in regards to a body corporate.

One, looking for a little bit of guidance from the Minister in terms of the setting of those penalties, what was the consideration and practice around how he came up with the $10,000 and subsequently $20,000? Is that deemed reasonable in the context of what’s going on here? Is there precedent in terms of where that has been baselined?

In regards to 63(3)(b), just clarifying there in terms of the use of “body corporate”—just making sure, seeking clarification, that that is the right legal construct that we want to be referring to in regards to that? Because it’s reasonably specific and I’m just wanting to get some clarity around why we’ve specifically referred to “body corporate” there versus other legal structures that may be deemed more appropriate or broader than that term. So 63(3)(a) and (b).

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just—on Simon O’Connor’s behalf, actually—want to thank the Minister for his answer that the chief executive of the department is the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). That’s great; we get that—that’s certainly the Minister’s intent. The question is where that is in the bill.

The reason Mr O’Connor asked that is because in Government Supplementary Order Paper 234, on page 11, the definition of “department” has been removed. So if you go to the original bill as brought back by the committee, it says the chief executive is “the chief executive of the department.” And in the definition of “department”, it means “the department of State that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act.” That’s great, but that definition got taken out.

So where in the bill do the breadcrumbs lead back to MBIE? That’s all we need to work on.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you. Happy to answer a couple of those remaining questions that are there.

In respect to the question asked by Mr O’Connor and then followed up on by Mr Woodhouse, what’s happened here is that the Legislation Act now ensures that when we refer to a “department” within a piece of legislation, that automatically means the department who is responsible for the administration of the bill. So the department responsible of the administration of this bill is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). So whenever “department” is referred to within this piece of legislation, it refers to MBIE on those grounds.

In respect of Mr Watts’ questions about the level of the penalties in 63(3), they pretty much come across from the Employment Relations Authority penalty regimes for similar breaches. So we’ve tried to keep a level of consistency across the employment relations framework there, and the use of the word “body corporate” is just to ensure that we are capturing organisations—that the $10,000 and $20,000 split is effectively a split between individuals and organisations.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I thank the Minister, particularly in relation to the whole “who’s responsible?” I guess the question is, how do we know, and perhaps it’s a privilege—to use a Green Party word; perhaps we’re privileged to know, on this side of the House—but how does the ordinary New Zealander know which department is responsible? And, please, Minister, I’m not trying to belabour this. I think, quite genuinely, if someone wants to understand and know, where are they to be directed? Is there something explicit on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website? Where do we find this? So I just welcome a little bit of clarification if you could.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): When the legislation is published on the legislation website, the Parliamentary Counsel Office will identify the responsible department.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I wasn’t going to take a call on this bill, but I am intrigued by this little exchange towards the latter stages. I mean, I’ve got to say, it’s a fairly unintended consequence, I would have thought, of the Legislation Act, which—I think I’m right in saying that I sat on the Regulations Review Committee to oversee the passage, or at least some of the passage of it.

Simon O’Connor: Who’s the chair of that committee?

CHRIS BISHOP: The chair is Chris Penk. He may wish to—

Chris Penk: I think it was me.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it was you—I’ll blame you for it—but he may wish to proffer a view. But it’s a genuine point, which is: is it now the position that the administering department can be updated by the machinery of government, and that, essentially, just has the effect of updating the Act?

So the Act says it’s the chief executive and it’s left open as to who the chief executive is, and then the administering department changes from—I don’t know. In this case, it’s the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), but, for argument’s sake, it could be the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), which seems to end up with the ephemera and pot-pourri of other random stuff that departments don’t want. I’m not having a go at DIA—they do a good job—but it’s sort of a catch-all department. So let’s say, for argument’s sake, that DIA want to be that administering department. The effect of that decision being made is that the Act just sort of auto-updates to the chief executive of the DIA being the chief executive, and I’m not sure that’s a wholly satisfactory outcome of the Legislation Act. I mean, the first point is that Parliament is not actually authorising that change. It’s just being done by ministerial or at least administrative fiat, so there’s been a transfer of power away from the legislature. So that’s the first point.

The second point is—and I accept it’s not the world’s most significant point, but it is an important point, which is a rule of law point, which is that people should have the ability to quickly work out who the right chief executive is that they’re talking about, and to read a piece of legislation and understand it.

There’ll be quite a few people, I reckon, who would read it and go, “Oh yeah, the chief executive.”, and the “chief executive” of so and so is littered throughout the statute book now, and they’ll read it and go, “the chief executive of MBIE”, “the chief executive of DIA”, “the chief executive of”—whatever, and they’ll say, “OK, that’s fair enough. That’s all good. I understand. That’s fine.” Well, now you have to know to read the legislation and go, “Oh yeah, the chief executive. Ah, right—that’s right. Parliament, in its infinite wisdom three years ago, decided that the way to work out who the chief executive is that you have to go down to the very bottom of the Act and work out who the responsible agency is, and—oh, that’s right. That’s who it is.”

I mean, I probably knew three years ago, but I’d forgotten that we’d authorised that. So I’d be willing to put this to the committee: very few MPs in Parliament know that that’s the case, so how many slightly more laypeople out there in the public domain know that that’s the case. I would hazard a guess that it’s very few.

So, look, is it the world’s biggest issue? No. Is it an important one? Yes. I think there are some rule of law concerns around that.

Anyway, I wasn’t planning on taking a call, but I feel better having got it off my chest. My colleague Chris Penk, who actually knows far more about this than I do, may wish to—oh, he’s shaking his head. No. OK—anyway. So the Minister may want to proffer a comment, but thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Look, briefly, I do agree with my colleague across the Chamber that it is an interesting point, but it is an interesting point in the context of the Legislation Act, rather than this one. I’ve checked it. “Department” is defined, and all the legislation in section 13 of the Legislation Act is the agency responsible for administering the Act. So those indeed are the provisions of the Legislation Act. That is what is being applied here. It is, I think, a very good question perhaps to raise with the Attorney-General or the Regulations Review Committee to give some consideration to, but it’s not one that I can change here.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 234 amending clause 59B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions and amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 66 to 79, “Miscellaneous provisions and amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Bishop earlier in the debate—somewhat not unfairly or rudely—referred to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as being the department that sort of collects up ephemeral things that don’t fit in anywhere else, and we’re perhaps on to the DIA part of the legislation with Part 5, which includes a range of miscellaneous provisions. Probably the key thing for members of the committee to be aware of are the provisions relating to the registrar of screen industry organisations and the provisions relating to workplace access. There are some, for the most part, relatively minor changes proposed by the select committee in the Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled here. Probably the most significant one from the select committee relates to some changes to the access provision. The provisions in respect of union access do enable access to be denied if there is going to be disruption to screen production activities. There’s now, effectively, an adjunct to that which, basically, says that the parties will first try and see if you can arrange a way of there being access without that causing that level of disruption before you refuse access entirely. So it’s just, effectively, pointing the parties to having a conversation to see if that can be worked around. Other than that, I look forward to discussion and any questions that members have on this part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I’m just curious about new clause 65B, where a society is entitled to be registered, and an incorporated society—there are two parts to the negotiations. There’s the worker organisation, and what’s called the engager organisation—you might think of, if a film is being done, the producer of the film or the people organising the film.

Now, new clause 65B says that an incorporated society, to be registered, is either a worker or an engager. So if we’re thinking of it in terms of the engager—so not the union, but maybe the people putting together a film—the requirement is that “(2)(a) the object or an object of the society is to promote its members’ collective work interests;”. I’m not quite sure what that would mean in terms of an engagers’ organisation, to promote—the “object of the society is to promote its members’ collective work interests”. I would have thought, you know, most of the engager organisations would be focused on strengthening the industry, dealing with the Government of the day, and international advertising—making things work. But the “members’ collective work interests”—I’m just not quite sure what that exactly means and how that necessarily applies to the engager side of it.

And then, when we get to new clause 65G, are we talking the functions of the chief executive that’s still back at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment? It’s not the Department of Internal Affairs chief executive, I presume. We’re all getting a bit confused about that now.

Then, in relation to access, in clause 67—that the representatives of the worker organisations are entitled to go on to the film set at any time that they like, provided that it minimises disruption to the screen activity, protects commercial sensitivity, manages health and safety risks, and maintains security—I just wonder if Minister Wood had in mind any other elements of a film production that it might not be appropriate for the union rep to turn up at, at the critical time, which aren’t covered by any of these descriptions. I just want to ensure that the Minister is sure that he’s covered all the potential situations that wouldn’t be appropriate. In terms of insisting that a union representative can come on at any moment and, presumably, want to talk to workers, has he given much thought to that? I just want to make sure that clause 68(2) covers all the appropriate things that would, you know, potentially create problems for people who are just trying to get on with their work.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I sort of feel, in the parlance of films, that this is the coda. So three questions—firstly, jumping to Part 5, is this legislation bringing about unnecessary bureaucracy, in so far as people already work through a process through the Incorporated Societies Act to become incorporated or not? It feels, to me, that we’re adding a further burden here, understandably to make them—whether they’re a worker or an organisation or an engager, it is a question of whether it’s just more bureaucracy. As I say, either you’re incorporated or not, and there feels, to me, in the first point, to be a little bit of repetitiveness.

Secondly, and we have traversed this, along with Chris Bishop, new clause 65G is referring to a chief executive, which ipso facto we no longer really know unless we go to the legislation website, which I would have thought was meant to be a fairly static website. The legislation is passed; it’s sort of immutable. But now we’re being told it can change.

Chris Penk: Good word—good word.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, I thought “immutable” was another good word, along with “coda”. Who knows what else will come! And, thirdly, jumping to new clause 75A, the review of the Act, the Minister will know that moviemaking is a fast-moving sector, and yet he’s chosen—I think it’s five, but I’ll pop my glasses on; yes, it is five—five years. Should it be fewer? This is quite generally a fast-moving situation. I know I keep coming back to what we’ve seen with Amazon leaving, amongst others. Do we really want to wait five whole years to come back to this? Is it more prudent—or, rather, did he seek any advice on whether we return to this within a year, or perhaps three years?

So three aspects there. As I say, are we, through new clause 65A, adding extra complexity to societies which are already incorporated? Secondly, just to draw his attention, as I’m sure he’s aware, to new clause 65G, where we’re referring to a chief executive of a department that can, arguably, change outside the legislation. And did he, under new clause 75A and beyond, consider fewer years around the anniversary of commencement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m happy to answer a few of the questions that have been asked there. I think the question asked by Mr Goldsmith in respect of new clause 65B and the question asked by Mr O’Connor in respect of new clause 65A come together somewhat, and I think I can provide some clarification here. So an engager organisation is an individual employer themselves. An engager organisation is an organisation like, for example, in this sector, Screen Production and Development Association, which represents the sector or represents a number of individual organisations in the sector. So what we’re really talking about here is a kind of organisation that can engage in occupational-level collective bargaining, where it’s not an individual employer; you need a body who will represent you—a bit like you might think of an employer association in other sectors. So it is necessary that that organisation is incorporated so that it has a legal form and conforms to the responsibilities of the legislation. It is necessary that it represents the collective interests of that sector, so that it has responsibilities back to the organisations that it’s going to be representing at the bargaining table as occupational-level contracts are negotiated. It is a very similar structure, although it came before in terms of the policy design and drafting, as with fair pay agreements, which the House is currently considering as well.

In terms of access, under clause 68(2), to the best of my knowledge and my judgment, I think that the provisions there are pretty comprehensive and cover likely scenarios where there might be an issue to be considered about the appropriateness of access. I do note that, at the select committee process, there were no concerns or issues raised with that access or provisions. You would have expected that companies, producers, if they had thought additional things should be added, might have suggested so at that stage, but they did not. Coming to new clause 75A, as raised by Mr O’Connor—the review after five years—I do believe that is an appropriate juncture. It gives time for a new piece of legislation like this to settle in, for people to get used to it, to really assess how well it may or may not be working. Of course, not every piece of legislation that comes to this House has an inbuilt review mechanism. It’s, effectively, an optional extra that we have decided should be built in, given that this is a new and novel regime. My judgment is that five years is about the right level of time to conduct that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I go into voting, could those members take their House boxes down from their desks. Thanks.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part—[Interruption]—there will be silence while I am taking the vote.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting new Schedule 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendment deleting Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): If we have completed the coda, now we are at the epilogue, and like a good epilogue, it’s not too long. So the question really is: should we be calling this Act the “Screen Industry Workers Act 2020”? Well, of course we can’t, because now we’re in 2022. But the fundamental question is: can we call it the “Screen Industry Workers Act” when, possibly because of this very Act, there will be no one left in the screen industry to be working, and are we creating something erroneous? So I’m not going to suggest alternatives to the Minister, but I have a serious concern that because of what he is bringing about here, there will be no one in the screen industry to work or to act. So it’d be interesting to know how he’s going to juggle that or allow a little bit of flexibility.

As I touched on in the coda on Part 5, this is a fast-moving industry. I understand that there’s been a bit of debate about when this should come into force, but it is a question of why we’re now waiting three months. I’m sure there are some who are thinking it should take much, much longer; there are some who would argue it should just happen tomorrow. I notice, of course, once we get Royal assent, once that Act—all puns intended; is “act” in the legal and screen industry a pun? It probably is. The regulation powers come into effect after Royal assent, which makes sense; they’re planning. But why is the Minister waiting three months? As I say, there’s a debating point there. But my fundamental question is: how can he title this bill the “Screen Industry Workers Act” when, in fact, I would argue fewer people will actually be acting as workers in the screen industry?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): People who have been tuning in to this debate will probably come to the conclusion that we on this side of the Chamber don’t support this bill. And we don’t support this bill, fundamentally, because it is taking a situation that’s working pretty well, an industry that’s working well—it’s creating jobs, making films, entertaining New Zealanders and people all around the world. It’s been an industry that’s started the careers of many famous New Zealanders who are now on the world stage. It’s provided opportunities for people to have fun and do work that they love. You know, the world’s never perfect, but the industry is going pretty well. And this Government seems, right now, to be mad keen to introduce a whole new regulatory regime in respect to the hiring of people, and a very thick bill with many changes to it.

It’s now supposed to come in three months after it gets its Royal assent—most of the provisions of the bill—and I’ve asked the Minister a number of times and he has dodged and dived and not answered this question: has he received correspondence from people in the sector pleading with him to delay the introduction of this bill further? Because they are conscious of the times being tough, that they are just scrambling out of the pit that COVID has created for their industry; they’re just getting themselves back on their feet. They’ve been through the wringer and they’re tired, they’re exhausted, and they’re stressed. They just want to get back to normality for a while so that they can get on with the things that they love, and this Government is imposing a complicated new set of procedures—costly, complicated, a pain in the neck—that will go on for a long time and distract them at a time when they need to be focused on getting the situation back in control.

So my suggestion would be that he heeds the calls from within the industry, which he hasn’t yet acknowledged, and give it a good year’s delay. If he insists upon passing this bill—we don’t think he should; I think he should take a lesson from his friend and colleague the Hon David Parker and do a big U-turn. We would support him in doing that, right here, right now; and saying, “Well, actually, I’ve changed my mind. I think this bill is a stinker and I’m not going to pass it.” That would be a good thing to do and we’d support him in that. But if he’s not going to do that, we would encourage him to delay the commencement date a year, because it’s going to be a flop. There’s no doubt about it. Delay it a year and then give people a little bit more time to get back on track post-COVID. If he did that, it would be one small indication that he could show the people that he understands the pressure that they’ve been under. So why not? We’ve had one today. Why don’t we have another one?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly, in response to the previous member, Paul Goldsmith, I’d just say that not everyone has the same irrational, bent-out-of-shape hatred of unions and collective bargaining that that member and his colleagues do, let alone the very people who make up the sector. As we’ve covered across the course of this debate, this bill has arisen out of a joint good-faith tripartite process in which the companies who produce screen productions sat down with the unions and the guilds, came together, and found some solutions that they’re all happy with, and that’s the legislation we have here before us. The title reflects that. I believe that stable employment relationships will be an important part of the sector prospering and growing in the future, and most people across the sector believe that. In recognition of the fact that there is some work to be done in order to get processes set up for the legislation to move forward with bargaining, we have extended the commencement to three months, which I think is a reasonable balance to strike.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Plant Variety Rights Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Members, we come to Part 1.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection? There is objection. Members, first we come—[Interruption] Settle. Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13 in Schedule 1, “Preliminary provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I’m very pleased to open proceedings on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I do want to thank, at the outset, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their consideration of the bill, and, of course, all those who submitted. The committee itself made a number of, I think, useful improvements to the bill after listening to the submitters, and the bill is stronger for it. I also want to specifically acknowledge the industry stakeholders, the Māori organisations, and the individuals who provided their time and expertise to help develop this legislation. I’m quite convinced that the opportunity for many plant puns lies ahead of us in this debate today. As I look at members opposite, I can see the talent there.

I want to make some introductory comments to this part.

Hon Member: We’ll stop sowing seeds on this soon.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They’re sowing the seeds of—yeah, I concede. The bill governs an area of intellectual property law referred to as “plant variety rights” or “PVRs”, which give an exclusive right to exploit a plant variety they have developed in order to earn a commercial return from their investment—

Simeon Brown: Grow up!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —breeding it; leaf it out! The bill fulfils our obligations in relation to PVRs under both the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, so it is an important step in meeting the terms of obligation for that trade agreement, and also meets our obligations related to the Treaty of Waitangi.

It strengthens plant breeders’ rights by aligning the PVR regime with the current international standard for PVR protection, known as UPOV-91—and for those watching at home, UPOV is the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. It provides protection for kaitiaki relationships with taonga species and mātauranga Māori, as recommended in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262 report. And the bill will promote innovation in our plant breeding industry, and so support economic growth in critical areas of our economy, such as horticulture and the arable and pastoral crops that underpin farming in New Zealand.

Specifically to Part 1, Part 1 sets out the purposes of the bill, the definitions, and the transitional provisions. In response to issues raised by submitters, the select committee made two significant changes to Part 1 of the bill, and so I just want to address each of them in turn. The first is around the Treaty clause. Māori submitters raised concerns around how the Crown’s Treaty obligations were referred to in the original purpose clause, arguing that the phrasing appeared to limit the Crown’s obligations to protect kaitiaki relationships. These provisions were examined by a cross-agency group, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Arawhiti, the Crown Law Office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The new purpose clause 3(b) is a straightforward statement of what the bill does, without implying that, in general, this is all the Crown’s Treaty obligations amount to. A new Treaty clause in 3A then sets out how the bill recognises and respects the Crown’s Treaty obligation.

Hon Member: Well done; that was a hard road to hoe!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They’re still barking at me from across the way!

The other main change in Part 1 is the definition of “essentially derived variety”, referred to as an “EDV”. This is a new concept introduced by UPOV-91. If a new variety is essentially derived from an initial variety, then the rights holders of that initial variety also have rights over the EDV and they will come between them to some kind of agreement as to how those rights can be exploited. The definition in the introduction version was, arguably, quite narrow in an attempt to provide more clarity to what is a somewhat ambiguous definition in UPOV-91. Ultimately where the select committee landed in response to submitters was that, actually, it was better to leave the UPOV-91 as it was, as our trading partners have done. So the select committee made that change to the bill.

Finally on this part, under the transitional provisions, any PVR grants made or applications filed before the relevant provisions of the new legislation commence will be considered under the current legislation, the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. Given that grants were made on this basis, with contracts then drawn up based on those provisions, it is only fair that those provisions are maintained after the new legislation commences. Otherwise, an action that was not an infringement prior to the commencement of the new legislation could suddenly become so, and that doesn’t seem right.

So, in closing, this bill brings Aotearoa in line with the international community, cultivates innovation in plant breeding, and supports economic growth, while protecting our taonga plant species and mātauranga Māori. I don’t share concerns held by other members about issues such as the term of a PVR, but I do welcome constructive debate on these topics. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was quite difficult to try and pay attention to the debate with all the to-ing and fro-ing with all the references to plants and—

Hon Member: It’ll grow on you.

MELISSA LEE: Yes. I guess those kinds of jokes have set root in this Chamber. Thank you, Minister, for the setting of what this bill is actually all about. I think it is really important to explain that the plant variety rights are a form of intellectual property rights, providing plant breeders with exclusive rights relating to reproductive material, such as seeds or cuttings of the variety in concern. I think, when you actually consider the fact, as the Minister has actually said, this is to bring New Zealand up to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 (UPOV-91). The current Plant Variety Rights Act is aligned with an earlier version of UPOV convention, which is UPOV-78. So we need to actually grow with the times and come up with a way that we can actually either, how would you say, accede to the UPOV. I don’t quite know how to pronounce that, is it “You-pov” or “Ooh-pov”? UPOV-91. National supports moving to a new plant variety rights regime that will give effect to UPOV-91 and strengthen protection for plant breeders.

I guess with the committee stages, we have to actually go clause by clause. In Part 1, I have specific questions to the Minister. In Part 1, Subpart 1, at clause 3, paragraph (b), it actually talks about how it protects the kaitiaki relationship with taonga species and mātauranga Māori in the plant variety rights system. And if you actually look at Part 1, Subpart 2, the interpretation of some of that, and if you go to where it actually talks about the kaitiaki relationship, it says “in relation to a plant species, means the relationship that any particular iwi, hapū, individual of Māori descent or Māori entity has, or Māori in general have, as guardian, trustee, or caretaker of—(a) an indigenous plant species; or (b) a non-indigenous plant species of significance”. So I’m trying to actually find out exactly what those species are. Is there actually a list of the kaitiaki relationships that a particular indigenous plant species or non-indigenous plant species have that are actually of significance to the Māori for this particular kaitiaki relationship that this part actually talks about?

One of the reasons I actually ask that question is because in my own culture, we have specific things that actually have special meaning. For example, what Māori call kūmara, in Korean we call goguma. Goguma is a sweet potato that actually nourished the people during the war. That was the only means of food that people actually had in Korea. Sweet potato was boiled up and people actually used it as a meal when they did not have the grains. And the leaves and the stalk of the leaves are, even now, to this day, dried and used as a side dish. So it is actually very special to the Korean people. So, I’m thinking, is kūmara, which is the same thing as goguma, sweet potato—does it actually have the kaitiaki relationship or the rights in this particular legislation? I would really appreciate if there are others that the Minister thinks that he should highlight to the Chamber on this particular aspect of the bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Obviously, that’s the part where we would discuss exactly which ones are in as a separate part of the bill. But I shall endeavour to get the member as best a list as I can as the debate progresses. It’s something I’m aware was covered fairly extensively at the select committee.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry, I’ll take this off. [Removes mask] Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, just referring to Part 1, we have Supplementary Order Paper 193, which my colleague Andrew Bayly has tabled, and he’s suggesting that we have an insertion in clause 5, which is for “Plant Variety Intellectual Property Review Tribunal or tribunal means a tribunal established under section 127B(a)”. I wonder if Minister Clark could address whether or not the Government is going to be supporting that, to give some clarity to this. This is actually a very important bill, in terms of the work that’s going on in science and research, obviously, and innovation. So that we make sure we have a bill that we don’t just have to come back to again next year and correct, we have the time, as a committee of the whole House, to get this right. And I wonder if the Minister could give us an indication of whether or not he’s going to be having his party support that particular amendment and clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Mark Cameron’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Plant variety rights

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 14 to 20, “Plant variety rights”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 2 of the bill sets out exactly what rights a plant variety right (PVR) gives the breeder, the exceptions to those rights, and the term of duration of those rights. By aligning with the 1991 revision of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV-91, the bill significantly expands breeders’ rights compared to the current legislation. And this, of course, is good for economic growth, good for intellectual property development, and has been the subject of some public debate about what the right terms of extension are.

Research commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment during the review found that even under the current legislation, the plant breeding innovation system in New Zealand is in pretty good shape. So I should note that from the outset. Under the current Act, farmers do not have to pay to plant saved seed of protected varieties for the next season’s crops. Under the broader exclusive rights in UPOV-91, reflected in the bill at clause 14, farmers would have to pay for this. However, UPOV-91 permits countries to provide an exemption for farm-saved seed, and the bill gives effect to this exemption so farmers do not have to pay royalties when they’re using saved seed of a protected variety for that purpose.

Some stakeholders have argued that this decreases the return on the investment in breeding new varieties and might hamper, as a consequence, innovation. The research did not find any evidence in New Zealand that we’re missing out on innovative new crop varieties. I understand there are discussions going on between the relevant parties on this issue—Federated Farmers, the New Zealand Plant Breeding and Research Association, and United Wheat Growers. They are, as I understand it, ongoing conversations.

To speak to the term of a PVR, the term of a PVR broadly aligns with the minimum terms required by UPOV-91, which is 25 years for woody plants, their rootstock, and potatoes as well, and 20 years for all other plants. There was considerable debate on this issue, as I understand it, during the select committee process. Getting intellectual property settings right is a balancing act. If rights are too weak, New Zealand could be missing out on innovation. If they’re too strong, that can result in higher costs for users, for consumers, which outweigh any benefits from increasing innovation. Research, again, has not found any evidence that New Zealand has been missing out on innovative new plant varieties.

The bill expands the exclusive rights of PVR owners and extends the PVR term for woody plants and rootstock to 25 years from the 23 years allowed for under the current Act. This has the potential to increase the returns that PVR owners earn from the new varieties. In light of this, no case has been made to extend the PVR term beyond those required by UPOV-91. Indeed, that could actually leave growers and consumers worse off, because the increased benefits for rights holders will come at the cost of other groups.

One exception to this is the PVR term for potatoes, but this was because the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee was presented with compelling evidence that a 20-year PVR term for potatoes was not long enough to allow breeders to recoup their investment in light of the long time period required to bring a new potato variety to market. A shorter PVR term could, in time, reduce the number of new potato varieties entering the market. I think that’s a sufficient introduction to Part 2, and I look forward to some root and branch analysis of this part of the bill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know why I bother asking the Minister any questions, because he didn’t bother to answer last time. What I’ve found with the Minister is that a few quips here and there doesn’t actually mean that he’s done his work on it.

We’ve seen in this particular bill—I’ve made submissions to the Minister. I wrote to the Minister on 16 June, seeking a meeting to discuss the changes to the Plant Variety Rights Bill proposed by both Zespri and T&G Global in their letter to the Minister on 22 March. I also sent him copies of three Supplementary Order Papers relating to those changes. I received a reply from the Minister 2½ months later, today—today; the day that the bill is being discussed—to say, “No, it’s not perfect. It’s not perfect, but it would take too long.” Well, it took 2½ months to write that letter, so I suppose it would probably take another 2½ years to discuss it with stakeholders.

The letter itself talks about “Revisiting the issues raised by Zespri and T&G Global would involve going back to stakeholders and conducting a further analysis of the impact of proposed changes.” OK, so we know we’re going to be back here again, having to fix this up again. It reminds me of the Credit Contract—what was it called? The Credit Contract Finance, or something—

Chris Bishop: The CCCFA.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The CCCFA—yeah—or something. We ended up back here, having destroyed people’s hopes of getting homes.

So, anyway, coming back to this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers, these are relatively minor changes—

Hon Member: It’s the same Minister.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The same Minister—the same Minister. Too clever—by words—to have a meeting, too clever to talk to the industry, and too clever to consult with the actual stakeholders, who, by the way, we’re very lucky to have. They’re able to still export, despite the fact that they couldn’t get enough workers in to actually pick the fruit in the first place, and they’re now paying a penalty for that because fruit was picked too late. Those same people, who he doesn’t have time to meet with—maybe they should have talked about a biking trip or something, and he could have been there and met you on the biking track.

They’ve asked to extend the term of the actual licence from 25 to 30 years, and the Minister has come back and said, “Well, that could affect other people.” Yeah, it might well affect other people who want to compete against our New Zealand interests. The amendment to clause 14 that I’ve put up on Supplementary Order Paper 200, inserting subclause (2A), is: “to ‘authorise another person’ includes where—(a) the authorising party was outside New Zealand at the time of authorising; but (b) the restricted act occurred in New Zealand.” Well, this all comes from that court case, the Court of Appeal decision in Gao v Zespri Group Ltd [2021] NZCA 442. That clarified that restricted acts occurring in New Zealand, even if authorised by parties overseas, are within both the scope of New Zealand courts’ jurisdiction and the territorial nature of plant variety rights as contemplated in the actual treaty.

So if we think about it, that is actually that case where New Zealand plant stock was stolen and taken to China and then used to compete against us, and this Minister thinks Zespri doesn’t know what it’s talking about. I think it does know what it’s talking about, and I think it is something where the Minister writing to me and saying, “Well, we need to get it through because everything else is too late on our response as a Government to UPOV-91.” Well, too late—whose fault is that? Is it Zespri’s fault? Is it T&G’s fault? Is it the New Zealand producers’ fault? No, it’s his fault, and they’re having to pay for it.

Instead of taking notice of them, in March this year—which was followed up by a letter from me because they couldn’t get to him—he was too busy to meet on that, too. Maybe he should just give up his portfolios and give them to one of these other young thrusters they’ve got over there, like Glen Bennett. He’s a nice young person. I’m sure he’d be keen for it. Jamie Strange—he’d be keen for it—or Ginny Andersen. These people—I’m sure they’d love to have the job if he’s too busy to meet with some of the senior stakeholders, not only in this area, but actually in the country.

Chris Bishop: What about Rachel Boyack?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What about Rachel Boyack? She’d be brilliant, for at least two months. Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I would be delighted to respond to the honourable member’s contribution—if I can call it that; a somewhat lazy contribution that neglected to mention the parts in the letter which addressed her concerns.

Perhaps it was convenient not to mention that the arguments she is raising have been considered; that I did meet with the industry and carefully listened to their concerns, despite advice that their concerns might have merits but probably didn’t stack up. Certainly the National Party members of the select committee who approved the select committee report did not agree with those findings. The Hon Judith Collins, here, obviously tried to undermine her own colleagues across Parliament—not something unusual; we’ve seen it before as she undermines other National Party colleagues and their work on the select committee. But then again, she likes the podium.

So there we are, but I will clarify because I think it’s important to put these things on record for the committee that I did respond to the Hon Judith Collins; that I have laid out the reasons why what, on the face of it, are concerns that do warrant consideration we have, on balance, decided to allow the regime to fall where it lies now.

That is because revisiting these issues—the ones that have been raised by the Zespri and T&G Global—would involve going back and doing further thorough consultation, because they have already been thoroughly consulted on a particular proposal.

Given the findings of the previous review and also the work of that committee—and I do take on good faith the hard work of those members on the committee, be they National Party members or Labour members, although Judith Collins is now calling that into question—I do think they went through it thoroughly. I have seen the work that they’ve done, I’ve seen the previous review, and I then further wanted to hear the concerns directly from Zespri and T&G Global, because I think they are things that warrant consideration. I think that’s why they were given full consideration.

The other thing to say is that if we do go through another exercise of repeating this exercise, again, it would delay the benefits of a new plant variety rights regime, including the benefits that it would bring to plant breeders—those who are doing the innovation in this country, those who want to seek the rewards of innovating for New Zealand. I don’t think that that is a good idea—that we delay further—when there is opportunity here to reward our innovators through protecting their intellectual property better.

So I meet and hear with Zespri and T&G Global, who presented, I thought, a compelling case but not a case so compelling that it was immediately obvious that the balance that the previous review and the select committee had found was not the best balance right now; certainly, also, the Gao v Zespri Group case. I mean, evidence has been presented to me that, again, how the law is now described is the best outcome. I’ll read out that paragraph just for the benefit of the committee in the letter that I’ve provided to the honourable member. The authorising issue, which is the one that the Hon Judith Collins has raised, I have stated clearly I don’t see the need for any changes here. If an unauthorised act takes place in New Zealand, there is clear ground for infringement proceedings to be commenced. If an unauthorised act takes place outside New Zealand, then this is outside the jurisdiction of the New Zealand plant variety rights regime, as set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Gao v Zespri Group case.

I further note that the New Zealand Law Society initially supported Zespri and T&G Global’s position on this issue, and that was partly why it was the subject of such fierce debate. But the Law Society has since withdrawn its position following that Court of Appeal decision.

So the matters do lie where they fall. It is something that has been thoroughly debated and I do respect the work that the select committee members did and I want to acknowledge those members—both the Labour members and the National members—that did that work. I don’t think, unfortunately, that the argument that Judith Collins brings to delay the bill further, for further consideration of their work, is the best way forward here.

But, of course, we will see how all of this legislation works through and we will make sure that we continue to learn and amend bills and Acts as we always do in this Parliament. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table a letter I received today, dated today, from the Hon Dr David Clark, relating to the matter that we’ve just been discussing.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to start off my contribution on Part 2 by perhaps reminding the Minister—I guess he hasn’t actually sat in a select committee for a little while, so he has forgotten how it actually operates—the select committees do a job, and I think the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee actually does quite well. We work collegially, and I see the chair across the room, my good friend Jamie Strange, who does wonderful work. But the things is that, on select committees, Opposition members are often outnumbered, and often things actually do get past select committee. I’m not suggesting that we oppose the bill—we support the bill—but there are things that need to be done in the committee stage in the House, where members can actually ask questions of the Minister as well as make suggestions.

I think the Hon Judith Collins actually made a wonderful contribution and actually made suggestions through her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) where she proposed to extend the plant variety right licence years in clause 18(3)(a), to replace 25 years with 30 years. That actually comes, as she said, from the recommendations from the industry. When the Minister suggests that, well, the consultation is over and it’s far too late, why are we sitting in the committee stage in Parliament if it’s too late and what the select committee did is end of story? Why don’t we actually just wipe out the committee of the whole House stage and just get on with it? I just don’t see the point of a committee of the whole House stage, when members should be able to question the Minister and actually make recommendations.

The reason why I believe the Hon Judith Collins actually recommended this is that even I, not a plant grower, not a breeder, but an amateur gardener, who actually—

Chris Bishop: Don’t you have green thumbs?

MELISSA LEE: Not quite! But I planted my favourite fruit tree in my garden—persimmons. I bought a plant—persimmons. It wasn’t actually a small thing or grown from a seed, but it takes years before it will fruit. For a plant breeder who might get a new variety, it might be from a seed or from a stone. I don’t know—they do a cutting and they actually create a new breed or new variety of fruit. Let’s say a persimmon. They plant it in the ground and it takes years for it to actually start fruiting. If that is the case, if that breeder is to make any money from the new variety of fruit that they’ve just done, 25 years may not be long enough, because 10 years might already have been taken up for the tree to actually grow. If that’s the case, what’s the point of them having that right? I think extending it so that they actually do take some benefit from having the right to grow the plant and actually gain the fruit of their labour is something that we need to actually look at.

If the industry, who actually came to the Hon Judith Collins—and, I mean, Zespri is one who do amazing work. I mean, Zespri is where kiwifruit—I love the gold ones; I’m not quite sure about the green ones. But they actually expanded their reach by going to other countries, like South America and Korea, where they actually license them to grow it so they can expand the lifecycle of the export market, so we’re not just reliant on our growing season, but also another part of the world that has opposite seasons to take benefit. I think this SOP by Judith Collins on clause 18 is a wonderful example of how we can improve this legislation, and I would hope that the Minister would take heed of our suggestion, because I think it’s a good one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is the Hon Dr David Clark’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Judith Collins’ amendment to clause 14 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Judith Collins’ amendment to clause 18 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Infringement and enforcement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 21 to 27, “Infringement and enforcement”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 3 of the bill sets out what constitutes an infringement of a plant variety right (PVR), how and when proceedings can be brought, and what relief is available. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 requires that some measures be put in place to protect breeders’ interests between the filing of an application and the grant of a right. This is known as “provisional protection”. Different countries take different approaches to this issue.

The bill provides that while a PVR can be infringed during this period, proceedings cannot be commenced until after the grant is made. That is a change from the current Act, under which proceedings can commence during this period. Many submitters expressed concerns at this change; however, the problem with the approach that is in the current Act is that if a PVR is never granted, the defendant may incur considerable costs even though they were not actually infringing a PVR. The fact that proceedings can be taken in relation to infringements during the provisional protection period but only after a PVR is granted is sufficient to protect the breeder’s interests. This is the approach taken by our major trading partners, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the EU.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Minister and others on this side of the Chamber who have been engaging, I think, in a really interesting discussion.

Hon Dr David Clark: Fruitful!

CHRIS PENK: Fruitful discussion indeed! So in Part 3 we’ve heard about infringements and remedies and so forth, so the Minister’s opening comments have been helpful. I do want to take him to Subpart 2, which is called infringement proceedings—that’s clause 27. So this provision is titled: “Types of relief available for infringement”. I wonder if the Minister, through this bill, is meaning to say that the court can grant only some types of remedies but not others. And the context, for anyone who’s following this debate with great interest, or at least following it, but without the bill in front of them, it says, “The relief that the court may grant for an infringement of a PVR includes—(a) an injunction; and (b) at the option of the plaintiff, damages or an account of profits.” So we’re having ruled in the things that can be awarded by the court, but I wonder if that implies that others can’t, or if maybe the bill is saying, “These ones can, and others may or may not.”? I think it would be a significant step, and I don’t say an incorrect one, but significant either way, for this House to derogate from the inherent jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter in relation, in this case, to plant variety rights—PVRs—and to tie the hands of that court and to say that only certain types of remedies can be offered; that seems to me would be an interesting exercise in those two different branches of Government respecting each other’s roles and responsibilities.

And it might be that I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. I didn’t have the benefit of the discussion at the select committee, as others have talked about, as chaired—no doubt ably and very capably—by our Jamie Strange. But if he, maybe, or others who are on the select committee, or indeed the Minister himself—and I see he’s consulting officials so I’ll keep talking a little bit longer to allow that, in case there should be no other contributions on Part 3, because I think it would be quite interesting and helpful to know the answer to that question. I sense that the Minister’s getting very close to being able to provide it, and I don’t know if Judith Collins, who’s made herself expert in these matters but also knows a thing or two about the law, might have a contribution to make as well.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to the member’s questions: it is a non-exhaustive list, and it mirrors, I’m told, what’s in the Patents Act.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I bring the attention of the committee to clause 28(2), and I note the Supplementary—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry; point of order. Could the member just tell me which clause she is referring to.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Clause 28—sorry, Madam Chair; the issue of clause 25A is what I meant to talk about. The issue around the expiry of a plant variety right (PVR)—the restrictions during and following expiry; there are some issues around that. Not only that but also in relation to a plant variety having been, say, developed but not having been so fully developed as to be able to get its PVR rating, as such, or authorisation. I just wonder whether or not there is any thought being given by the Minister as to whether or not there is going to be any protection given to those people who are inventing new varieties or working on new varieties while they’re waiting for the PVR to be granted. Is there any thought to doing that?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Grant of plant variety rights

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 51, “Grant of plant variety rights”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 4 of the bill sets out all the details around granting a plant variety right (PVR), including the criteria that must be met, the information required with an application, and how that application will be considered. If a candidate variety meets the five criteria set out in International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91, and replicated in the bill, then a PVR will, indeed, be granted.

The exception to this is when the candidate variety may be from a species that is taonga to Māori. In this instance, the application will first go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, who will consider possible impacts on kaitiaki relationships and then determine whether the application can proceed or not. We’ll come to the provisions governing that process in Part 5, so that’s a slightly separate debate.

There was nothing particularly controversial raised about provisions in Part 4 during the select committee process, though the committee has made some useful amendments. Submitters raised concerns that some acts, though not commercial in nature, may destroy the novelty requirement, rendering the variety ineligible for a PVR. The select committee addressed that issue by carrying over provisions from the current Act to prevent that happening.

Some Māori submitters raised concerns about information shared by kaitiaki during the application process. The default setting is that all information relating to an application is made publicly available. Submitters were concerned that this may not be appropriate for some information shared by kaitiaki—for example, in relation to their mātauranga. The select committee added a requirement that before making any such information publicly available, the commissioner must first consult with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and must follow any recommendations they make.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now we come to clause 28. Look, I’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper from our colleague Andrew Bayly, Supplementary Order Paper 192, and he’s suggesting that there be some amendments to clauses 28 and 52.

So the Minister spoke as though there needs to be consultation with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. I’m not sure it actually is consultation. It says in the bill that—it really sounds more like it’s a veto power. So I would normally ask the Minister, but since he seems to just sit down after I’ve asked my question and sat down, I really don’t want to waste my time waiting for him to find the answer and answer the question. So I think this is something that does need to be looked at. Is this really going to be where we go, where we decide that there is now going to be a veto power? If that’s what it is, then the Government should say what it is. If it is in fact a consultation, that’s not the same because I don’t see how “the Māori Plant Varieties Committee decides” can actually be “and I’m consulting with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee”. I think that’s really more like a veto, and people need to know that.

In fact, Andrew Bayly has suggested that that be changed to “Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises”, because that sounds more like consultation. Saying that that is a consultation is a bit like the Auckland Council sending me the rates bill and saying they’re consulting with me; it’s already been decided. So I’m not really sure how that can be consultation, or if that’s the new thing, under the Ardern Government—of “consulting”. So we are suggesting, from this side of the Chamber, that there be less of a false consultation and more of reality. So it’s going to be “The Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises, under section 65(1)(c), that an agreed or proposed condition must be a condition of grant of a PVR, the Commissioner might impose that condition when granting the plant variety right.”

This is not a consultation. What is in this bill is actually a veto power, because it says very clearly that if the committee decides that something needs to be a condition in the plant variety right, or condition of it, then that’s the way it has to be. Now, if it is, the Government should be upfront about it. We should know what it is we’re being asked to vote for, and we believe it shouldn’t be that veto power, but it should be advising and giving advice on. That is, in our opinion, on this side of the House, more like consultation rather than a decision.

So I wonder if the Minister could actually rise to his feet and maybe just, you know, cut the actual insults and get down to that. Is it a decision or is it consultation?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Screen Industry Workers Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the House is suspended, and I’ll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider private, local, and members’ orders of the day.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday).

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2022

(continued on Thursday, 1 September 2022)

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is resumed for extended sitting.

Bills

Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill

Third Reading

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s a pleasure to rise for the start of the third reading of this local bill. It is a small and discrete bill, as members have commented previously, but it relates to a discrete piece of land that is currently situated—there’s no suggestion that it will move in the near future—on the corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue in Palmerston North, colloquially known as the Huia Street Reserve.

This bill is a local bill, and those who are joining us at 9 a.m. this morning are probably thinking, “What is happening? Parliament is spending its time talking about Palmerston North.”, and what better way could the Parliament be spending its time than to regale about people’s experiences and opportunities in Palmerston North? This bill is a local bill and it’s one that is a rarity. It’s one that is promoted by the local council, and as the MP for Palmerston North it’s my first local bill to go through Parliament. It is promoted by the Palmerston North City Council, and as the local member I am its sponsor.

In terms of the passage of this bill, it was introduced in November of last year. It has gone through all stages and has landed at the third reading this morning. It’s interesting to note that colleagues have taken the opportunity all around the House to talk about their experiences and their connection to the mighty Manawatū, and, for some, even the mighty Rangitīkei as well. Some members are not quite clear whether Palmerston North sits within the Manawatū District or the Rangitīkei District, but I’m sure Mr McKelvie will clear that up if he makes a contribution.

Even though this bill was introduced in November last year, it has been in train for quite some time—well over two years—and I recall, as the former Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North prior to coming to this place, that it was always on the agenda. It was always something that was discussed out in the community, and so this bill will come as no surprise to the people of Palmerston North.

What I would say is that this particular piece of land is not unfamiliar to the Parliament. If we look back at Hansard we see there have been parts of this land that have already been subject to the parliamentary process. Parts of the land have, effectively, been carved off and given to Palmerston North Girls’ High School for development. But also, previously, one of my predecessors—the Hon Steve Maharey—had bought this bill to the Parliament, but it was withdrawn because the level of support was not guaranteed by the community and by the council. I’m delighted that what the Parliament has in front of it at the bill’s third reading is evidence from the community but also from the council that informed the decision-making process of the select committee that those concerns that were expressed some 15 years ago, or thereabouts, are no longer concerns that the select committee has. Therefore, the Parliament can have some confidence, I would suggest, in passing this piece of legislation.

I would note, though, that even though some of these contributions have been identified as part of the parliamentary process up to this point, none the less it is important to place this on the record for the benefit of those who at some stage in the future might look back at what Parliament was doing this particular morning, so they can reflect on some of the contributions that have been made. The meat in terms of this bill lies in clause 5, which is the amending of section 3 of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966. Clause 5 does the changeover from what was three Acts—this piece of land was subject to three Acts. It will now basically smooth the process, and while the Act itself won’t compel the council to sell the land, it certainly gives them the option to do so if they wish to do that.

I want to acknowledge the Palmerston North City Council for their diligence. There is a process that those who have shepherded a local bill through the Parliament will be familiar with. It’s one that I was not familiar with prior to coming to this place. But there is an appendix to the Standing Orders that outlines a fairly prescriptive process that local authorities must go through before a local bill is introduced, and that is a process that is certified by the Clerk of the House to ensure that there is compliance. So I also want to acknowledge the diligence of the Palmerston North City Council for the work they’ve done in preparing that.

I also want to reflect on the contributions some colleagues have made about the extra effort the Palmerston North City Council had gone to. Even though the select committee was not able to undertake a site visit as such, the approach of the council was second to none in the sense of providing drone footage, providing an opportunity to hear commentary on what was happening around the place, and I do know that some members have visited Palmerston North and passed the site since then. I want to acknowledge our mayor, Grant Smith, in Palmerston North and also David Murphy, Desiree Harvey, and Nicholas Jessen for the work they’ve done in preparing that.

I also acknowledge my other local parliamentarians—Ian McKelvie, who is the MP for Rangitīkei—and Palmerston North City Council. Part of that land—not the Huia Street Reserve—falls within his electorate, as is the case for the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, the Speaker, whose Palmerston North constituency falls within as well.

I do want to briefly comment on the land itself and more specifically around the nature of the land that is adjacent or nearby. Some of the submitters have expressed a view that if the council was to develop this land for medium or high density housing, as it may choose to do in the future, or not, then it puts at risk the opportunity to have access to green space. When we step back and have a look at the existing green portfolio near that land, I can rattle off quite a list. It is adjacent to Victoria Esplanade, which itself is a gem in our city and our region. There are botanical gardens, the Dugald MacKenzie Rose Garden, He Ara Kotahi, the shared pathway that connects the Rangitīkei electorate to the Palmerston North electorate, Mr McKelvie, but there are other opportunities around Ongley Park, Wallace Park, Fitzherbert Park, Manawaroa Park, our riverside walkway, and of course, the Square, and Te Marae o Hine, the Courtyard of the Daughter of Peace, is in very close proximity, as members will be aware, to this particular site.

Marja Lubeck: I am now.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, thank you, Ms Lubeck. There have been a number of suggestions throughout this process that if the land is going to be sold, why do we need an Act of Parliament to allow that. Why is the House spending time talking about this legislation? The answer to that is very clear. The legislative provision exists for us to do this, but also there is no other way in which the council, if it chooses to develop and sell the land, can do so. There is a legislative prohibition based on the current standing of the law, and so this bill will allow the council to do that. I will point out, however, that this still will be subject to a full council consultative process.

The Parliament, in passing this legislation this morning—which I’m hopeful it will do—will not necessarily guarantee that the council will go on and develop the land. When I think about the fact that we have elections in our local communities in October, for Palmerston North City Council we already have two new members, Debi Marshall-Lobb and Roly Fitzgerald, who have been elected to the Māori ward, but we also have three other councillors who are standing down, including the deputy mayor Aleisha Rutherford, and the chair of finance and audit Susan Baty, and one other. So already, in a council of 16, nearly one-third will be new. So this not predetermining a particular course of action, but it is giving the empowerment or enabling the council to embark upon a process of community consultation if at some stage in the future it desires to do that. The decision-making principles that will inform that process are no different to the ones that councils are expected to abide by and fall into line with, I guess, with any other form of consultation, and that would certainly be an expectation that I would have.

In my concluding comments this morning can I just acknowledge that the work of the select committee has been fantastic. I know that they’ve got up close and personal with this particular bill.

Angie Warren-Clark: Palmy!

TANGI UTIKERE: Go Palmy. And, also, the fact that they have returned a report as part of this process that effectively recommends that the bill be passed with no amendments, and at all stages that has been a unanimous view of members. I’m hopeful that that will continue through its passage this morning. The timing effect is that once this bill receives Royal assent, it will become law the day after that, so the council has some certainty around that. It has been a fulsome process and one that I have been very pleased to be a part of, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, Madam Speaker—[Clears throat] Excuse me—it’s a bit early in the morning for me. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this local bill, and, interestingly, local bills are historically usually—or generally, I suppose—uncontentious in this Parliament. That hasn’t necessarily been the case in recent years, but this one certainly is, and following my fellow Manawatū MP Tangi Utikere, it really gives me the opportunity to talk about everything but the bill, because he did such a good job of summing up what the bill was all about that I’ll only damage what he’s talked about.

As he said, this bill has been around for a long time. This piece of land has been sitting in Palmerston North for quite some years now, for nearly 20 years doing absolutely nothing, and it’s actually a bit of an eyesore. It’s in a very pretty part of Palmerston North, but also a part of Palmerston North that’s strongly recreational. Just as the previous speaker said, there’s a new bridge connecting the Rangitīkei to the Palmerston North electorate, and it’s amazingly well used as well. I would have thought, at the time, that it should be taking cars as well as feet, but it only takes feet and bikes. But it is a great asset and it adds to the recreational assets in that part of Palmerston North, and I think it reinforces the fact that this piece of land would never serve again as recreational—I think it’s highly unlikely to ever serve again as a recreational reserve, or even to be used for recreational purposes. It is in a part of Palmerston North that’s well-connected and it would make an excellent housing reserve or any other use we or the city council want to put it to.

As Tangi Utikere said, the city council did a great job of bringing this to the Parliament, and I did sit on the Environment Committee and I thought the select committee also did a pretty good job of reviewing it. Ironically, the select committee didn’t go to Palmerston North, and I was thinking about that as the previous speaker was speaking. Of course, Air New Zealand’s canned their flights to Palmerston North, so there’s no way the select committee could get there unless it went by car. So maybe Air New Zealand might like to reinstate those flights to Palmerston North. It was a very useful service interestingly, because it didn’t actually go to Palmerston North; it went to Hamilton, but it stopped in Palmerston North, and it was really quite a good service for us, and you’d have to hope that Air New Zealand might one day reinstate that.

I want to go back in history a bit. I was once a mayor myself, and now I’m getting out of this place, I can safely say that I stood on the basis of getting rid of the Manawatū District, and I was always quite keen to amalgamate the Manawatū District and Palmerston North City. The reason is that everything that surrounds Palmerston North relies on Palmerston North for almost everything it does, and this is not an uncommon occurrence. It happens in provincial New Zealand often, really, where we’ve got separate territorial authorities but we’ve got one of them providing all the recreational assets, all the entertainment assets, and pretty much, I guess, all the essential services, and yet the other authorities adjacent to them have great difficulty contributing to what goes on in those areas—and when I say that they have difficulty, they have difficulty coming to an arrangement which is suitable for both the territorial authorities from a funding perspective.

So it is an interesting challenge for a city like Palmerston North, surrounded by, particularly in this case, the Manawatū District. But it also supplies services into Levin, and even—although I could get in trouble with a Whanganui person—to some extent, into Whanganui. So it really is the capital of our part of the world and, as such, it provides many, many services, and to have the opportunity to control their own destiny, I suppose, in many ways is important.

The other thing that’s interesting about this is it’s often in local areas we find pieces of land like this that are controlled by Acts of Parliament. It’s very common with racecourses, and with A and P showgrounds—both of those are controlled by Acts of Parliament, actually—and I’ve been in my time, or for part of it at least, involved with two or three different Acts that have come to the House wanting to deal to local issues. One of them was the Manawatū A and P showgrounds in Palmerston North. They were subject to an Act of Parliament. That Act had to come to Parliament to enable that to be disbanded and sold to the city council.

So we have some very odd things in our little patches, I suppose you’d say, that for reasons of history become very complex and, therefore, have to be unwound. It takes a bit of the time of this Parliament to unwind those things. I guess it’s a cost, but none the less it’s how it is, and it’s probably how it should be.

The other thing, of course, about the control of reserves in New Zealand is that local areas or communities only get the benefit, generally, of about half of the asset if it’s ever sold, because of the various Acts of Parliament that control that, so the State, effectively, takes 50 percent of most of our reserves when and if they’re sold. So you consequently get the stalling of progress, to some extent, because local councils aren’t particularly interested in winding up reserves and things like that that are no longer necessary—they’re a part of history, but they’re no longer necessary—and then using them for other things, because in the course of doing that, they give the State 50 percent of the money which is generated locally. So I suppose I’ve always thought that that was unjust and an odd thing to have to do, but none the less it’s the way our laws are.

I don’t think I’m going to talk for ever because, as I said, Tangi Utikere did a great job of describing the bill and what it does. Like him, I congratulate both the select committee and the Palmerston North City Council for the way they brought this to Parliament and got it through pretty slickly, really. So that’s probably my lot, I think.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, it’s a local bill, and that means that it’s the council that has to bring it to their member of Parliament, which, of course, is the wonderful Tangi Utikere. He knows the council pretty well because he used to be the Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North so I’m sure he very much enjoyed working with council to make sure that all of the compliance checks that he discussed, set out in the Standing Orders, I believe—to bring this here. He was a member of the Environment Committee when this bill started its life with us as the select committee. Unfortunately, he’s left us now, but he did come back and make sure that the bill was ushered through in the best way possible—so thank you for that, Mr Utikere.

Now we’ve heard a bit about how the select committee didn’t visit the site. This was a time where it’s been difficult to travel and the previous members talked about a lack of aeroplanes. When I Google-Mapped the site it did say that it was an hour, 49-minute drive, so perhaps the lack of aeroplane wasn’t the reason that we did not manage a site visit; it may have had more to do with COVID restrictions during some of the time that we were considering the bill. However, the member for Palmerston North has made sure that a lot of his colleagues have come to visit Palmerston North, so I can assure anybody who’s listening to this speech that I have had the privilege of visiting Palmerston North at least twice this term already—a wonderful place to visit. I’m sure I’ll be there again. And when I was there, I did drive past this site because it is an easy site to drive past in terms of it’s on one of the main roads, and I’ll talk about that—

Hon Scott Simpson: Didn’t stop.

RACHEL BROOKING: At the time, I was busy—

Hon Scott Simpson: It was a drive-by.

RACHEL BROOKING: —there’s an assertion being made that I didn’t stop at the site. That is true, I have not stopped at the site. But should I be back in Palmerston North I absolutely will make sure to do that.

The site that we’re talking about is 1.6 hectares and it’s currently a recreation reserve and it is bounded by two fairly major roads: one in particular that you do drive down if you’re visiting Palmerston North. If you don’t know Palmerston North well, you drive down it, and it’s a few blocks into town, which is why you’d probably be driving past it. And then on the other side it is quite close to the river as well. We didn’t have a site visit but we did get this amazing video that all of the select committee watched. It was drone footage from every possible angle that you could look at the site so I feel as if I have visited the site. I can tell you that on this corner site there are some tennis courts, and you can see some car parking and things going on, on the site. And there are indeed easements for parking and vehicle access to the area. There is some grass. Ian McKelvie said that it was a bit of an eyesore. I think that’s unkind, but there is grass and there are trees. There are some indigenous trees, but also some exotic trees that we heard about in submissions. It’s also close to a high school, it’s close to the parks that Tangi Utikere referred to. There’s a playcentre and a scout hall nearby.

So this is the piece of land. It’s been part of a much bigger piece of land that’s been subject to legislation since 1876. There’s been various different pieces of legislation to deal with the reserves in the mighty Palmerston North. And I should say that I am a bit of a fan of Palmerston North, because that is where my parents met. So thank you to Palmerston North.

The land is currently held under the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922, and that Act provides for leasing of the land, that’s at section 4, building and making streets, at section 7, leasing for sports, at section 8, and also some housing. That housing is supposed to be workers’ housing. But what this 1922 Act doesn’t have is an enablement to sell or divest this recreation reserve. And so the Reserves Act 1977 applies and that looks under Land Act 1948 and some quite complicated processes within those things.

But there is more legislation about Palmerston North and the reserves. So there is the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966 and under this Act, land is able to be sold if the land is subject to the Act. “Empowering” is an important word in that legislation because it does allow this enablement, and obviously enablement is something that the Labour Government is very interested in. It was great to see the bipartisan support last year for the resource management enabling housing and other matters bill, as it was. So we want to enable things where it’s appropriate.

The bill that is before us today, amends this 1966 empowering Act to make it applicable to the 1.6032 hectare area that we’ve heard described in the past three speeches. How it does that is it amends section 3 of the 1966 Act. I’ll just make sure I’ve got the right Act here—I do. So that Act at section 3 “Lands vested in the Council” says, “The lands described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 4 are hereby vested in the Council” and it goes on to say that this Act applies to those lands. What the bill before us does is insert “and [Schedule] 5” and then Schedule 5 describes the land, the 1.6 hectares. So it’s a very short bill.

Hon Scott Simpson: Read it out.

RACHEL BROOKING: I’ve been asked to read out the bill, but I’m sure somebody will take that opportunity soon. I’ve got some other things that I want to say about this very short but very important bill about the wonderful Palmerston North, represented so well by its local MP.

What this change means, by incorporating the land in the 1966 Act, is that it is possible for the council to decide to sell that land, because that is what the 1966 Act does. There’s a process set out in section 4A(3) of that 1966 Act that requires some public hearings. But also, if the council is to decide to sell any land then of course the Local Government Act 2002 provisions, Part 6 around consultation—and if it’s a significant asset, other processes apply as well.

So we might ask: why would the council want to sell the land? And they might not. This gives them an opportunity. It gives them an opportunity to explore housing and potential housing development. We’ve heard that this is a good location for housing. There’s lots of other green protected space near it. It’s good proximity to town, right next to a high school. So it’s a great central location.

But again, that can’t happen immediately—any housing on this site—because there’s still resource management processes that would need to happen and amendments, I think, to the district plan to allow for that housing. So, of course, that would all be public processes that the community would be able to be involved in should the council decide that they do want to go ahead with some sort of housing and to be able to sell that housing.

We’ve heard from the member from Palmerston North that, in fact, the council is going to go through some change at this election that will be happening next month—because it’s September now. So it’s totally up to the council about what they might want to do. But of course, housing is very important to both local and national politicians.

So I would like to briefly thank the staff from the Department of Conservation that we had working with us on this and, of course, all of the select committee staff as well. Really, it’s a great example of a local MP working with their council to provide for the needs of the local community. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My friend and colleague Ian McKelvie has given a very good analysis of this bill at its third reading. I’ve had an opportunity to speak in the first reading, second reading, during the committee of the whole House, and at the Environment Committee on this bill, so there’s not much more to say. But I think that the point Ian McKelvie raised about legacy legislation that dates back in some cases to the 1800s is an issue that this House will actually have to address at some point, not just for matters relating to Palmerston North but for a whole range of other bespoke pieces of legacy legislation that were passed by our predecessors decades and decades ago and that now are no longer suitable or fit for purpose. Then the only mechanism available to address those matters is redress by amending legislation through this House, and that raises questions about the efficiency of doing so.

But I want to congratulate the member who has been sponsoring this bill, the Palmerston North MP Tangi Utikere. He’s managed the process thoroughly and he’s been successful working with the council and the select committee and the Parliament in a way that his predecessors have not been able to be successful. So kudos to both the Palmerston North City Council and to Tangi Utikere for their stewardship of this piece of legislation.

It’s a common-sense, sensible little piece of legislation. There’s nothing contentious about it. But the only point that I would make in summary is that it does, I think, highlight a larger issue that confronts the House with historic legacy legislation, bespoke pieces of legislation, that apply to councils, district councils, reserves, and racecourses, as Ian McKelvie indicated. There are a lot of those pieces of legislation, and I think that at some point this House maybe needs to consider some kind of streamlined methodology for addressing those issues. We on this side of this House are pleased to support the legislation.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Mōrena, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. May I just begin by congratulating my colleague Tangi Utikere on his stewardship of this important bill through the House. As he has mentioned, it is unusual to have local and private bills come through the House, but they are a very useful way for our councils and for local organisations to bring important legislation through so that they can achieve their objectives.

I’ve had the opportunity to take a few calls on this bill; in fact, I’ve asked to take calls on this bill. Why is that? The reason is that I had the pleasure of growing up in Palmerston North. I moved there at the age of nine years old. Funnily enough, people often ask me where I am from and where I grew up.

Hon Scott Simpson: Where did your parents meet?

RACHEL BOYACK: I can tell you, my parents met here in Wellington at Victoria University. They both had travelled to the Pacific, actually, with Volunteer Service Abroad. So that’s how they met. Great question.

I was born in Timaru and had the pleasure of moving around the motu with my father who was working in senior health roles, becoming the chief executive of Palmerston North Hospital, and I think he opened a few buildings there. So we’re a hospital-building family, my family—

Tangi Utikere: And it continues.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, and it continues: Nelson will be next. So, having said that, I moved there when I was nine, and moved away when I was 18. Interestingly, actually, Nelson, where I’m pleased to be the local MP, is the place I’ve actually lived the longest. So I very much am very proud to be a Nelson local and for Nelson to be my home town, but I call Palmerston North my second home town, because my parents and most of my siblings still reside in Palmerston North—although, quite a few of them have moved just to the outskirts of Palmerston North and they’re now in Mr McKelvie’s electorate. So we have many family connections around this particular bill and with members of this House.

What the bill does is it allows the council to go through a process and then consider and then potentially sell or divest the land. I think that’s an important point to make: that it doesn’t automatically mean that the sale or the divestment of the land will happen; the council still does have to go through a consultative process with its community to make that decision, and that’s a good thing.

Other speakers this morning and in previous readings have talked about the amenity value of where this piece of housing sits—well, potential piece of housing sits; I’ll just clarify that. People have mentioned that it’s close to local schools, including my high school, Palmerston North Girls’ High School. I used to cycle down Huia Street, which is just a small little street. If I was running late for school that would be the way we would try and avoid getting a detention. But there was a particular teacher there—anyone from Palmerston North, listening in, will remember Mrs Farrelly—Mrs Farrelly waiting at the little piece of Huia Street. One morning, she caught me coming in late, trying to avoid getting picked up, and I ended up in detention at lunchtime.

So it’s an excellent piece of land, in my opinion, for housing, because it has excellent amenity value; it would score very highly. It’s right next to the botanical gardens, the Lido swimming pool; and, as Mr Utikere mentioned, the Victoria Esplanade Gardens. I’ll just note from Tripadvisor that someone a few years ago said, “These luxurious gardens really are a gem and sometimes underrated by the locals and missed by visitors.” So I’m just putting on the record—anyone doing their research on where to visit in Palmerston North, I’ve had friends who’ve been married there; it’s a beautiful place—I encourage people to visit the esplanade gardens. There’s also, nearby, a miniature train loved by my nephews and nieces and secretly loved by my brothers and sisters, who I think sometimes take their children on the train not so much for their children’s enjoyment but for their own.

Hon Member: Is it free?

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, look, I’d need to—

Tangi Utikere: No, but it’s cheap.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, Mr Utikere says “cheap”. I’m not sure if it’s quite a dollar, as Kieran McAnulty’s train is in the Wairarapa, but it’s certainly not an expensive outing.

Also, Huia Street is very close to the Manawatū River and Fitzherbert Park, where I have many recollections of doing athletics on rainy days, which was never a particularly fun experience. And, as others have mentioned, there is a bridge leading across to the Rangitīkei River, which I actually haven’t had the opportunity to use yet; so next time I’m home, I’ll make a point of doing that.

Mr Utikere also mentioned the Square. I’d forgotten, in previous speeches, the importance of the Square to Palmerston North. When I was a teenager and when we had nothing to do, what we would do is drive around and around the Square. It used to annoy the local police no end. Boy racers, of which I was not one—just saying—but I may have had a couple of friends that were, drove around and around the Square. The police would do a very good job of driving around and around the Square so slowly that they would annoy those drivers wanting to go very, very fast.

As I said, this piece of land has very high amenity value. It’s also very close to public transport. It’s within walking distance to the local mall, the plaza, where I had my first job, at Christmas, dressing up as an elf, wrapping Christmas presents. It was a fantastic job at the Palmerston North plaza. So people living in any housing that may be built on this reserve will be able to walk to The Plaza to do their shopping.

In previous readings, there’ve been comments made by many speakers about the care we need to take around removing reserve land off the books of a council, either through sale or divestment. We do need to take care. Some have noted that we don’t need any process, we should just allow councils just to do that off their own steam; others have said we shouldn’t potentially do it at all. My view—and, I think, where the bill strikes the right balance—is being very pragmatic about saying, yep, the council has determined they would like to be able to do this, they’ve brought it to Parliament where it’s been scrutinised, and then to do that, they would still need to go through a robust consultation process. So I think it’s really struck the right balance. It’s not making the council able to do just sell the land willy-nilly; there still has to be a process to go through in order to consider it for housing.

People have mentioned, today and in previous speeches, that a similar version of this bill was brought to the House in previous years and it was ultimately withdrawn. One of the reasons why it was withdrawn was there had been a lack of consultation. So there was concern from the community that meant when it did come through to the House, it probably didn’t have enough of that backing from local people to bring it here.

I spoke to my stepfather after the first reading because he actually held a role that Tangi Utikere held, he was the Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North City Council when this bill came forward the first time. I happened, actually, after the first reading, to head back to my second home of Palmerston North, and my stepfather was very pleased to hear that it had come back before the House; he had been quite frustrated about the process. It has been a piece of land that has been underutilised that is a perfect piece of land, in my view, for there to be housing. So I do just want to acknowledge my stepfather, John Hornblow, who worked on this a while ago now. He will be very pleased to see this bill pass its third reading today.

On that note, I just want to congratulate, again, my colleague, the excellent MP for Palmerston North, who I’ve known since we were at intermediate school at Ross Intermediate, and thank him for his work on this bill; thank the select committee for their work; thank the officials who put in their time; thank all the submitters who took the time to submit on the bill; and, most importantly, thank Palmerston North City Council for their work on bringing this bill to the House. I know that they will, once it has passed its third reading, go through the appropriate process. It will be important for them to ensure there’s good consultation with the community, including local iwi Rangitāne; I just want to acknowledge them and their role in this part of the motu. I know that if housing is developed there, it will make a real difference for families and people in Palmerston North who need good quality, affordable housing. That is what our objective is as a Government. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m very pleased to take a short call on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill, and, like others, congratulate Tangi Utikere on getting this bill through and the work that he has done—as the Hon Scott Simpson mentioned—in providing really strong liaison and connection between the city council and the Environment Committee.

It is only 1.6 hectares of land, this Huia Street Reserve, on the corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue. It is a prominent intersection close to the central city and just over five blocks from the Square. I have walked past it, I admired the trees on it, and I know that there has been some concern in Palmerston North about the land being sold. But, as others have mentioned, because this bill brings the 1.6 hectares under the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act, it then enables the council to make any decision about the use of the land. If it wants to sell it, it can, after a proper process and a formal resolution before the council.

It is unusual for the Green Party to support the loss of public reserve land, because this land was set aside in 1876. That’s almost 150 years ago. The fact that the land was set aside as reserve then has provided options for the council, and for us, today. We can’t envisage how Palmerston North will develop—the demands for recreation, the way work evolves, the way housing options evolve 150 to 200 years hence—so public reserve land always provides options. I would be concerned by the Hon Scott Simpson’s proposals that there be some streamlined legislation which fixes all of these little bits of reserve land, because that potentially reduces the options.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Hon Eugenie Sage. Order!

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The previous speaker Rachel Boyack referred to amenity values. Green spaces in our cities and towns are enormously important in providing areas of natural space, areas of open space, places to recreate, places to rest to the eyes. They absorb stormwater, they help reduce the demands on our stormwater system—

Tāmati Coffey: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Can the speaker hear us?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, she cannot, unfortunately, because the earphones are not—

Tāmati Coffey: Are not on—of course. I was going to suggest that we gave her some time to be able to put her headphones on, but I understand the situation here. It’s a bit of a catch-22.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: [Missing audio]—abundant opportunities for recreation close by and the quite considerable green space close by and the central location of this site and its suitability for housing because of its connectivity to Massey University, and the girls’ high school close by. So it is suitable for housing. But it is also a key decision that the council will make in consultation with the community about whether it wishes to sell it.

We do want, in the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), this whole issue of urban quality dealt with very carefully, because the decisions we make now can influence how cities and towns and rural areas develop 150, 200 years hence. We want to ensure that we do protect options. But this 1.6 hectares hasn’t been used, and if the council decides to sell it in future, then the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act does require that any proceeds from the sale are used to acquire new reserves or are used to develop future reserves. So it is ensuring that any funds are used to protect those recreational values that people have enjoyed in the past on the tennis courts and their use of this reserve.

So it’s a bill that the Green Party is supporting, but do note that we do want to see in the wider RMA changes an ability for plans and councils, in their decisions, to recognise the really important areas of open space and trees and the other qualities that give a city liveability, pleasantness, and amenity values. This small area may be better used as housing, but that is certainly not a precedent for other areas of reserve being converted into buildings. But we do support this bill. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. Before I call the next speaker, can I just remind every member that if we are to connect online remotely by computers, it is important to actually put the headphones on so that we can communicate with you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you that I am able to rise to add to the contribution for this local bill. I also want to acknowledge and congratulate Tangi Utikere, the MP for Palmerston North, and also in his previous role, and I acknowledge the extensive work that he would have done in terms of the previous former role.

As we’ve heard from other submitters before the House, this land, this bill of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill, is land that is surplus to requirements. The Palmerston North City Council have advised the complexities and as to why this matter has been brought to the Environment Committee and before the House. To enable the council to proceed with looking at its district plan of that area—probably post - local government elections 2022—it requires this bill to pass that amendment and for an option of the land to be put up for sale.

Previously, I was able to and had the opportunity with other members to put forward a contribution in the first reading. I was also able to learn a bit more because, not able to do a site visit, I’ve had to rely on Google and IT for specifications and the characteristic of this land. So as part of my research, I saw online that it is a prime location. I would have to describe it as one of those pieces of land that has had a huge use in past history, because what we do know is that in the last century, it was the Wellington Reserves Act 1876 and the amendment Act of 1877, and it’s governed by the Reserves Act 1977.

In my former life as a locally elected council member, right across the motu there are a number of pieces of land that when the public or the council don’t have further use for it, it actually becomes quite unloved and it becomes an eyesore and then it becomes, actually, a tug of war with the public and community groups and the council.

The issues that it presents is that if it becomes unloved—the eyesore part of it—it’s quite sad, and for this piece of land to be in a prime location, it’s actually important, with Kiwis right across Aotearoa requiring accommodation. It then goes back to the council—what are you going to actually do in terms of investment? So as part of the process and understanding how it fits into current legislation and the non-ability of the council to sell the land, it makes it really difficult in terms of planning requirements.

The position of my contribution is when you don’t have the mechanism, when you don’t have the Act that doesn’t allow the council to realise its plans, it actually becomes quite difficult and really hard for the elected members because you’re stuck between—sorry for the phrase—a rock and a hard place. What is important, though, is that it’s in a prime location. It’s in a location—from what I saw on Google—that could actually be developed.

One of the requirements post this process is that in planning requirements, as typology of housing is going upwards, councils and communities want really good options for housing close to amenities, and—I understand and I saw that part of the urban sprawl time—we have to move forward. This bill will enable that.

So I do want to congratulate and thank the Palmerston North City Council, who have submitted this before the Environment Committee. I wasn’t a member of the Environment Committee, but I do understand that because of the way Aotearoa is moving forward, Kiwis need accessibility to housing, and the Palmerston North City Council would have viewed that and required the legal tools, and then to go back and allow, through its processes, the normal steps, particularly around consultation.

I would like to thank the submitters. I understand that those who were for probably had a strong intent to have good housing options that are close to amenities, recreation reserves, shopping centres, and the like, and they want options that are affordable, which is what this Government supports.

I also want to point out that I wasn’t a member of the Environment Committee, but I am really pleased that I’m part of the process at this point in time, and just for the residents who aren’t supporting the bill, one of the things with local government elections and local councils is it’s really important for local councils to help the residents and businesses and the youth understand why they make decisions and how they make decisions. I think to empower the Palmerston North City Council, it requires this bill, and, as many of my colleagues know, local councils are really focused on making planning decisions around infrastructure, around community facilities, and around assets like stormwater.

But one of the things that residents always want is they want to understand: how do they get involved and who is going to listen to them through that particular process—specifically if they’re not happy. So part of the consultation process that Palmerston North City Council will undertake is post this process, as the bill goes through the House and is supported, and I thank the colleagues on that side of the House. It’s really understanding that local authority’s framework.

So I haven’t visited the site, but I’m very pleased that a number of my colleagues have clearly spelt out how valuable this land is and also the close proximity that it has, in terms of the information about its location, and the attractiveness of this land.

The bill in its current form is pretty straightforward, as we’ve heard in other contributions, and it’s also been nearly two years—since November 2020, I understand—when the council put forward their option of the Huia Street Reserve. What is important is, as we work across the motu and as we build our communities, we want our communities to be resilient. We want to look after our old people, we want to look after our young people, and we want to be in part of the community that, actually, is not an eyesore.

This legislation provision is needed. It is the first step in the process, and I’m very pleased to hear that the Environment Committee agreed unanimously. Then, when the bill is passed, it goes back to Palmerston North City Council and I think that they really have to look at this and really understand what the communities, both for and against, are requiring for their community through the consultative process.

My last point is just that COVID has really challenged all of us across the motu. We have seen those who can afford and those who cannot afford housing. So as part of the empowering of the council, this bill, when it goes through the House, the members of that community can be empowered in terms of the council really wanting to listen—so not pre-empting—but that it allows the mechanism to be there as the bill is passed, and then the next steps, post - local government elections 2022.

I just want to conclude by thanking the members of the Environment Committee. I also thank the submitters, and say thank you to the officials that enabled this work and especially my colleague the MP Tangi Utikere for his work. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT will support this bill because it removes a regulatory barrier to using land more efficiently. Now, imagine if the Labour Government spent as much time giving their emotional support to other ways to slash red tape and to get rid of regulation that stops people from using their land how they want to. But that’s not what they’re doing. That’s not what the resource management reform will deliver. That’s not what tax reform is needed. But what we’re hearing is that Palmerston North City Council needs this bill so they can change the way they use their land, and the ACT Party supports that. What we’d also support is getting on with the remainder of the House’s businesses, on this members’ day, rather than wasting time waxing lyrical about how much you all love Palmerston North. I’m a big fan of Palmy in the Manawatū, Massey University, centre of excellence for agricultural economics and environmental science—love Palmy, just want them to get on with it. We’d love Labour to get on with members’ day. ACT supports this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Angie Warren-Clark. The next call is a split call—five minutes.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Oh, Madam Speaker. I didn’t understand that I was on a split call. However, that’s fine. I will just do five minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies. The split call is the next call.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First and foremost, I’d just like to acknowledge the very short speech from the member who’s just resumed his seat, Simon Court. Sounds like he had a really sore throat, so I’m hoping that you are well, Mr Court.

I want to stand and make a contribution to this bill, and I am quite delighted. I really enjoy sitting in select committee where we are all in agreement and we work our best to make a good bill even better. In this case, we didn’t need to do much—in fact, we didn’t make any changes to the bill, but we certainly completely covered the issue, I believe.

So the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill—look, we’ve heard from the other members in the House about what this bill does. I would like to first and foremost acknowledge Tangi Utikere, the member for Palmerston North, who is the sponsor of this local bill and—as we have heard—previously the Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North. So he has a full and thorough understanding of this bill.

Nevertheless, I do want to also make the point that this is a local bill. So he has brought this bill as the member, but it is not his piece of legislation that he brings to the House. An important distinction, I believe, that needs to be reiterated.

So Palmerston North, Papaioea, Palmy, is the topic that we are talking about today. I Googled, “What is special about Palmerston North?” because I did admit in the second debate that I had only visited once and had attended the Fitzroy Tavern, which is no longer there. So what is special about Palmerston North, besides the very good member, of course?

The catch phrase is, “Palmerston North has what it takes to exercise body and mind.” So I thought, “Well, that sounds very cool, and in fact there is a whole pile of really exciting things that you can do in Palmerston North,” which I won’t traverse. Nevertheless, I would just like to point out that point number six of the 10 things was the food and the cafe lifestyle. So that was a bit more of me than the activities.

So what does this bill do? I think it’s important to talk about what this bill does. Currently, as we know, there is certain land held under the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922, the former Act, and land under this Act cannot be sold. The council wishes to be able to sell this land for development if it becomes surplus to council requirements. This bill provides the mechanism for this by amending the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966, which is the principal Act.

Look, this bill has six clauses, and clause 4 and clause 5 are the most relevant. In fact, clause 4 tells us the purpose: to be able to sell. Clause 5: the effect of the amendment is that the land described in Schedule 5 is vested in the council and it is no longer subject to the provisions of the former Act, which is the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966.

It is 1.6 hectares of land. Known, as we have heard, as the Huia Street Reserve, located on the corner of Fitzherbert Ave and Park Road in Palmerston North. There are four parcels of land: lots 1 to 4. Lots 3 and 4, and a bit of lot 2—just a bit of lot 2—are leased to a tennis club on a 10-year lease with another 10-year right of renewal.

So the community has been talking about this piece of land for quite some time. For many years, in fact, we have heard about the legislation that was attempted to be brought through in 2007, which didn’t pass. We have heard, also, about the drone footage that we’ve seen of the site, and we also heard from a number of submitters. We had 29 submissions and eight oral submitters speak to us.

I think the important thing there was, we were lucky to have drone footage because people were quite confused as to where this land was and what the areas were. I think it was important that—and I’m not sure how it works—so we’ve put it into Hansard that there is drone footage, but I’m not sure how that actually gets transcribed or put or whether, in fact, there is in any way that technology and Hansard can reflect where we’re talking about. I suspect we don’t quite have that capability and it will have to be the legal description of the lots added in there.

So we did have the drone footage; it is really clear that this is quite a useful piece of land. It is covered as a reserve and I acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage’s contribution where she talked about, you know, making sure that reserve land doesn’t just disappear and the point being made that there will be, if this land is sold, some opportunities to go back to a recreational purpose for the sale of this land.

I want to just talk a little bit about the history of Palmerston North for a moment. In 1866—

Hon Member: Must you?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The members across the other side are suddenly very interested; I’m pleased to see that. In 1866, Palmerston North was founded, but—sorry, I should say Palmerston was founded. Fascinating fact for you all here in the House today, because I know you’re fascinated about this: in 1873, the word “North” was inserted. That is because we have a Palmerston in the South Island, and it is incredibly important—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! I’d just ask the members on my left to listen very carefully to this. This is very important.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the word “North” was inserted. Fascinating quip. In fact, I won’t tell you about the time when we first had an exchange in Ōkaihau, where I grew up.

Hon Member: You just did.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: OK, I will then. Well, we had the new dial-tone phones instead of the ring phones, and we rang Palmerston instead of Palmerston North and spoke to someone for quite some time and then realised it was the wrong person. Anyway—I know that was a funny story. I digress. Right, back to Palmerston North. In 1930, Palmerston North became a city. I think that that’s quite interesting, given that I’ve not visited this place and perhaps I should. We have—well, besides the pub, of course.

So I’d just also like to note there is a little bit of controversy around Palmerston North and the term “Palmy”. Now, some of you here will know that Palmerston North is known as “Palmy”, and in fact there is a huge controversy about this. So, in fact, the local council has said that their long-term plan is the Palmy 2021-31 long-term plan, and people are up in arms about that, and rightly so.

So back to the bill. Quite clearly, we have an election coming up for councillors in the city. This bill simply enables the possibility of sale for this land. It’s important that people in Palmerston North go to vote, to make their wishes clear around this so the elected members will make this decision going forward. It’s incredibly important that people pay attention to this matter if they think it needs to be addressed. And with that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Stuart Smith. I understand it’s a five-minute call.

Hon Members: Awww!

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, I’ll deal with that disappointment afterwards. But it is the first day of spring and this is the Southern Hemisphere’s equivalent of the month of the mad March hares, and we have seen quite a bit of it in the House this morning. I have to say, it’s very odd that the Government would have an extended sitting and then seek to pad out every speech as long as possible. It seems very odd.

But I do want to acknowledge Tangi Utikere, who is responsible for this bill. I hadn’t been on the Environment Committee much at all, and I managed to have a chat with him last night about the features of the bill. I think he covered it very well in his speech, but I will note some alarming trends that were coming from the other Labour speakers. There must be a few jobs going in the Palmerston North i-SITE. We’ve heard everything that’s going on in Palmerston North. I think a few people are looking at the polls and thinking, “I’d better get a job lined up for next year.” I think that’s pretty clear.

But, actually, the most interesting thing that has come up during this debate is—well, highlighted for me, anyway—that the hybrid House has come to an end. We should not be using that any more. It was a debacle in that speech, and I think we have to realise in New Zealand that the rest of the world has moved on. We’re one of the few places in the world where we have to wear masks, and I think it’s about time that the Government grew up and changed their mind on this. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Just before I call Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki, I’ll just remind you. I know there’s only a short time to go in this debate, and I know the bill’s a very brief bill. I know it’s very difficult to stretch it to 10 minutes, but please keep as close to the bill as you can. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It is always a privilege and an honour to stand and make a contribution in this House. I would like to acknowledge the member Tangi Utikere for bringing the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, I know you’ve said that we need to keep to the bill, but I just want to acknowledge that in the weekend I attended The Big Sing, which is 24 of the best choirs in New Zealand. It’s called The Big Sing—choral choirs—and it relates to Palmerston North because out of the 24 choirs, the OK Chorale, which has been going for 24 years, the Palmerston North Boys’ High School choir, won silver. But not just that; they were chosen as the best ambassadors out of those 24 choirs in New Zealand. So that goes to show the upbringing of the people of Palmerston North, and I want to acknowledge the musical director, Graeme Young, who has been a director for the last 25 years. I hope to attend on 27 October their big finale in Palmerston North—no guarantees that I will attend. But, anyway, I just thought that it needed to be shared in the House that out of the 24 choirs, Palmerston North were the ambassadors who were chosen by the events directors because they were well behaved on and off the stage.

Anyway, back to the bill. So what does this bill do? Well, currently the Huia Street Reserve is part of three Acts, which are the Wellington Reserves Act of 1876 and the amended Act of 1877, the Palmerston North Reserves Act of 1922, and the Reserves Act of 1977. What this bill does is it removes the Huia Street land from under the above three Acts and it will instead be held under the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act of 1966.

I know that members have referred to Palmerston North being founded in the 1800s, but prior to that the local iwi, one of many—actually, the tangata whenua of that land, we were advised, is the local iwi Rangitāne o Manawatū. So at the Environment Committee we had asked if there are other settlements in play in case this land comes under them, and what we were informed is that, currently, there are no current settlements where this land, Huia Street—well, there’s no current settlements. However, in 2016 the Rangitāne iwi had settled, and what I am told by the member Tangi Utikere, who’s passionate about Palmerston North, and by yourself, Mr Speaker, is that Rangitāne o Manawatū actually has a good relationship in the local area. Members have alluded, as I did in my previous contributions, to the Square—it’s about the “Daughter of Peace”, about the Square in Palmerston North. So we can learn a thing or two about local relationships with local iwi in Palmerston North that provides a positive relationship.

We’ve heard that housing is a problem and not enough was built by past Governments—

Simon Watts: Ah, that’s not true—that’s not true.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI: But what we are—not enough were built by past Governments. So the proposal for this land on this site is that it may look at medium-density building where families—like I’ve noted before about those brilliant ambassadors from Palmerston North Boys’ High School, that if they should decide to reside in Palmerston North, the homes that will be built on the Huia Street Reserve will be there for them, should they choose to remain in Palmerston North, unlike some of our members who have left and gone to Nelson.

I just I want to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, and Tangi Utikere for being good ambassadors for Palmerston North. You’ve come to this place and you’ve shown that it is a place that you’re passionate about, and some of us could use your passion as an example for how we should demonstrate our behaviour to the areas which we belong to.

Last but not least, I want to take this opportunity again to congratulate Palmerston North Boys’ High OK Chorale for their ambassadorship at The Big Sing in Christchurch in the weekend. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ’aupito.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise as the member of Parliament for North Shore and as a member of the National Party to talk on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I support this bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): That was a lightning-fast contribution just then; I wasn’t prepared for it. But you know what? We’ve had enough of a warm-up this morning about the Palmerston North bill that I feel as though lots of ground has been covered, and I feel as though we fully understand the reasons why this bill has come to the House. I just wanted to point out that, actually, many places around the country—many of our own cities and towns that we come from—have got our own version of the Huia Street Reserve. We’ve all got that place that’s been sitting on the corner, on the intersection, that, actually, hasn’t been developed and the council have talked about turning into housing, and that some members of the community have said, “No, no, leave it as it is.”. But this is really important, because it builds on the work that’s happened in Palmerston North in regards to housing development.

I want to just touch on a visit that we paid to the Palmerston North electorate where, actually, we got to Papaioea Place. It’s right that I say “Papaioea”, because today is the start of Māori Language Month, and for those people who don’t know, Te Papaioea is actually the Māori name for Palmerston North, and it’s the name that they gave to the development there, and it was a council initiative, but, again, passionate about wanting to create housing opportunities. They cleared a section of land which used to have a small number of council houses on there. They cleared that, and they made way for the most colourful housing development that you’ve ever seen—small little box houses which are warm, safe, dry accommodation for the people who live inside those places. Two bedrooms at the most in many of them—but, actually, building a real community in there, and it is a much better and more efficient use of the land than previously they had there.

The Huia Street Reserve is going to be one of those places too, where, in due time, the council has signalled that after it gets handed back to them, they’ll go through a consultation process and the intention is to be able to use it for housing. So I encourage them in their journey to be able to create more housing for our communities to be able to continue down that line.

On that same trip as well, we went to Te Ahu a Tūranga, which is the joint project that’s happening to be able to, you know, create a better option for the Manawatū Gorge. It’s been fraught over many years, the accessibility in that place, and with the recent weather events that we’ve had in Nelson and the Far North, actually, we know that we need better transport solutions as well. In a nutshell, I’d like to say that Palmerston North is cracking along really nicely, and supported, obviously, by a really passionate council who are passionate about housing as well, so we share their aspirations on that front.

At the committee of the whole House stage, there were a few issues raised, and one of those issues was why is Parliament even spending its time on this. And while it might seem quite an obvious question to outsiders, actually, what we know inside the political system that we operate in is that this was a piece of legislation, and when it becomes legislation it needs to be corrected, fixed, amended by the House. This isn’t something that can just happen, you know, by the stroke of a pen in a ministerial office; it actually needs the consent of the House to be able to progress. So we haven’t been able to achieve it by the stroke of a pen from the Minister for Land Information, which was suggested in the committee of the whole House stage, and that’s why we’re spending our time on it, albeit, hopefully, not that much time; I understand I’m the last speaker on this one, the third reading.

I want to acknowledge all the existing leases around the Huia Street Reserve as well. You’ve got the high school that’s there and also the tennis club, and the tennis club have their own existing lease. There was some concern about how any kind of development on that site would impact adversely on the tennis club. We heard from them, and we were able to give them reassurance through the process that, actually, their lease wouldn’t be affected and we’d be able to preserve their access, despite what was going on with the changes to the Huia Street Reserve.

It is part of an important process that we go through this, because as many people said earlier, actually, the doing away with the reserve came from submissions—people were concerned that we were losing green spaces. And it’s really important when we have these conversations to note that we were really concerned with that, because we do need green spaces. If we’re going to have medium-density developments around the country in our different towns and cities, we absolutely need access to that. It’s something that London cottoned on to way back when. They knew that if they were going to have their two-storeyed houses, their brick wall-to-wall houses, they would absolutely need green spaces in that, so they created commons for local communities to be able to access those green spaces so they could go, they could have a break, they could enjoy the freedom and the breathability of a bit of open air. So we were concerned about. We had conversations about where the nearest green spaces were, and there’s quite a lot around in the nearby area, in the nearby community, for families to be able to go and use, for families that may eventually end up living on the Huia Street development—not too far if they want to go for a walk to a green space to throw a ball with the kids, to take the dogs for a walk, that kind of stuff that we want good developments to be able to do.

So we were satisfied with that. We were also satisfied with the mana whenua situation as well. We wanted to make sure that we were doing a good job in running this by the local iwi: Rangitāne have their settlement and were made aware of this bill that was coming before us, but on top of that there was some concern that maybe there were other iwi that may have had interests in this bill as well. So we had to do a fair bit of due diligence with the likes of Te Arawhiti, who came in and gave us some advice on that process. It wasn’t easy, but we had to trudge back through the history books and the maps to be able to find documentation about what the Huia Street Reserve looked like back in the day, and whether or not there was going to be some kind of adverse impact for iwi in the area. We landed on a position—and this was endorsed by the local member—that Rangitāne were indeed the right party to be consulting with. They had been made aware of this bill and what this bill looked to do, and we were satisfied through the process that it was the right thing to do to be able to move on. Having consulted with mana whenua, having consulted with the local community about green spaces, having consulted with the local tennis club about the impact that that was going to have for them, we as a committee were really satisfied that this was a really positive thing to do.

The insight that the member Tangi Utikere brings to this conversation as the local member for Palmerston North was incredibly important. There’s nothing like a good bit of local knowledge, and I want to thank the member for bringing that local knowledge to the committee to be able to help us make those kinds of decisions.

This is the kind of bill that’s going to ensure that he holds the seat of Palmerston North for a very long time for the Labour Party, because what he’s doing is he’s signalling that he understands the local issues, he understands the need for housing in the city, and we need to make sure that, actually, he as the local member, who’s in touch with his community, is able to get their support, and he will absolutely get their support through this piece of legislation.

I just want to finish off by saying that we did have some video footage—we weren’t, because of our COVID rules, able to make the trip to Palmerston North to be able to see the reserve. So for that I feel a little bit less of a person, but, you know what? We were shown very delicately edited videos, drone footage, of the reserve. We looked at maps. We trawled over different opinions and conversations with officials about what the reserve section looked like, and we were satisfied that, actually, it was the right thing to do, despite not being there to see it with our own eyes.

So this is a great piece of legislation. I thank the Labour member for Palmerston North. I look forward to him holding the seat for a very, very, very long time, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Plain Language Bill

Second Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Plain Language Bill be now read a second time.

It’s good to take the first call on the second reading of the Plain Language Bill. The bill has now been reported back from the Governance and Administration Committee. I particularly want to acknowledge the select committee, who did a lot of detailed work on the bill; officials from the Parliamentary Counsel Office; also the Public Service Commission, who provided extremely useful advice on the bill; and a good number of submitters, who submitted to the committee and have helped to make this bill a much better, more useful bill now that has been reported back from select committee. I’m going to talk through a number of the changes that the select committee made, because they are numerous.

First, though, I do just want to note the importance of plain language in our public documents and, actually, in all documents. One of the pieces of information that experts on plain language often talk about is that for those of us who have the opportunity and privilege often to attend education institutes like universities, we often are trained to use academic language and to reach a word limit, and often we need to have that trained out of us when we go into the working world. That was my own experience in my first public sector role. As a young graduate, I had a communications role and was sent on a number of plain-language courses run by an organisation in Wellington called Write Ltd, who do an excellent job of training many public servants in Wellington and across New Zealand, and they’re experts on plain language.

What that’s taught me was the importance of ensuring we think about the reader, we think about the person who is going to be reading that document and the importance of them being able to understand it. As an electorate MP, it’s an issue that does come across my desk a lot. People will often bring forms in, letters from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), from Immigration New Zealand, that are challenging for them to understand—and particularly our migrant community. I’ve also had situations where migrants have been sent emails that actually have had a life and death component to them, where they needed to exit from a dangerous situation and the documents were difficult for them to understand. It goes to the heart of this issue, which is that all citizens of New Zealand, or residents of New Zealand, should have the right to be able to understand what is being asked of them, and understand their rights and obligations as citizens and residents of this country.

So I’m just going to take the House through a number of the changes that we made at select committee, just so that we can explain further how this bill has changed coming back at this point. Mr Speaker, while I know I wouldn’t normally bring you into the debate, I do want to acknowledge you and your chairing of the committee and your role in these changes as well.

So, first of all, I’ll begin with clause 4, which sets out what documents must use plain language. It was important to us that we were very explicit about which documents would be used and which ones wouldn’t. One of the areas where we’ve made it clear in the bill is that, for example, a document that would go through, say, a Cabinet process—just because it was subject to the Official Information Act doesn’t automatically make it a requirement for it to be in plain language. We’re very clear that it was about the purpose of that document, in terms of the readers, and I’ll just actually take the House through that particular section, in terms of what documents must use plain language.

So in the legislation, a document for which a reporting agency is responsible is a relevant document for the purpose of plain language if the document is in English—although I’ll make some commentary around that a little bit later—and if the agency considers that the intended audience for the document is the public generally, rather than just one or more person. The document also provides information about what services are provided by or on behalf of a reporting agency, or information about how to obtain those services, including any document that is necessary to obtain any of those services or provides information about filing, registering, or lodging information with, or giving information to, a reporting agency, or explains to the public how to comply with a requirement that a reporting agency administers, enforces, or provides information to the public about a requirement that a reporting agency administers or enforces that may affect their rights or interests, or provides information as part of a public education initiative. We made a specific note in the bill that a department publishing on its internet site a guide to the services it provides would also be covered.

So we also made a number of changes specifically around the definition of “plain language” and how that will be achieved. One of the changes we made was that the definition talks specifically about recognised guidelines of plain-language writing. It’s important I note in the second reading speech—and I’ll also raise it again in the committee of the whole House—that we placed the obligations on defining those guidelines with the Public Service Commissioner. We’ve put that role at that heart of those guidelines.

One of the points that we’ve noted as a committee is the importance of using internationally recognised definitions of plain language in putting those guidelines in place. One of the reasons that we’ve done that specifically is that there is currently an International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) standard being developed internationally on what is plain language. So we’ve written the bill in a way that when that ISO standard does make its way through that process and becomes an internationally accepted standard, the bill is written so that it enables the commissioner to reference that ISO standard. And that’s the appropriate guideline to use once that standard has been fulfilled. I note that Write Ltd, who I mentioned earlier, have participated in the development of that ISO standard, so we will have New Zealand influence over it.

So the other matter I just wanted to note around the commissioner’s role is that the original bill said that the commissioner may issue guidelines. Actually, what the committee felt was that it was better for us to place the onus on the commissioner but that they must issue guidelines. So the commissioner must issue guidelines, but then we have given some more, I guess, room for the commissioner to be able to actually do that issuing of those guidelines.

The other component we’ve included is the importance of accessibility within those guidelines. We heard from a number of submitters from disability groups, who made us very good submissions about how important it is for them to understand information that they have access to. One of the examples I’ll use—and I’ll just briefly mention that we made specific noting of template-type letters that are used, for example, to inform people of their rights and obligations—and an obvious one, would be template letters that go out to people on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development. I had representation made to me by a constituent who is—

Simeon Brown: Was it a submission or was it to you?

RACHEL BOYACK: —vision-impaired. Yes, Mr Brown, they did submit. What she explained to me was that there’s a very basic use of a PDF template letter where you can allow it to actually read out information to you. It hadn’t been implemented within a particular letter that she received, and, as a result, she couldn’t read the letter. She rang MSD, spent a long time on hold, and MSD refused to read the letter out to her and told her she needed to get somebody to read it to her. All of this is a transaction cost that actually would have saved her and MSD a lot of time if she had been able to have a reader put on that. So it’s one of the reasons why we’ve said that the commissioner must include those accessibility guidelines for exactly that type of situation that presents itself.

I could speak for another few minutes on this because there’s much more to say, so I’m looking forward to further contributions. There are many more changes that the committee has made which I look forward to having deep discussion on during the committee of the whole House. I thank everyone for their participation in considering this bill, and I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, Mr Speaker, if there ever was a problem looking for a solution, this piece of legislation is exactly that. This is the Plain Language Bill, which I honestly thought the Labour Party would dump at the select committee, but here they are, standing up and talking about how important this piece of legislation is and how it’s going to fix all the ailments and problems up and down the country. If only our Public Service departments and agencies were told from on high, from this Parliament, that they must issue plain language guidance to all the public servants out there to ensure that the letters, the documents, and the reports they write are in plain language!

Well, this piece of legislation will not fix one single problem. In fact, it will create many more problems in New Zealand, and that is why the National Party opposes this legislation. We oppose it because there is no evidence that there is a problem to be solved, and it will only lead to more bureaucrats, more bureaucracy, and more control by the Government over our bureaucracy, which should be free from political influence. We know that these plain-language officers, which will be inserted into Public Service departments and agencies up and down the country, will turn into the language police of the Government of the day to ensure that the Government’s messaging has more influence through the Public Service departments.

Let me just tell members that this is a Government that has already increased the Public Service by 14,000 more bureaucrats here in Wellington, costing $1.8 billion every single year in staff costs, and this bill will only mean more of these staff in the Public Service. This is a Government that only knows how to do three things: more tax, and we saw that with the KiwiSaver tax; more spending, and we see that with a 68 percent increase in spending under this Government in the last five years; and more bureaucracy—this bill will cost more and add more bureaucracy.

Every single Public Service department will be required to have plain-language officers.

Hon Member: How much will they be paid?

SIMEON BROWN: We don’t know how much they’re going to be paid. We don’t know how many plain-language officers they will be appointing. There are significant questions around the cost-benefit ratio that were not addressed at the select committee and which we do not have in the select committee report, and that is exactly how this Government operates. Cost-benefit analysis? Who cares? They want to look as if they’re doing something and that’s exactly what’s happened here.

There were a number of submitters who I think made some excellent points in regard to this legislation. The New Zealand Law Society pointed out that there wasn’t a cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory impact statement. There was a lack of a departmental disclosure statement, a regulatory impact statement, and a cost-benefit analysis. So we’re passing a piece of legislation, we’re identifying a problem, but we’re not asking what the cost is, how many more staff will there be, and what actual benefits or outcomes we’re going to achieve from it—none of that stuff. Absolutely none of that stuff. This is exactly how the Labour Party governs New Zealand.

The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee submitted that the policy objective was best achieved more effectively through non-legislative means. How many hours of parliamentary time, select committee time, have we been spending on a piece of legislation that literally just needs Ministers saying to their departments and agencies, “Can you please make sure people can read your documents.”? That’s all that’s needed.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Give us an example.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, that was the KiwiSaver thing. The KiwiSaver flip-flop was in absolute un-plain language. There was no disclosure of that in the press release. This is a Government that decided they were going to try and slip that through without telling New Zealanders what was happening, and that was absolutely not clear.

The other point I’d like to make is that this piece of legislation is incredibly unclear in itself because it says, and even the committee acknowledged, that plain language is subjective in nature and open to interpretation. Unbelievable. Plain language is subjective in nature and open to interpretation. So whose definition of plain language are we talking about here? Is the Labour Party definition, is it the National Party definition, or is it the Green Party definition of plain language? That just shows exactly how ridiculous—

Joseph Mooney: Hopefully, not the Greens.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, it will end up being the Green Party. That’s exactly what will happen.

I’d like to touch on another select committee change that came though. This is a Government that came into office in 2017 saying, “We think too much money’s being spent on contractors and consultants. We need to re-establish the Public Service.”, and so they grew the Public Service by 14,000 more bureaucrats, but they’re also spending more money on consultants and contractors. One of the changes in the legislation is that the plain-language officers, in the original version, had to be appointed from within the department, but now they can come from without—now they can be contractors and consultants. So the Government can now have contractors and consultants come into the Public Service departments to be the plain-language police that this Government wants to have.

Joseph Mooney: Trying to make jobs for themselves next year.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s a very good point, Mr Mooney. Maybe the exact reason is the Labour Party is trying to find jobs for their backbench come the next election. They need jobs for their backbench come the next election. We’ve seen the pressure build in that backbench as they know that 20 of them won’t have a job after the next election, and so maybe this will be a job for them. Rachel Boyack could find a job. Maybe this is a job she could be looking for after the next election. Maybe it’s a make-work scheme.

What we do know is that these plain-language police will become busybodies. Not only is plain language subjective in nature and open to interpretation but this well-intentioned—possibly well-intentioned—piece of legislation will lead to language police entering our Public Service departments and telling our Public Service what language they can use, what language they can’t use, and we know that those who control the language control the minds, and that is exactly the intent behind this legislation. So while there may be good intentions on the surface, what’s underneath is a sinister attempt to try and control language in New Zealand.

If you look at how this bill works, the Government departments need to report to the Public Service Commission on how they’re interpreting and using plain language in their departments. The Public Service Commission then needs to report to the Minister. This is all about centralisation of language and control, and that is on top of the 50 percent increase in communications staff that this Government has already employed across the Public Service departments. There are 50 percent more communications staff to propagate the Government’s message out to New Zealanders, to tell New Zealanders what they want them to know. There are probably more comms staff than there are journalists in some of our major newspapers in New Zealand, and this is a Government that is adamant that they want to control more and more of the messaging. We’ve seen the hundred-million dollars they’ve given to the media, the media slush fund. We’ve seen the significant number of communications staff, and now we’re seeing plain-language officers being inserted in there as well. This is all about the Government wanting to control the messaging to New Zealanders more and more and that is the sinister underlying message of this piece of legislation, and it’s another reason why the National Party cannot and will not support it.

The reality is that if New Zealanders had a choice today, if they had a choice as to what they think should be focused on in our Public Service, I think I know what they would choose. Would they choose more hip operations faster? Would they choose a police service that wants to crack down on crime? Do they want better educational standards so that their children can actually learn how to read and write and not have a plain-language officer to tell them what to do? Do they want a fire service that is able to respond to emergencies adequately with the right equipment and the right personnel? Do they need to have the potholes on our highways fixed in a timely manner so that our cars are not being damaged all the time? Or do we need plain-language officers in our Public Service departments?

Our solution is: improve the outcomes. Focus the Public Service on the operations, the things that need to be done, and the outcomes that New Zealanders pay their taxes to see done. Get the potholes fixed. Make our Public Service work for New Zealanders. Fight the crime. Make sure our young people are getting the education they need. Make sure that our children can read and write. That’s our solution. The Government’s solution? Plain-language officers. Plain-language officers are all they’ve got. After five years, all they’ve got is more bureaucracy and plain-language officers. The National Party proudly stands opposed to this piece of legislation and the Government should just dump it in the bin where it belongs.

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

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am extremely disappointed that the member who has just resumed his seat, Simeon Brown, did not spend one single minute in our select committee as we were considering this bill. As the Opposition spokesperson on this matter, I’m really, really disappointed when you, Mr Speaker, have ably chaired the Governance and Administration Committee, we had gone through all of these details, giving so much attention, making sure we had investigated all of the issues he just talked about, but he chose to not show up and not participate in any of those conversations.

Can I put it on record here that this bill will not necessarily create more positions in the public sector, but it is just putting the responsibility of making sure that we communicate correctly and clearly to the public that we actually serve, as a Government, and to make sure, in terms of the communication coming from each department, that there is someone—who is probably already in a comms position at this moment—who will actually use their time officially to make sure that there is a standardised approach to all of the public when each Government department or agency communicates.

Also, there has been research from the United States that shows actually communicating in plain language will reduce the cost of human resource in terms of communicating with the public, as well. If you’ve done it correctly the first time, you won’t need to actually have to pick up the phone and then call the Government agency or department for clarification again. That is really, really simple math.

Can I just take it back to my own personal experience. I have spent four years in the District Courts of Auckland, being a court-appointed interpreter. In my daily job back at university, I could see how unclearly written English language was affecting our migrant community. Every day in my electorate office, I’m having to translate—reinterpret—all of the documents on our Government websites that we have to actually do. There is so much more barrier that we have created without communicating clearly and efficiently to everyone. That’s probably one of the parts of the select committee process that I really enjoyed having conversations with the submitters on.

Not only is it our migrant community, those with English as their second language, those perhaps that we need translation services to do—and, on that note, can I just also put on record as well that we heard submissions, and through my own experience as well, that if the original language was clear, succinct, and written in plain English and plain language, then actually the quality of translation improves as well.

We also were in conversation with those who were from the disability sector, as well—those who needed, for instance, a screen reader. So being able to have websites with information clearly written that is not in convoluted ways of actually expressing ideas or giving instructions or explaining a process, accessibility to that information increases, as well.

Also, I just remember from my days in the court, where if you actually gave statements in short, succinct sentences, more of the meaning gets conveyed through the interpreter. A lot of the time, we have agencies, for instance, like the Citizens Advice Bureau, who actually help a lot of our migrant communities, a lot of people within our communities that have learning disabilities and that have other disabilities that hinder them from being able to access that information themselves. But even if we have this bill in place, then the original context of which it is communicated in will actually help those who are the most vulnerable and most prevented from accessing that information in our community as well. It also cuts down the time of these services that are trying to help our communities who need translation services, so they can spend that time helping people who need other types of assistance in their lives, as well.

Can I also just thank the officials, as well, who have worked with us on this bill, that have gone through all of those details we were talking about, making sure that, for instance, the Public Service Commission had the capability but also knew that they had the right legislative imperatives in place in this bill to make sure that they could do their jobs properly. We tested many different scenarios in terms of whether there would be a legal obligation, and we landed that there shouldn’t but there should be a reporting within the public sector so that we could monitor the standard in which all public sector agencies communicate.

We talked, for instance—and I know Mr Woodhouse contributed to this—in terms of personal or technical communication. Firstly, on the personal side, a letter to an individual, we decided not to put into this legislation, because we know that sometimes communication to an individual needed to be very, very specific, needed to lay out all of the details of their personal circumstances, and we needed our Public Service to be able to give them the right and the most accurate information possible.

The other one we had discussed in a lot of detail was actually the issuing of standard guidance. One particular industry sector that we had particularly used as an example was the immigration industry, where the office of Immigration New Zealand would be issuing standardised advice and directions for immigration consultants. We wondered whether communication to a class of immigration consultants would count as public communication. Through rigorous conversation and debate, I think, in the end, we landed that we would not include that in the bill, because we realised that we needed to issue very technical guidance, even though this advice was public, is published on the internet, that anyone else who might be clients of these advisers, who might be someone who was going through an immigration process themselves, had access to these documents, but we still decided that that needed to be of a level of technicality that we wouldn’t include it in the bill.

I think we had a discussion about the tax guidance, as well, that, yes, if it’s on the website and it’s intended for just the public, for normal laypeople, to read, then, yes, that would come under the bill and that would have to be written in plain language. However, if it was a specific piece of direction that was aimed at tax consultants, at accountants, at tax lawyers as well, that wouldn’t be counted. So there would be a level of technicality that could still be communicated. Then, at the same time, if there was a criteria to judge that if this was open to communication to everyone else, that would be written in plain language.

I also particularly enjoyed, in select committee, the conversation around whether te reo would be included in this bill. Te reo, obviously, as we all know, is an official New Zealand language, and so is sign language, but we did decide that we would not touch on te reo in this bill either, just to make sure that the English communication that the Government or the public sector provides to the public would be something that would be written in just plain English and that any other te reo words or te reo phrases that happens in Government communications would not fall under this bill.

Can I also touch on the last point, which is that I think, throughout this whole entire conversation—indeed, so far in the debate—one phrase that has resonated in my mind is that communication is an art. We as politicians should know that better than anyone else—that clear, concise communication is good for everyone in terms of whether we are conveying information or we’re conveying a message. In our communities, there are lots and lots of people who need us to communicate clearly for them. Just as my colleague Rachel Boyack has said, as well, it’s sometimes a matter of life and death that we actually need the website; we need our public servants to be communicating clearly so that not only is it a matter of accessibility and it’s a matter of equity but, at the same time, it’s a matter of efficiency, as well.

So this bill will benefit everyone in terms of cost savings, in terms of efficiency, in terms of that emotional stress of, even though you might be reading it, not understanding. If you have English as a second language, as, I know, in my family, many of my family have, then, in that situation, this bill will be really, really helpful. So I would invite all members of this House to come into the shoes of our community and to understand how important this bill is for us. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me speak with extremely plain language. This bill is the stupidest bill to come before Parliament in this term. National will repeal it. And I can’t believe we are down here on Thursday morning debating this waste of time bill. I actually feel sorry for Rachel Boyack, because she is a conscientious and diligent member of Parliament and she has had this ridiculous, jobsworthy, stupid bill landed on her and she’s had to shepherd it through. I actually assumed—I think most of us assumed—at its first reading, whatever it was, that it would go off to the Governance and Administration Committee and would never see the light of day ever again. It would just be quietly discharged from the Order Paper, quietly done away with, and we’d just forget that Parliament had wasted all of its time debating the first reading.

But, no, here we are again. I can’t believe it. I just can’t fathom it. Here we are again. And poor old Rachel Boyack. And the Labour backbenchers are sitting there going, “There but for the grace of God go we, because what if I end up with a similarly stupid bill?” They’re all sitting there—Anna Lorck and Helen White and Sarah Pallett—and they’re all going to lose their seats at the next election. They’re all sitting there going, “I’m toast. I’m ‘gone-burger’.” Because Tukituki is finished. Jamie Strange is sitting there at Hamilton East. He’s gone. Sarah Pallett’s not going to win Ilam again. Helen White couldn’t even win Auckland Central last time around. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order!

CHRIS BISHOP: She’s toast and she’s sitting there thinking, “What am I going to do?” I can tell you something for free. The way to advance—the way to advance and win a seat—is not with bills like this.

National opposes this bill for five reasons. The first is—look at the bill. It is in a shocking state. As Simeon Brown noted, no departmental disclosure statement, no regulatory impact statement, no cost-benefit analysis. You only need to look at it. Look at what the committee’s done to the bill. There’s more black lines here and more insertions than there is actual text that it started with; we’ve completely rewritten the bill. So the bill is in a shocking state. It’s been completely retrofitted, and we should get rid of it.

The second reason we oppose this bill is what it says about the priorities of this Government. A hundred thousand New Zealand kids are chronically truant from school, we have child poverty going up, we have kids living in cars—after Labour said they would fix these problems. We have thousands of New Zealand children living in motels. And what’s Labour got the Parliament doing? Plain-language officers for every Government department—not just Government departments; every reporting agency that is a Crown entity. That’s the priority. Not child poverty. Not kids in cars. Not kids who are truant. Not economic growth. Not productivity. Not all of the manifold problems bedevilling this country but plain-language officers. I mean, it just actually beggars belief. I say to the Government—I mean, I wish you would drop it but on the one level; I also think, “Carry on, charge on.”, because every time you put this bill before the House, you just illustrate to New Zealanders why they deserve to be thrown out of office at the next election.

The third point is about bureaucracy. It’s just actually unfathomable what we are doing here. Every single reporting agency—not “may” but “must”; it’s an imperative, it’s a didactic imperative—must appoint a plain-language officer. As Simeon Brown quite rightly said, it’s the plain-language police. Every single Government department, every single Public Service agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, every single Crown agency, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Health New Zealand—every single one. You read it, it’s in Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004—every single one.

And yep, is it true that these plain-language officers could be existing bureaucrats, existing people who work in Public Service departments? Yeah, in theory. Is that likely to be the reality? Bear in mind, this Government has hired 14,000 more bureaucrats since they came to office. So what are the odds that they’ll just appoint one of them? I mean, the sensible thing to do would be to put some poor communications officer at the Transport Agency and say, “In addition to all of the graphics and the comms work and all of the PRs you do to fluff up the Government, you should also be the plain-language officer.” But no, no, no, that’s not what will happen. I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Here’s what’s going to happen after this bill gets passed. If you go on to seek.co.nz and trademe.co.nz and all the other job agencies, what will happen as you’ll see an ad for a plain-language officer for—pick an agency. There’s literally hundreds of them. Those will be the job ads and people will end up having to apply for these jobs. I mean, what sort of ridiculous job is it? People are going to see these job ads from the New Zealand Government, these well-paid bureaucratic jobs, to be a plain-language police officer inside a Government agency.

There’ll be hundreds of advertisements on SEEK and TradeMe. It’s going to be absolutely ridiculous. And their job will be to issue guidance, issue instructions, issue consultation documents. And it’s not a “may”. It’s not an optional extra here. This is not an option. This is a “must”. It’s an imperative. The Government is making these people do things and there’ll have to be the annual report to the Public Service Commission. I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Again, I’ll make a prediction. We’ll also see advertisements for the Public Service Commission to hire people to analyse all of the reports going into the Public Service Commission about the compliance of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs and every other Government agency. The artificial limb board is probably on the list. I think they’re a Crown entity and they’ll all have to submit a report and then the Public Service Commission will have to analyse them and file them away and that will involve hiring more bureaucrats.

Hon Member: The Auditor-General—

CHRIS BISHOP: The Auditor-General—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: They’ll have to check.

CHRIS BISHOP: They’ll have to check. Yeah, that’s right. The Auditor-General will have to go and check and there’ll be compliance checks and so that will be more bureaucrats.

This Government has never seen a bureaucracy that they can’t just add another layer to. It’s just ridiculous. And of course, all of that is wealth-destructive of New Zealand. All of that is sapping away the lifeblood of the actual productive economy, and the Labour Government just does not understand that.

The fourth point as to why National opposes this bill strongly and will repeal it is there are alternatives to legislation. And this was well canvassed in the excellent minority report from National members from the Governance and Administration Committee. Now the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, a very august body, turned up and they said, “Look, there is no need to legislate. You are putting this bill through the House for no reason. There no need to legislate.” They submitted the policy objective was best achieved through non-legislative means, noting legislation guideline 2.3 “Legislation should only be made when … necessary and is the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective.” Just issue a bloody report. Just send out a file note. Send out an email from Peter Hughes to the Government agencies saying, “Look, we expect you to write concisely and clearly and plainly, and it’s really important that people can read documents.” That’s literally all that’s required. And then maybe, you know, send someone around every couple of years just to have a look or maybe we can ask about it in select committee or things like that. We don’t need the plain-language police in every single Government agency. It’s just absurd. So it breaches the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines and it also flies in the face of what the Office of the Clerk said, which is the same thing as well.

The Office of the Clerk said the requirements in the bill are uncertain and without consequence—and that’s the fifth point: there’s no enforcement here. The giveaway is clause 10A of the bill, which has been inserted in it. Basically, it says, “This Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.” This bill is literally pointless. It imposes no legal rights, it imposes no legal obligations, and none of it is enforceable. So Parliament is passing something that is basically nugatory. It’s a complete waste of time. None of it is enforceable. None of it imposes any legal rights, no legal duties that are obliged to be performed by anybody or enforceable by anybody.

So Parliament is going to spend hours and hours of its time through the committee process, the first reading, the second reading—unless the Government comes to its senses and drops this bill—passing a bill that is unenforceable, that would more easily be achieved through other means, will add hundreds of bureaucrats to the system, and is in such a shocking state that it doesn’t have a regulatory impact statement, it doesn’t have a cost-benefit analysis, and it’s not actually clear what requirements it imposes. But the more important point is the signal it sends about priorities: enforcing plain-language police on Public Service departments as opposed to real issues facing New Zealand. We will repeal this stupid bill.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): I’m not sure about other people in this House, but I thought that the previous speaker, Chris Bishop, was a reasonably intelligent guy—up until the last 10 minutes, where he spoke a whole lot of rubbish about this piece of legislation. He wasn’t on the Governance and Administration Committee. We’ve heard from two National Party MPs in this debate, neither of which were on the select committee—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Order! It is not appropriate to refer to a member’s presence or otherwise on a select committee unless you’re referring directly to what they’ve talked about.

JAMIE STRANGE: I apologise, Mr Speaker. The previous speech—

Simeon Brown: Point of order. Just in relation to that, I didn’t feel the need to go to the select committee because it was a waste of time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): That is not a point of order, and it’s not appropriate to interrupt the speaker with a frivolous interjection like that.

JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, look, if there was ever an example of the National Party being out of touch with New Zealanders, that speech there was the prime example.

What we’re talking about here is making the Public Service more accessible to New Zealanders. I don’t understand—why is that such a bad thing? Why does that grate so heavily on the National Party? Listening to that previous speech, it sounds like the National Party, they actually want to get rid of the whole Public Service. You know, they’re talking about—well basically, they’re not valuing the Public Service. They’re not valuing the Public Service. And I hope that speakers who come will actually reaffirm our faith in the Public Service, because I haven’t heard anything to reaffirm that.

Now, in terms of the select committee process, as a member of the select committee, I’d like to acknowledge the work the select committee did on this bill. The work was extensive; other speakers have talked about that, and I will go into some of those details. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the committee, Ian McKelvie—a very fair and experienced chair who does an excellent job on that committee—and also all the members.

The Labour member who brought this bill to the House, Rachel Boyack—this is an issue she is very passionate about. We heard that in her speech, and I saw that in the select committee. What I saw was her engaging with officials at an extensive level to ensure that we have the best piece of legislation. This was a select committee process which provides faith to the process of select committees, in terms of amending legislation.

I just want to start by talking about the importance of accessibility in New Zealand as it relates to this bill. Then I’ll go into some of the aspects in the bill and also some of the submissions that we heard.

It is vital that every New Zealander has access to our democratic systems. We see examples of people not being able to access systems all the time. We see it in areas like transport, we see it at times in education, but we also see it in terms of the language that some Government agencies use in order for people to engage with those agencies and, at times, some of the processes that they use.

I’m sure that many of us MPs in the House would agree with me that we have constituents come into our offices who are unable to access the support that they need—you know, the democratic support that the deserve as New Zealanders—from Government agencies. At times, constituents—they tend to get stuck, and they then end up coming to us, and one of the key roles that we play would be to support constituents with that Government agency. Now, a lot of that work can be averted if those Government agencies engage in plain language with the constituents.

So look, it’s an important piece of legislation. The Opposition talk about the cost-benefit analysis; well, I want to say to the Opposition: what’s the cost-benefit analysis of not doing this? You know, what is the cost of not having plain language—of not having plain language? What we’re going to have is we’re going to have constituents in all of our electorates attempting to engage with Government agencies not being able to engage, and the time cost and all of that. So I’m not sure the Opposition have thought that through. And I hear a few comments coming, and I look forward to the speech of the member who was on the select committee coming soon. He might shed some light on that. But the reality is that there is a huge cost to our Public Service of people not being able to engage in an accessible manner. That’s one of the key things that this bill seeks to do.

This bill promotes the use of plain language in official documents and websites. Comprehensive information from Government organisations is a basic democratic right. If people are not able to access our democratic institutions, then our democracy starts to fall down. It is absolutely important that we maintain our strong sense of democracy.

If we look at the geopolitics around the world, there does tend to be a little bit of an attack on liberal democracies. It’s important that we maintain our strong liberal democracy—absolutely passionate about that. This bill, some would say, is only a small little bill; it’s not important; you know, wasting the House’s time. Well I would argue that New Zealanders being able to access Government agencies enforces our democracy, enforces peoples’ trust in the institutions, and enforces the services that we have and strengthens the democracy that we have in New Zealand, which is absolutely vital. As I mentioned before, there are some turbulent times around the world, at the moment.

I just want to touch on a couple of the submissions. I want to start with Blind Low Vision New Zealand. So Blind Low Vision New Zealand, they submitted to our committee, and I just want to highlight a couple of points that they made because I think that would be for the benefit of the House. They said that “We believe that plain language writing is an essential part of prioritising accessibility across the public service.” They were obviously in support of this bill, quite clearly. They highlight that, “Plain language makes communications more accessible rather than fully accessible.” They say, “It’s not easy for Government agencies and Crown departments to write all new publications, forms, and publicly distributed documents in a ‘clear, concise, well-organised manner’ ”, but they need that support to do that. And so, as well as bringing this into legislation, the Government are providing support for those agencies to do that.

Another submission, from the National Disabled Students’ Association, and just a point that they highlight there, where they say—where they highlight—that “The Plain Language bill will support equity for accessing essential information.” And I have talked about accessibility in this bill, and there’s another key topic, and that’s equity—that is, equity for all New Zealanders.

Any person in New Zealand is only just a split second away from potentially moving into a position where they need extra support. You know, someone could have a major health issue, someone could, unfortunately, be in a car accident—any one of us in this House is just a split second away from struggling either physically or mentally or emotionally to be able to access Government services. I think it’s important that we all put ourselves in the shoes of New Zealanders who do struggle to access these services for whatever reason.

A second point they raise is that this bill “will ease the burden of disabled person’s advocacy.” And finally, they say it will “create more transparent and accountable agencies, strengthening Government relations with the disabled community.” Now, the Public Service have done a lot of work, in terms of, you know, already strengthening their relations with the disabled community. This is another step on their journey. It’s an important piece of legislation.

Another submission here—the Public Health Association of New Zealand. So we heard from them in the committee. They said that “If implemented effectively [this bill] will allow better access to information and services for all New Zealanders.”, which is obviously what I’ve been highlighting in my speech. “Māori and Pacific adults are less privileged within the system of English language than non-Māori, non-Pacific adults, and for many New Zealanders, English is not their only language.”

Now, we heard from a previous speaker Naisi Chen; she highlighted this point really well, and I’d also like to touch on it: the fact that for a lot New Zealanders, English is not their first language. It’s absolutely vital that they have the ability to access Government agencies, to access information, in their language. We are a diverse, multicultural society, and that’s one of our strengths. It’s important that we continue to work in this area to enable people for whom English is not their first language to be able to access Government agencies.

I will just touch on a final submission, the Parents of Vision Impaired NZ. They highlight the fact that “The bill would improve the effectiveness and accountability of the public service by requiring communications to be clear and accessible to the public.” In terms of the work that they do, they link in with a number of submissions—we had many submitters who highlighted the importance of accessible information.

I am confused that the Opposition are not supporting this; I’m disappointed that they’re not supporting this. But this is the party that stand up for all New Zealanders, in terms of public service.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a short call, at this stage of the debate, on the Plain Language Bill in the member Rachel Boyack’s name. Again, I want to acknowledge her for the introduction and progress of this bill.

It’s been a rather feisty debate so far. I do have to admit to some confusion with the position of the National Party on this, after having listened to the contributions across the House on the petition from the Citizens Advice Bureau around digital exclusion, which was not about the digital divide but was about, essentially, how do we create a Public Service that actually works for people with all of their different needs in our communities, and plain language is not going to fix all of that. But it’s absolutely—as we heard from the submissions mentioned from the previous speaker, Jamie Strange, particularly from groups representing disabled people—a component of getting our Public Service to be accessible to all New Zealanders, whether it’s language differences or accessibility needs. There is particular provision that has been added to this through the Governance and Administration Committee explicitly around accessibility, so it feels deeply inconsistent to be very much in support of that petition and that goal and yet come out and oppose this measure that is a specific solution to an aspect of that problem.

I also—

Simon O’Connor: So what’s plain language?

JAN LOGIE: —do just want to mention—

Simon O’Connor: I don’t understand a word that member just said.

JAN LOGIE: I’m just having trouble focusing with that heckling, which is, I guess, the point of the heckling. So well done you, Mr O’Connor. I also just want to say, just the point that’s made by National about this increasing bureaucrats and the fact of this kind of being a policing thing—

Hon Member: It is.

JAN LOGIE: —actually, my point would be that I have a memory in the previous National Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! With apologies to the member. Could the members on my left—can I just remind them that interjections are to be rare and reasonable. I think a barrage is a bit unhelpful.

JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was the point around policing, and I think the phrase was used by Simeon Brown of police enforcing language of the day, suggesting that this might be a mechanism for political indoctrination of our Public Service. I would argue the exact opposite of that. There are examples in my political memory, which is not the best, of National Ministers having banned words from the vocabulary of the public servants reporting to them and their work. There were particular words; I think I remember “sustainability” being a banned word to a National Minister. And I don’t think that’s good. I’m going to be upfront about that; I do not think that’s good.

What I see is this bill creating transparency around guidelines around plain language. There will be reporting to the Minister and reporting to Parliament around progress that makes this far more transparent and inclusive, and protects, I would argue, a measure against some of the previous practices that have been less than ideal. But there is much more to discuss on this bill and there have been some good changes made.

One last point I wanted to make at this stage was just some of the softening of this in select committee that I’m not quite sure about. The fact that this is not enforceable—and I recognise it would have been problematic to make this enforceable when we have accessibility legislation in front of this House that has no enforceability mechanism, so that would have been a jarring difference. But if we talk about the rights of citizens to understand and access services, as the member who introduced the bill spoke of, then rights should, in my view, be enforceable. It is not a right if you only ever get to provide feedback on the performance and delivery of that right if it’s not working for you. And the problem of the feedback model as opposed to even being able to make complaints is that it’s even a step further away from that enforceability and recognition of it as a right and a core part of our Public Service. Again, it all sits, in the complaints model, on the person who’s being locked out of access to be able to provide and make the difference. But the good thing in this bill is having these officers puts it back on the Public Service in recognising their duty to our citizens to be able to up their game.

So with those points, and more discussion to come—again, to say congratulations to the member; while this is not a Government piece of legislation, this is a good initiative that the Greens believe will help improve access to our public services.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I rise from my normally sedentary non-pedestrian position to perhaps provide an eloquent, suggestive form of conversational conduct—

Dr Duncan Webb: Discourse.

TANGI UTIKERE: Discourse—thank you, Dr Webb—to provide a contribution for those herein.

I rise in support of this bill, the Plain Language Bill. The reality is that the way in which some members of our community receive information from Government agencies, from public services, is not fit for purpose.

So what is this bill seeking to do? Very simply, it is seeking to ensure that our community is able to receive information in a way that they can easily understand; that is communicated in a way that is easily understood. I do want to just start by acknowledging my colleague, the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, whose bill—this is in her name. I know that Ms Boyack has already made a couple of contributions in the House this morning.

Palmy is her second home, she indicated—you’d be familiar with that, Madam Speaker—herself. But for the benefit of those at home that perhaps missed Mr Chris Bishop’s contribution, he described Ms Boyack as a conscientious and diligent member of Parliament—and that she certainly is.

We all know that members’ day is an opportunity for members who have had their bills drawn from the biscuit tin to progress them. So while we hear from members opposite that this is the focus of the Government—wasting time, etc.—far from it. As Jan Logie has indicated, this is a member’s bill; it is in the member’s name. It happens to be that most, if not all, members on this side of the House think that it’s a very good bill to progress through the Parliament. And members on this side of the House are not alone: because of the submissions that were received by the Governance and Administration Committee, they also suggested that it was a worthwhile bill for consideration and to progress through the Parliament.

Can I acknowledge members on the Governance and Administration Committee. That’s the committee to which this bill went, and the committee has returned its report to the House. I started off as a member of that committee, so I know that it is very collegial, but it’s also hard-working. So I acknowledge the work that they’ve done with this particular bill.

This bill, as others have suggested—you know, plain language itself won’t necessarily fix everything, but it certainly will make a difference. When I reflect on members in my community in Palmerston North, that will make a huge difference. Because when I reflect on my experience as a teacher at a secondary school over many years, in terms of the level of engagement with some members of our Pasifika community, the language that’s used, the definitions, the acronyms—all of those sorts of things in the Ministry of Education and school environments do not encourage or support some members of our community to engage, let alone engage with the process.

So anything that’s going to change that and make a difference, I think, is something that should be celebrated. Yes, there can be tweaks along the way and the select committee, in its wisdom, have acknowledged a number of suggested changes that they think that the Parliament should progress—sensible ones when one looks at them.

When we look and delve into the focus of this bill, it is about promotion. It’s about promotion of good practices; the use of plain language in official documents. So we’re not talking about every single document that exists out there; we are talking about particular and specific documents that have a public purpose.

We’re also talking about websites. We all know that most are able to engage with an opportunity to get information through websites—that’s certainly an expectation these days. So not just in written form, but what might be seen online is really, really important, because information from Government organisations and departments, and access to that information, is a basic democratic right. So that’s what this particular bill seeks to achieve: to ensure that the access and the method of communication is a way in which it is easily able to be understood.

All of us, as members of this House, engage with constituents who have more than one or two issues when it comes to communicating with Government agencies. When I reflect upon the submission from the CAB, the Citizens Advice Bureau, a longstanding organisation who fronted up to the select committee and identified that this bill will actually make a difference, I like to listen to those individuals, the hard-working volunteers who spend countless hours and days—certainly in my community and many others as well—engaging with people who are wanting help, who are wanting assistance, who are wanting support. If that is just one organisation that is saying to the Parliament, “This is a good thing to do,” then it is, I think, important that the Parliament is able to listen to that and to reflect on it.

What is of interest is, you know, when we look at other agencies—and local government is a good example; the bill that’s just passed through the House earlier today was one focused on local government. If we reflect on our own spheres in terms of local communities, we all know and expect that local governments are agencies or organisations that are able to engage with the community, and they’re doing things in a different way. They’re rethinking how they can engage with their communities to ensure that the information that gets out to their ratepayers, their residents, their communities of interest is information that they understand and information that they value.

If we all think about how our rates demands have changed over the years to be less of a focus on just what the bottom line is and actually more of an understanding of what the services and the provision of services that local government does provide, it’s yet another example of the changing dynamic within which this bill sits and falls.

One of the things that I did observe is that the select committee obviously turned its mind to a number of workable changes: for example, the definition of a document, but also making clear that Māori language and other languages would not, effectively, be part and parcel of what was required to fall within the plain-language definition.

I think that’s really important, because when I reflect on some communities—like Palmerston North, where we are a welcoming community in terms of new migrants; we have more than 165 different ethnic groups that are represented in Palmerston North alone and more than 220 different dialects that are spoken in the city—it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach and certainly when you take their one size and you make sure that it’s in a language that is second or third or fourth generation for some and not for others, it makes the communication opportunity much, much more difficult.

So we hear that through the select committee process, where submitters were talking about, or referring to, the fact that this would make a huge difference, particularly in the space of those organisations and individuals for whom English is an additional language that they have to learn. So this is a bill that would certainly support them in terms of engaging with things that they are entitled, as citizens and residents of this country, to engage with—and even as visitors, actually, to this country to engage with as well.

The interesting thing is that this has actually been done; this approach has been taken elsewhere around the world. What some of the feedback indicates is that, actually, when approaches like this are put in place, there is actually an efficiency gain here; that if there is an investment at the start of the process to ensure that people are able to understand and that things can be communicated in an easily accessible way, then you save the cost, you save the pain, you save the experience of having to, for example, engage with local decision makers, with members of Parliament, to engage with organisations, whether it be Immigration New Zealand, whether it be Kāinga Ora, whether it be the Ministry of Social Development or others, and there is a cost saving and an efficiency gain in doing this.

So when I hear from members opposite that they think this is a complete waste of the Parliament’s time, it flies in the face of what the community’s expecting from public agencies—from Government agencies—to ensure that what is put out into that public domain is accessible, but also that it’s supported by a particular process in place to make sure that things are reviewed.

So one other change that I note is that not everything will suddenly have to be changed to make it easy—unfortunately, because I would think that, actually, the sooner the better; the sooner that people are able to get information in a way that they can easily understand, the better. But this has a kick-in provision of six months after Royal assent to allow for agencies to put arrangements in place and get things under way.

Again, I think this is a sensible bill. It is one that will make a huge difference to many members of our community, particularly those that currently do not engage and do not have the support within that public sector. I’m delighted to again congratulate my colleague Rachel Boyack and to commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to talk about this bill.

At the start of this reading today, Rachel Boyack thanked the Governance and Administration Committee for assisting and making it a better bill, and the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, thanked the committee for suggesting a number of workable changes. All I’ve got to say to that is “You’ve got to be kidding me! There’s nothing left.” If you go through the bill, it’s all gone. It’s a totally new bill. We’re not actually debating what we did in the first reading; there’s nothing left. It should have been sent back to the drafters and dumped at select committee, but here we are debating it at the second reading. It’s absolutely astonishing. The Government has already done a U-turn this week, a fairly significant one. I think it would be quite productive of the Labour Party to do it again with their support of this bill—turn it around and get rid of this thing.

It’s been fascinating listening to the Labour Party speakers on this, this sudden obsession with Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and all this support for migrants, which is somewhat surprising. You know, the sheer amount of straw man arguments that I’ve heard today has been pretty disappointing, but I will get to that. A few speakers have spoken about how it’s important that people with English as a second language are able to access information, and the context of Immigration New Zealand was brought in there too. And it’s important that they can get the stuff that they need, which is probably why Immigration New Zealand releases so much information in foreign languages, in other languages—right?—to actually support this. So these sorts of things already happen.

But if we get into this a bit more, so the bill comes with a requirement to appoint these plain-language officers. It’s just an absolute absurdity. And I think, though, that being said, with the workforce shortages, normally it’s quite difficult to find people to do these bureaucratic roles at the moment. But most certainly, after the next election, there’ll be a horde of ex - Labour backbenchers who might be able to qualify to do these roles. But in any case, it doesn’t matter, because the ACT Party has a policy to reduce the public sector back to 2017 levels, and there is fierce competition to decide who’s going to go first, what roles are going to go first. But I think it might just be these ones.

So going further into the bill, the commencement—it’s actually quite good to see the six months being added in there after Royal assent, when this all kicks in. My suggestion is: look, to save taxpayer money, make it 12 months so that by the time that we’re in Government, we can just get rid of this and they won’t have wasted all these resources and money getting it under way.

As I alluded to earlier, the supportive comments from—well, the support from Labour for migrants is a bit surprising. I’m trying to kind of hold my tongue here a little bit as to what I think of that. So Rachel Boyack spoke about INZ. Look, the reality is, practically speaking, having had a bit to do with the immigration system—yep, you’re right; the ops manual exists. That has all the complicated instructions for visas and how to process and also all this other stuff, requirements; that is not public comms. If you go to the Immigration website, they’ve actually got a pretty good and easy to use website where they condense a lot of that information down. The job’s already done. Yes, advisers and lawyers usually work through the ops manual, which is the same thing that immigration officials work through as well. So, you know, that’s just addressing this piece of the advice that a document prepared by officials from Immigration New Zealand, intended for immigration advisers, might differ in its wording. Well, obviously; that’s just reality.

But the next thing that I wanted to touch on here was around this English stuff in the context of immigration, because I wonder if those that have spoken about this from the Labour Party have actually ever dealt with the immigration system and dealt with visa categories and their requirements. Obviously, there are English language requirements in a lot of these visas, right? So if they care so much, if this is such a problem that migrants are having such difficulty understanding instructions and perhaps their advisers are having difficulty, whatever, then I’m assuming they’re going to drop the English language requirements from visas, right? If they really care about this, then drop the requirements. But actually, what have they done? They’ve just brought in more and more and more, including in the investor categories as well, or their new investment visa. So I don’t know. I mean, I think just walk the talk with this stuff and, yeah, I’m very careful about my opinion on this because it’s actually extraordinarily frustrating.

I think it was Rachel Boyack who also spoke about vulnerable migrants—yes, that’s a very important issue—and specific visas for that. Typically what happens is the community law centre will assist—that’s all across the country—and lawyers are expected to do pro bono work, and that’s often where they work as well. So there are systems in place, people in place, and organisations in place to assist with this stuff.

Moving on from immigration for a bit, it talks about tax returns. Look, I’d say that the Inland Revenue, despite my apprehension about them, have made huge improvements for filing tax returns, IR3s, in particular, and IR4s. They are much simpler than they used to be. So, again, it’s the whole—you know, what is this? It’s a solution looking for a problem, in so many ways.

The use of te reo Māori in documents—yep, sure. It’s important that they said that they don’t want to discourage that being used in documents and communications and that this Act will not cover that or it won’t actually stop them from using te reo Māori. So, yep, that’s fine. I mean, in practice it means you can just change as much as you like and make a document completely incomprehensible to the majority of the population, and it’s still considered plain language. So, yeah, anyway!

The Official Information Act stuff was actually quite a quite a funny note, and I thought it actually would have been quite funny if they included that, because I’m kind of surprised the Government didn’t, because not only would it mean they could release documents completely redacted; they could also rewrite them in the process—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And then redact them.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: And then redact them again. So I’m kind of surprised they didn’t push on with that one.

But look, I think, as I said, the straw man arguments around this—frankly, completely fake support of migrants. For a Government that has spent three years, just in terms of Government policy, absolutely coming down on migrants, punishing them, and splitting families up, to sit there speaker after speaker in the Labour Party and say, “Oh, this is why we’re doing this, to support them.” is just absolutely absurd. It’s fake and we’re opposing this stupid bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a genuine pleasure and privilege to rise in support of this Plain Language Bill. I have many reasons for my firm support of it, which I will outline as clearly and concisely as possible. I’d like to commend Rachel Boyack for bringing this bill to the House. I understand that it has been in the tin for quite some time, which might explain the amount of work that the admirable Governance and Administration Committee put into it, and I will outline a few of the changes that they did undertake as I move through this speech.

But it’s important, I think, when we’re looking at bills that come before the House, to look at why we’re doing them. It’s obviously really important to have a clear understanding of why we do what we do and why we’re here. I’m going to share a few quotes that I think really explain fully why this is important, the first being from the former chairman of the National Consumer Council in the UK, where the plain English campaign has been going for quite some time, extremely successfully. Michael Shanks said, “Gobbledygook may indicate a failure to think clearly, a contempt for one’s clients, or, more probably, a mixture of both.” He goes on to say that a system that can’t or won’t communicate is not a safe basis for democracy.

I first became really interested in plain language or plain English as I have a very old friend in the UK from many, many years ago who’s an extremely successful lawyer and absolutely passionate about ensuring that all of his clients—and everybody in the United Kingdom, by extension, from the work that he’s doing to introduce plain language into legal documents—actually understands what it is that they’re agreeing to when they sign a contract. He is passionate about ensuring that legal documents are fully accessible to his clients. He’s deeply committed to removing gobbledegook, jargon, and misleading public information, and that’s what we’re trying to do here. It isn’t about dumbing down; it’s about ensuring that everybody understands what we’re saying. Some of the implications that we’ve heard, as this morning has drawn on, are equating clarity with dumbing down, and that’s pandering and clearly offensive. The bottom line is if you’re unable to explain your ideas clearly and concisely, you probably don’t understand them yourself.

I’ll give you a couple of examples. In my profession as a midwife, we would use acronyms and jargon all the time, and it was something that I absolutely discouraged in my students, because although it does make for shorter notes, it doesn’t make for more easily understandable notes, and it can also lead to confusion. So an example would be “IUD”, which some people might be familiar with as a form of reversible long-term contraception. But, actually, IUD is also an acronym for intrauterine death, which is quite different from intrauterine contraceptive device, so you’d have to be pretty careful about where you use that. “LOA”, commonly used by midwives—“Baby LOA”; left occiput anterior. What it means is, and what I would write is, that your baby is positioned with its head down, with their back to your left-hand side. Their head is fully flexed and they’re in a great position to be born. Now, if you were pregnant—forgive me for making this personal. If anybody here in this room were pregnant, surely they would like to know what LOA meant, and they would really love that reassurance and clear understanding of what was going on with their pregnancy.

I myself got asked the other day by a school principal to explain why I was wearing a mask, because they’d had a little bit of confusion in their school. Now, I would commonly say that I wear masks to prevent the transmission of what is an airborne respiratory infection—that is, a virus. But you can’t say that to primary school pupils—well, you can, but they’re not going to understand a word of what you’re saying. So I just told them that I wore my mask to show them that I cared about them, because I didn’t want any bugs that I might have to be shared with them. And they seemed to understand me quite clearly.

But support for plain language has come from unexpected places, and I imagine the National Party will be quite surprised to hear that Baroness Thatcher was one of the key proponents of the sharing and undertaking of plain language in the United Kingdom. I imagine that many of you across the House are actually fairly good fans of the work of Baroness Thatcher, and I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with her, which is not something you’re going to see very often—so do make the most of it. She said, “It is no exaggeration to describe plain English as a fundamental tool of good Government.”—a fundamental tool. “Some people”, she said, “think that flowery language and complicated writing is a sign of intellectual strength. They are wrong … Plain English must be the aim of all who work in Government.” Take those words on board, my friends on the Opposition benches. Maybe you’d like—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We agree.

SARAH PALLETT: —to listen to—you agree? I’m glad you agree. Awesome. David Cameron, another person whose work I imagine you approve of—again, I find myself agreeing with him when he says that bureaucracies that overcomplicate things to boost their own self-importance build barriers between Government and the people.

Submitters to the select committee are probably more important than historic United Kingdom parliamentarians. Their views are the ones that we should be listening to. I’m just going to highlight what the Citizens Advice Bureau had to say: “We regularly assist people to make sense of information that they receive from Government agencies.” My colleague Tangi Utikere, I believe, spoke about the investment in the front-end of communication with our constituents, and for lawyers, with clients. We are not talking about introducing a whole new level of bureaucracy. We’re actually talking about giving people who already undertake that work a role to play in ensuring that we’re communicating more clearly. Citizens Advice have said that they see examples of clients struggling with a range of communications constantly, and really welcome this legislation.

The National Disabled Students’ Association said, specifically, that the Plain Language Bill will support equity for accessing essential information, ease the burden of disabled persons’ advocacy, create more transparent and accountable agencies, and strengthen Government relationships with the disabled community.

I find it absolutely inexplicable. It’s really hard for me to understand why anybody in this House would stand in the way of clear communication between Government and the people that we serve. This concern was shared by a constituent this morning who was interested in what I was doing and really didn’t understand why the National Party was in opposition, and not only in opposition but in strong opposition, to the point where we have had to sit on this side of the House and actually listen to some nasty comments coming from our colleagues on Opposition benches, some of which, it has to be said, would definitely fall into the category of people in glass houses, Mr Bishop. But the submitters who matter here, people with disabilities, people who are advocating for our constituents—Citizens Advice, who are trying to make things more accessible; People First New Zealand, who are a disabled persons’ organisation—they are in clear support of this bill.

There is, obviously, a time where flowery language is of use. Flowery language—I love language. It’s a critically important part of my world, and I’ve been an avid reader and writer for my entire life, and I brought to mind the times when it is important to use more words, longer words, make things less accessible. I enjoy Chaucer; I enjoy Shakespeare, but I would not expect anybody to take a document that was as complex as the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare and actually understand what it said when they’re applying it to their legal rights, where it’s really important that we have absolute clarity.

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o’er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beautiful. Basically, “I was feeling sad. I went for a walk. I saw a lot of beautiful daffodils, and they cheered me right up.” Good old Wordsworth. But that is the place for flowery, inaccessible language—in poetry and literature, and not in Government legislation. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Penk—five-minute call.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This bill is not good. In fact, this bill is bad. We do not see why the bill should be in this House. In fact, we think it should go. Why have a rule made up to fix a thing that ain’t broke? You can say things in more words, and time, now. Or you can say things in less time. Why have rules made to say what type of things can be said, and at what length? My speech will be short, and each word in my speech has been short. Those are all the words I have to say on this bill. It is bad, and it should go.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was very The Cat in the Hat, wasn’t it? But, actually, for all of his facetiousness, Mr Penk makes a good point that clear language is a good thing. But to say that nothing’s broke is wholly inaccurate and suggests that Mr Penk should delve into a few more Government documents. We heard about the immigration instructions, and only yesterday I was looking at the animal welfare codes, in respect of dogs, to respond to a couple of school students. Those documents are turgid.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does turgid mean?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: To suggest that it’s—well, turgid, Mr Woodhouse, is whatever comes out of your mouth when you stand up. To be perfectly honest, to have a responsibility on Government to turn their minds to who the audience is—the animal welfare code for dogs is a great example because, frankly, that’s something we want every dog owner to be able to look at, understand, and comply with so that they can look after dogs appropriately and in accordance with the law. But that’s actually not that easy to do with a 40-page document that uses technical language.

Let’s face it that our advisers and our people who work in ministries do a great job, but they do need to get out more sometimes. They can sometimes get trapped into a circle of thinking and communicating with each other in ways which they understand but are jargonistic and complex and sometimes convoluted. To have a pair of eyes saying, “Don’t say give, devise, and bequeath; just say give because that’s redundant”—just those obvious things. Use active not passive sentences. Let’s break up sentences. Let’s use bullet points. These are all good ideas.

Let’s be honest: there are some Government documents that are very good, very accessible. In fact, could I just say this is actually about a working, functioning democracy because one of the things we need is for law to be accessible. In New Zealand, as in any developed democracy, it isn’t just legislation that’s law; it’s regulation, ordinances, and, of course, policy guidance and documents, which sometimes are where the rubber really hits the road. Those documents can be extremely complicated. Whilst it’s appropriate to have comprehensive rules when the thing that’s being regulated is complicated, we need to push back against the idea that language has to be inaccessible because the subject matter is inaccessible.

So this is a very good bill. I was talking, only moments ago, to Jan Tinetti, who was doing a lot of research on this, noticing that we’re well behind the plate—we’re well behind the plate. The United States has had this in place for decades and has strengthened it over time. Why? Because they take seriously the right of any citizen to know and understand what their obligations are. They should be able to do that—not by going into a Government department and having it explained by an official or bureaucrat, not by going to a lawyer, not by going to a community advice centre, but by picking up a document and using normal reading skills, because citizens, in most cases, are the people who are intended to be the recipients, the audience for any given document. And it’s a basic rule of drafting; it’s not that much to ask. When you write something, think about who you’re writing it to or for, and write it so that they will understand it. It’s not a high threshold. To suggest that in some way it’s wrong-headed to have someone running the rule over a communication and saying, “Oh, look, our intended audience couldn’t possibly understand it”—to suggest that’s wrong-headed is just utterly ill-conceived.

This is a very good piece of legislation that will make our democracy better, will make our citizens better informed, and make our Public Service more effective. That is an excellent piece of legislation. I look forward to the day it is passed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, that speech from Dr Duncan Webb was so incoherent, it’s no surprise to me that Labour actually want to pass the Plain Language Bill, probably to either improve his speech or shut him up.

But I’ve got to say—oh, where to begin? Look, I’ll start with the only positive thing, I think, that came out of Labour’s contributions in the second reading debate, and it came from the soon to be former member for Hamilton East Jamie Strange, when he said he has faith in the Public Service. Well, so do I. I have faith that they’re able to follow guidance without the hand of the State, the spectre of law, hanging over the top of them.

But, worse than that, in the face of 7 percent inflation, a fourfold increase in kids living in cars, 500 percent increase in ram raids, 40 percent of our children not attending school regularly, massive waits in healthcare, and huge staffing shortages across the country, this Government thinks we should set aside select committees and come to the House on a Thursday morning to progress a plain-language bill. That speaks to the priorities of an arrogant and out-of-touch Government.

I must say that Naisi Chen criticising Simeon Brown was a bit rich. She criticised him as a spokesperson for this not attending a select committee once. Well, I was jealous of Simeon Brown. I think that’s a credit to him that he didn’t waste a single minute, because I didn’t have the same luxury. I had to sit through hours and hours and hours of completely wasted time, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, sitting, listening to submitters—nearly none of whom are going to be happy.

The people that support the bill, the people that Sarah Pallett talks about, the disabilities community, People First, and the Citizens Advice Bureau—they wanted the Government to go further. So they’re not going to be happy. The people who wanted te reo and Braille and sign language included in the bill—none of them will be happy. And certainly the very smart people who oppose this bill will be aghast that their measured but very plain-language submissions that said don’t waste Parliament’s time, don’t waste the select committee’s time, were completely ignored.

They weren’t just any old submitters; it was the Office of the Clerk, the people who actually run this place and understand why and when and what good law looks like, and they were pretty unambiguous. They said—and I’ll find it—“The requirement in the bill to ensure that documents are in plain language is not a clear legal requirement. That is because plain language is not an easily ascertainable standard.” How ironic is that, that the very definition of “plain language” is not plain? So we’re passing a bill to improve language, and nobody knows what that means. Ironic in the extreme.

The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee recommended that the bill not proceed. They said—and I agree with this—“We consider [the] policy objective is best achieved more effectively”—more effectively—“through non-legislative means.” And further to that, “ ‘Legislation should only be made when it is necessary and is the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective.’ ”

I could go on. There were a number of them all saying “Good idea”—in fact, Sarah Pallett and I agree on that too; that’s another positive. Plain language is good; passing laws for everything is not. And that’s what the legal experts said. I’m surprised at Dr Duncan Webb, given that he is a lecturer in legal jurisprudence.

So it’s a waste of this House’s time. It was a waste of the select committee’s time. It was a waste of the submitters’ time. It was a waste of the officials’ time. Frankly, this bill is going to be consigned to the group of bills that were passed, frankly, just to make up time on a members’ day: lost luggage, military manoeuvres repeal, laser pointers, and now we have plain language. So let’s just say it in as plain a language as we can: this is unnecessary, it’s inappropriate, it lacks any sort of a priority in the list of even members’ bills, and we should be getting on to better things. But no we won’t; we’ll be here next members’ day, going through a committee of the whole House, trying to improve a bad bill, and we’ll continue to waste this House’s time for no obvious benefit. Let’s put it in the dustbin.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. CS Lewis said—and I pause as the room is filled with awe and wonder—“Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’. Otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” I just thought I’d let that sink in as we speak on this very significant piece of legislation. In this House, which doesn’t have infinite power but it has a lot of power, and today I have to remind people that this is a members’ day and this is a member’s bill, and, of course, there is the wonderful biscuit tin that does its magic and has got us to this place. But there is also the work of Rachel Boyack, who has worked on this and has had the luck, the blessing, or whatever it is for us to be able to debate, to take this legislation to the select committee and to bring it back here to the House this morning

I guess that part of what I’ve heard this morning as I’ve listened is the fundamental differences that come from different sides of the House around what’s important. As I’ve listened, I realised that language, as much as we want to ignore it or forget it, is power. With that is education, and being educated is understanding words and language and forming sentences and structures, and for many of us in this place we’ve had the privilege and the opportunity to attend schools, private schools, for example, that offer a certain type of education that’s different from others. Many of us have had the privilege of making it to our universities. But many of us haven’t, and this isn’t about intelligence. This isn’t about who’s better than anyone else. It’s actually just about how language works within our society.

Language has always evolved. It’s always changed; it’s always moved. If you just look at our dictionaries, every year new words are added and changed. As we spread across different generations and different ages, language has been adopted. It has been embedded into laws, into our market places, into our learning institutions, into our religions, into our story telling, into our politics, and, of course, even into our Public Service. Each time, each generation, and each decade it changes and it evolves, to affect those who are here right now to understand it and to move forward. So plain language is something that we need to look at for all people in our society, and as I said earlier, this isn’t about dumbing down; this is about making it accessible to everyone.

Last week, I was blown away and humbled to see a new Speaker elected into that Chair, a bilingual Speaker, a speaker of te reo and speaker of English. Several generations ago that just would not have happened. That would not have been a thing that would have been seen in this place. But to see the progression, the moves, and the changes in our society so that we have a bilingual Speaker, of two of our languages here in Aotearoa, makes me very proud. I’m grateful to the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe for accepting that position.

It shows that society moves on and it changes and it morphs and it grows. As I say, language is such a powerful thing, and often that’s why our institutions want to protect language from being made more approachable and accessible—because language is power. In fact, I began with CS Lewis. I will continue with some other great thought leaders. Julia Penelope said, “Language is power, in ways more literal than most people think. When we speak, we exercise the power of language to transform reality. Why don’t more of us realize the connection between language and power?” I think part of the conversation this morning and part of the pushback I’ve heard is the fear that, maybe, “I may lose some power, because I have the command of the English language. I understand it. I can speak words that no one else knows.”

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you can’t.

GLEN BENNETT: Well, I can’t; I know. I can’t use those words. I am a simple man, a man of my community, but a man who can actually string a sentence together and can act actually understand our society. But, for example, I could have given a 30-second speech. I know some of you wanted that. I could have given a one-minute speech. A few less of you would want that. But I would like to give a 10-minute speech in support of this bill. The thing with a 10-minute speech is—and I know people are setting in with a cup of tea and enjoying it—that it takes a lot of time and effort to create less words. I know it sounds boring and I know you’re rolling your eyes but it’s true. So in my 10 minutes, I haven’t articulated as clearly and concisely as I could have—I’ll admit that right now.

Hon Member: You could have used plainer language.

GLEN BENNETT: I could’ve used plainer language, but if I’d been given a one-minute or two-minute speech I would have had to spend a long time curating and crafting the words to bring them together, and it would’ve taken a lot more effort, but I’ve chosen to let you enjoy the humble drones of my voice for almost 10 minutes.

This bill is important for many communities within our nation and our society, and for me, as the MP for New Plymouth, it’s an important piece of legislation for many of my constituents. I referred in the first reading of this to a particular constituent who had actually ignored Work and Income for many years. There was some funding they weren’t supposed to receive they that were receiving. They actually wanted to do the right thing, but the issue they had was actually having to negotiate the system. When they got given a form of 20 pages to fill out to explain everything, they chose to ignore it because they didn’t have the education, the expertise, to be able to fill that form out. So they continued with something they didn’t want to do because the system had become so oriented around language, around forms, that they chose to step away from something they should have done. That’s sorted now, I’m happy to say.

Another thing in terms of constituents who come into my office is that, again, they drop a document that is thick, full of words, on my desk. It’s full of words, words, words—not Shakespeare but words that come out of this House.

Hon Member: They don’t come easy.

GLEN BENNETT: And they don’t come easy. Those words often are complicated and difficult to negotiate and get your head around. I know that many of us in this House are able to pick up that document, and we’re able to decipher it and pull it apart within seconds, but for some of us—and I’m happy to admit it—it takes a little bit more effort.

So the accessibility of plain language is important, not only for all people but for many of our constituents across the board. But language is obviously a key part of communication, and for some of you in this room that communication is excellent, top notch, but for others—let’s be honest—it is clunky. It is wordy, and there have been times in this House when I’ve been frantically on my cell phone, on Google, trying to understand what words mean, when, for example, someone could have said “very” rather than “infinitely” although that’s a really bad example, I know.

I support Rachel Boyack and her legislation. I thank all of those who submitted on this, and I thank our society in the 21st century, as it can actually look at what was and not just assume that is what will be, because language and legislation that come through this House should be accessible to all people. I finish with the words I began with: “Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’. Otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” On that, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that—[Interruption] Just when the House is ready. The question is that the amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary No. the Ayes have it.

The question is—

Hon Member: The Noes have it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, look, I had already started to put the question. The member—I hadn’t heard any indication from any members that they were going to vote No. [Interruption] Don’t wave at me—I don’t need your help. However, it was on the margins—so am I hearing a No? A party vote has been called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Plain Language Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I move, that the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill be read for a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. I’m sorry. I need the member to read exactly what is written on the page.

DAMIEN SMITH: I move, That the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

It’s important that New Zealand is an attractive country for investment, which will in turn support greater levels of productivity, jobs, and higher incomes in the future. What this bill does is it removes barriers to foreign direct investment (FDI) from OECD countries, noting for the first time one of our largest sources of investment is not driven by a military ally. It does this by exempting OECD investors from being cleared by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) with two key exemptions of a national security test around strategic business and it exempts residential land.

How will this happen? The OECD countries will be added to a list of exemptions in the Overseas Investment Act. There are over 38 countries now in the OECD. New Zealand joined in 1973, and it would be a fitting tribute after 50 years to lead an initiative that countries can connect with New Zealand in a deeper fashion.

The current regime forces the vast majority of FDI to be cleared by the Overseas Investment Office, which places a needless barrier to investment even when there’s very little risk involved. Foreign direct investment is crucial for New Zealand’s small economy. Numerous studies have proven that high levels of FDI result in higher productivity, higher innovation, and an overall increase in the quality of life for all citizens. To grow and prosper in a competitive world, New Zealand should be a prime destination for foreign direct investment. This bill will exempt investors from democratic countries within the OECD from the need to receive OIO approval to invest here, except in respect of investments around land, residential land, and strategic businesses. These businesses and investments would still be subject to the call-in regime where national security interests are at stake. It’s important that New Zealand is an attractive destination globally and it’s interconnected for investment long term. This provision would streamline the process for investors from OECD countries to bring capital into New Zealand.

Membership of the OECD is restricted to countries committed to preserving and advancing democracy and freedom of markets. Many OECD nations are natural allies on national security issues, are the least risky source of investment for New Zealand, and have a large amount of money to bring to the country. They are, therefore, encouraged by an efficiency, allowing resources to be directed to the most valuable use, introducing new technology and management techniques that drive domestic competition and productivity growth.

Productivity is the sole driver of growing prosperity, which is always reflected in rising per capita real incomes. New Zealand has fallen behind in this area, and also it is one of the lower quartile countries for foreign direct investment anywhere in the world. Our markets need to be competitive, and foreign new capital entrants should not be put off. We already face skill and distance disadvantages, and there’s no need to compound that with bad policy. It will also improve our balance of payments and allow our interest rates to be managed in a way that makes them competitive at a wholesale level.

The latest data from the OECD shows us that one of the most restrictive regimes is New Zealand, and that’s primarily driven by our incredibly low screening thresholds by global standards. That undermines investment not just by foreigners who are banned from entry but also Kiwis who can’t be assured they’ll be able to sell their enterprises to the highest bidders and usually end up having to sell to the neighbours in Australia for a lower multiple. We attracted 80 percent less foreign investment per person in 2020 than Australia, and we’ve consistently invested less in capital per person than all but one small advanced economy, and all but one English-speaking country. Total foreign investments in New Zealand totalled $500 billion in 2020, of which FDI was $113 billion, portfolio investments $221 billion, and financial derivatives $18 billion, with other investments totalling $77 billion.

As we know, there are two categories of investment: greenfield, and mergers and acquisitions. But just to give you a simple example, where the Overseas Investment Act is a difficult and almost terrible piece of legislation is that if a New South Wales pension fund and a Victorian pension fund owns 15 percent of national interest transaction, they would have to apply separately, and this would take almost a year to complete.

Increased FDI is a feature of a modern, global, economic, integrated country. How much FDI you have indicates how much export growth and R & D targets can be sustained, and also how deep you are connected with the global trade around the world. Because of New Zealand’s shallow capital base, we need more FDI to achieve our economic and social goals. Much of this will need to come from overseas investors. We need more FDI to achieve our political and social goals, create new opportunities, maintain services in health and regional funding of economic growth and jobs, of which one in five are FDI funded.

We know there are plenty of opportunities for investors, and they’re very welcome here. We need to make them more welcome. Our highly innovative tech sector is the country’s fastest growing. There’s deep tech data, real innovation in agritech, which the Government has supported, and we’re asking for a wider base to be established. A lot of venture capital is involved in software as a service company tech, and many international firms are active here. They just don’t have the stability to invest here in a longer-term partnership. There’s a high quality food and beverage sector, plus big infrastructure builds and data centre developments, and we have a big wood-processing sector, which we continue, under the law, to allow trees to be planted.

An open investment regime helps keep New Zealand interest rates down as the risk premium associated with investing here is reduced. A move away has a negative impact on our credit ratings and attractiveness to potential trade parties, just at a time when it’s most needed. We do need an extra leg to our economy which will generate income. This is why the purpose of this bill is to fast track that.

New Zealand has been built over the last 150 years on the back of foreign direct investment. It needs to be a global player without tax exemptions to track companies. This is our best way to connect with the world and to bring capital to the country. This can be implemented fast. Exemptions to invest here by pre-approved countries will create a really durable FDI policy framework and be an additional lever for the Government and a new source of long-term revenue and taxes. Higher levels of FDI will allow New Zealand entrepreneurs access to greater levels of finance. This will mean they can invest in new technology, innovate, and take on the world. Foreign investment in New Zealand means that capital is deployed where it is needed most, and an increase in the number of valid investors in businesses and entities in New Zealand can only be a good thing. The other way in which foreign direct investment benefits New Zealand is through spill-over benefits that arguably improve everyone’s living standards. This is particularly the case with commercial direct investment.

Foreign investment can be associated with negative spill-overs too, and that’s why this bill exempts residential land and is subject to national security tests. We believe that the biggest barrier to foreign investment isn’t a threat by the capital that’s out there, because we have enough capital around the world; it is by politicians and their interests as parties, imposing more restrictions on foreign ownership rules, not working on programmes that relate to this country. In that sense, this bill is apolitical and wants to derive benefits for all of New Zealand. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill, and I look forward to reaction from the rest of the House.

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Sadly, we won’t be supporting this bill, for three reasons, really: first, it’s unnecessary, and it’s expensive for the taxpayer because it is unnecessary; secondly, it mucks around with our World Trade Organization obligations and our free-trade agreement (FTA) obligations, so it’s quite untidy for our trade relationships and our foreign affairs; and, thirdly, it’s actually dangerous because it doesn’t manage foreign investment risk appropriately, and that’s because it’s based on flawed assumptions about the value base of OECD—or the guarantees around that—and also the whakapapa, if you like, of legal bodies, legal organisations, that can appear to be from an OECD country but actually belong with another national State actor.

In my view, this suggestion to have a three-page bill to muck around so much with years and years of really sophisticated negotiations with our trading partners shows the transactional nature with which the ACT Party sees the world. In Labour, it’s about relationship. It’s about getting long and enduring and trusted relationships, and that takes time. It’s not something that can be done with the flick of a pen, and a three-page bill because somebody thinks it’s a good idea to try and give status to certain countries based on some poor assumptions.

So the bill is the name of Damien Smith and I congratulate him for getting it drawn, and I really enjoy sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with him. He believes that the bill is going exempt investors and, basically, allow better foreign direct investment into our country, making it easier for investors to invest, to get stronger trade links, and to improve our quality of life. But I would say that Rt Hon Mike Moore, who was our former Prime Minister and the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) from 1999 to 2002, would probably turn in his grave if he thought we were even considering this. In fact, ACT has voted for those world trade agreements that we are signed up to.

So there’s no need for this legislation. We have a fit for purpose overseas investment regime. It does get updated and reviewed when it needs to. Most recently, we did that around the production forestry land-use, and back in 2018, quite high-profile changes were made around foreign investment in existing housing. So there is no need for change. Of course, that’s going to be one less burden for taxpayers.

But the Overseas Investment Act 2005, which is 207 pages long, does require overseas people to obtain consent for investments in certain New Zealand assets, and it’s taken a really balanced approach to that. It balances the need for foreign direct investment with security and with ensuring that the investments are made in the best interests of New Zealanders. So under that Act, overseas persons generally include bodies corporate that are more than 25 percent owned or controlled by non - New Zealanders.

The main feature, as I said before, is that the Act is country-neutral. It is about the transactions; it is not about the country. There are a couple of exceptions. Transactions relating to strategic assets, land transactions, and also Australia and Singaporean—certain transactions here. The Minister of Finance can consider country-specific risks when certain thresholds of investment are met, and that is where those relate to strategic assets where they could be a risk to national security.

So that regime, which has been carefully thought through and which is updated and reviewed, as I said, has a nuanced risk-management mechanism. It’s a bit of a sliding scale approach, so it has a backstop national interest test involving sensitive land and strategic assets—for example, if someone was wanting to purchase a major New Zealand media company. It has lower compliance requirements for investments in assets that are more productive and lower risk, and it has automatic exemptions for certain low-risk investments.

So that is the regime. It is fit for purpose and there is no need to change it. If we did change it in this way with this three-page bill, it would be really confusing to the most-favoured nation clauses in the trade agreements and WTO obligations. It would send a really weird signal to some of our trusted partners such as Fiji, Tonga, and the Solomon Islands, who are not in the OECD, but we’ve heard this morning, actually, from the Hon Phil Twyford, who’s the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, about the role that they’ve played recently in supporting and standing alongside New Zealand in negotiations around the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in New York.

So by taking all of these most favoured nations, which we would need to do under our WTO agreements, and bringing them in through the OECD mechanism, it would send a bit of a signal to our other friends and partners, either that we’re confused or, actually, that they’re excluded. That’s a difficult thing to explain to our Pacific nations, particularly if countries like Turkey then suddenly get this special status in New Zealand.

It’s also dangerous because the bill would allow investors to access the exemption by incorporating a vehicle in an OECD member country, regardless of where the ultimate ownership is. That could be a non-OECD country, or it could be a country like Russia, like China, or like many others where the value base for the assumption around the security risk of the OECD country is, therefore, flawed. Incorporation can be relatively easy; it doesn’t necessarily require material links to that country.

Under the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services and our FTAs, as I said, they would require virtually all foreign investment into New Zealand to be exempt from the Act’s screening requirements. Not only that, it would also link the OECD membership, but by linking that, it would cede some of the control of the screening regimes about high-level investments actually to the OECD, which is a further risk.

Damien Smith’s whole argument, really, is based on an assumption that the OECD trade relationships share the same rules-based values as New Zealand does in its free-trade agreements, and that simply isn’t true; it’s a flawed argument.

We are an open, outward-facing, trading nation. We’ve secured historic free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom, which sees a boost of almost $1 billion to New Zealand’s GDP in unprecedented access for our exporters. We’ve upgraded our China FTA. We have got a pretty solid FTA with the European Union, with a market of more than half a billion high-income consumers. We’ve got the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus, the trade that supports New Zealand and the Pacific, which would go a bit topsy-turvy, given that they are not in those are OECD countries, should we pass this bill.

Now, those relationships and those trade agreements have taken years and years to get over the line or to upgrade. They involved very sophisticated negotiation teams, considering very many balanced and nuanced considerations around trade, but also around security, around movement of people, around climate change, and around human rights. They are relationships that take time. They are not transactional in nature, and they are, in fact, what make New Zealand attractive for investment, because it means that when New Zealand goes into these relationships, we do so with eyes wide open, carefully, and knowing that we have a trusted base to work from.

That is the basis for us being an attractive place to invest, which is counter, in many ways, to the suggestion of this bill, which seeks to very quickly and, I would almost say, flippantly—in a three-page bill—take no heed of all of that history and simply open up a special club of countries that confuses the relationships we already have and makes assumptions about the type of value base that those countries will bring to their trading.

So with those remarks, as much as I enjoy sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with Damien Smith, and it is a shame that I don’t think we’ll be considering this bill with him—I commend him for taking the time to think about it. I know he’s passionate about finance and about our economy, but this bill is simply not the way to bring better direct foreign investment into New Zealand, and I cannot commend it to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The only words I agree with in Ingrid Leary’s contribution, just now, was that it is a shame that the Government can’t support this bill. I rise in support of Damien Smith’s Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill and congratulate the member on the bill being drawn.

The National Party does support this bill in principle, and that’s because we do think that there are advantages to it that should have gone to select committee to be teased out. We don’t think it’s perfect in its entirety, but we certainly do think that there are some good ideas in it. And that’s primarily because, as the Labour Party has once again demonstrated, they seem to think that money grows on trees. And most New Zealanders would realise that money most certainly does not grow on trees, that we have to earn it, and it is hard work earning it. In this country, we are small island nation at the bottom of the world. We rely on trade and we rely on foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign capital coming offshore to our nation to support us.

I, as the National spokesperson for Land Information New Zealand, which oversees the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), have been increasingly concerned, actually, by the performance of the OIO. It is, unfortunately, becoming slower and slower and slower and more expensive for applicants to turn-round applications for FDI, or foreign direct investment. It takes, on average, about 126 days, or 18 weeks, not to mention the millions of dollars for overseas investors to get a response out of the office—whether it is a yes; whether it is a no.

Because of that, New Zealand’s reputation is becoming increasingly hostile to offshore investors. We had an economist speak to us recently and they gave the lovely analogy that if you were a hotel or a resort developer and you looked at Switzerland and you looked at Queenstown to develop a resort, you’re going to choose Switzerland every day of the week, simply because New Zealand is hostile to offshore investors. As they say, as a small, isolated economy—

Anna Lorck: What about forestry?

NICOLA GRIGG: Well, Anna Lorck mentions, “What about forestry?” This is the same Government that’s looking at shutting off the special forestry test so there won’t be any more offshore investment in forestry. Anna Lorck, well done for pointing that out!

I have to say that this bill does make a heroic attempt to address some of those issues that I’ve raised. It will exempt investors from OECD nations from having to go through that OIO approval process—except, obviously, in respect of investments in residential land. We do believe that there are safeguards in place, particularly because, by its very nature, membership into the OECD does require a country to demonstrate a commitment to advancing democracy and, God forbid, market capitalism. But we also know that many OECD nations are already our allies on, particularly, national security issues.

So those are just my short comments to make. We are disappointed on behalf of Damien Smith. We would have liked to have seen this go to the select committee. We do think there are some good ideas. We do agree that there is some stuff that could have been ironed out, particularly any potential impact on existing free-trade agreements and those most-favoured nation clauses—but with those comments, we do support this bill, but unfortunately, Damien Smith, it has already been dealt the death knell.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I rise to oppose this bill. I also want to add my voice to others and congratulate Damien Smith for his hard work in bringing this bill to the House. I think sometimes we have to acknowledge when people work hard to bring their bills to this House. We don’t have to call them names, but we don’t necessarily have to support the bill. So congratulations, Damien, again.

This bill seeks to exempt investors from OECD countries from Overseas Investment Office approval to invest in New Zealand with an exception, of course, of investing in residential areas. While this investment would still be subject to the call-in regime where national security interests are at stake, the bill still has a lot of flaws. OECD countries are not our only trading markets. We do have other important and significant markets such as China and India, and those countries are not going to be included in this, and that itself is problematic.

I’d like to list some of the things that the bill intends to do. The member in charge said the bill has an ability to reduce barriers to investment from other like-minded countries, improving the quality of enjoyment by all New Zealanders. And the second point he made is that he goes on to say that New Zealand has highly restrictive laws which put up needless barriers for foreign direct investment with the overall impact of reducing investment and making us poorer.

I think that these are really pessimistic points to make, because we actually have a very successful trading regime in New Zealand, thanks to our hard-working trade Minister, who has been overseas quite a few times. Individually, he has signed a lot of free-trade agreements (FTAs)—the European Union, the UK, and a quite few others are under way as well.

The reason why we don’t support this bill is simply it violates several FTAs that we have with several countries, and, in doing so, it neglects New Zealand’s obligation to those countries. ACT is actually a signatory to this regime and the member is, of course, a member of the ACT Party. The bill would not achieve its purpose, because non-OECD countries, such as China, would gain the same overseas investment access through the most favoured nation clauses in trade agreements and World Trade Organization obligations. So these are all the things that are going to restrict this bill. New Zealand has actually a very satisfactory system for overseas investment, which has undergone recent amendments. I think my colleague Ingrid Leary successfully has listed some of those things. So I think this bill is really a waste of taxpayers’ money.

I would like to mention some of the successful productive investment regimes that New Zealand has. The Labour Party Government is committed to maintaining New Zealand as open and outward-facing as a trading nation. We are supporting exporters in pursuing an ambitious trade policy to help New Zealand businesses succeed overseas. We are upgrading our free-trade agreement with China and secured an historic FTA with the United Kingdom, which adds $1 billion to New Zealand’s GDP and unprecedented access to its markets.

Now, as we reconnect with the world, we are delivering a programme for trade and tourism delegations into a number of priority international markets. We are also focused on concluding some free-trade agreements that are under way now. Labour will continue to negotiate modern, high-quality, free-trade agreements which promote adherence to environmental and labour markets.

Like I said in my introductory remarks, the OECD countries are not the only important trading partners. We have significant markets and there is a lot of work under way to consolidate our trading relationship with those markets. On that note, unfortunately, I oppose this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to acknowledge the kind remarks that have been made about the member who has put forward this bill, Damien Smith. Of course it’s important that every member of this House has the opportunity to put forward legislation they believe in.

The Green Party’s view, and longstanding view, is that the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment. We have limited natural resources. Land, in particular, is limited. We need to use that in a way that is sustainable and equitable. In order to achieve that, we need to reverse some of the trends from the 1980s and 1990s, which were all about enabling certain people to get enormously wealthy off exploitative types of activities, which include ownership. You know, foreign ownership is not good for New Zealand. So the Green Party is not going to support this bill. We’d like to see more restrictions on foreign ownership of strategic assets in New Zealand.

The Green Party absolutely supports an inclusive approach to migration and to relationships with other people in our country—you know, we want to be part of the global community. But enabling foreign ownership of strategic assets in New Zealand does not help New Zealanders. Foreign investors often are rent seeking; they are exploiting and extracting profits, not creating wealth, and there’s a really important distinction about that.

The economy is just one part of how humans interact with one another and how we achieve support for our societies. There’s a whole lot of work that people do that is not paid, that does not pay off. The idea that, somehow, private foreign ownership of things is helping New Zealanders is, unfortunately, wrong. I think most New Zealanders inherently understand that. Of course, the Green Party has long advocated for a much more sustainable approach to trade and a fairer approach to trade. We want our trade agreements to prioritise fair pay and a sustainable use of natural resources because, right now, the way that global trade is set up, it enables certain people who already have most of the wealth to extract even more of that. What we end up doing is exporting pollution, exporting, you know, poor labour relations—to the detriment of people and the environment in New Zealand and around the world.

So, unfortunately, this bill is not a bill that the Green Party can support. We will continue to advocate for a sustainable and inclusive approach to the economy, which recognises that money is just a symbol—it is a symbol. No, it doesn’t grow on trees; it’s created by banks. What we need to recognise is what creates true value for our people. Without clean water, without clean air, without healthy soil, we have nothing. Without sustainable forestry products that are available to people here in New Zealand, we’re not able to build houses. We saw what happened when there are global supply chain shortages. Even though we are growing wood here in New Zealand, it was difficult to get processed timber for builders here in New Zealand. Some of that is the legacy of the 1980s and 1990s, taking this neo-liberal approach, opening up New Zealand, selling off assets that had been built up by generations of citizens and residents. We don’t want to see that trend continue, so the Green Party will continue to advocate for a different approach, one that will protect our climate and protect people, and get fairer outcomes, not simply enrich those who already have the most wealth and who have no stake in New Zealand.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you for this opportunity to take a call. First of all, to Damien Smith, congratulations for getting your bill drawn. I think that you deserve the respect of knowing why we’re not going to support it and why I’m not going to support it, so I’m going to just go through that now for you.

This is an issue about a regime which has been set up for good reason. As the Hon Julie Anne Genter has said, land is of particular significance. You can’t take back land that you sell elsewhere. So while I appreciate that it is often good to have investment in our country, and I don’t want to stop that entirely, I do want to take it really seriously before that land is alienated from New Zealanders. So, for me, at the moment the Act actually is really doing a good job of striking that balance. It looks at that land and it looks at the sensitivity of it. It recognises that it is taonga and actually then it sets up a different threshold for people coming in from overseas.

The problem with this bill that I see is that it lists a whole lot of countries as if it’s suddenly somehow a good thing that they come in, when, in fact, the focus of the test is not that. It’s not about which country. It’s about: is it a good thing that this land will be owned or alienated in these circumstances? So I think we’ve got the test right. I don’t want it opened to a whole raft of countries in the OECD.

But, further, I became concerned when I looked at the bill that it didn’t actually restrict in the way it suggested it was going to anyway, because there were so many ways around it. A company could set up in the OECD, and suddenly there they would be from a different place. All sorts of people could structure around this, and our land would be sold without the kind of actual thought and thought process that we have set up. I just cannot see that as being a good idea. So I don’t accept that there are safeguards in this bill that stop that.

I do think that what we have in place at the present time is not a broken system; I think it’s a good system. I think it’s a very sound way of approaching a problem but also an opportunity. I don’t think it stops investment; it just simply makes people pause and think and re-evaluate, and evaluate in the circumstances of that potential investment.

There’s obviously an issue with the free-trade agreement arrangements. There’s also an issue with most favoured nation status. So those are the things that back up that. But, basically, it comes back to something really fundamental. This is sensitive land. This is important. It’s interesting that even the member excludes residential land. There has been a lesson learnt there. But this is a situation where there’s a lot more to it than that, and I don’t want to see farmers alienated in the way that they have been in the past. I don’t want to see those kinds of things.

I’m kind of surprised to see Nicola Grigg supporting the bill when, in fact, I know that she comes from a background with a long history in farming in New Zealand. I think those cultural things are really important. They’re not just important to Māori; they’re incredibly important to people who’ve been here and they’ve had a connection with the land and they don’t want to lose it.

So I’m not as severe in terms of the position as my friend Julie Anne Genter has been. I don’t need to accuse anyone of rent seeking. I would question sometimes the value of that economic input, because I don’t think it’s always as strong as it’s made out by an ideological position that the ACT Party takes—I just don’t think it is—but I do think what is very, very important here is that we don’t undermine a regime that has been set up for good reason. Lessons have been learnt and now they’re consolidated in an Act, and I don’t want to see that actually alienate land from New Zealand. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Todd Moller.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): “Mull-er”, Mr Speaker, but despite that inaccuracy, Mr Greg O’Connor, I do want to acknowledge your elevation. I think that’s a great appointment. You’re a fine man with a few years on the clock, and, as I get closer to your years, I remember that that comes with wisdom, and it’s good to see someone wise in the Chair.

Look, I just want to acknowledge Damien. It’s pretty clear that this lot are going to boot this out at its first hurdle, but thank you for providing an opportunity to shed a light again on the Government’s irrational fear of foreign investment. Because what we’ve heard today over the last five or six speeches is just framing up their concern that somehow if you have capital that isn’t grown in this country, then that somehow is going to be a challenge to our sovereignty. They don’t understand New Zealand’s place in the global world. Their view is a constrained one, a hermit kingdom one: we’ll drag our feet at opening up to the rest of the world. Access to capital and the nature of capital in terms of global flows are something that they simply don’t understand, are not attracted to, and they would rather not have New Zealand participate in a global economy.

It’s a shame that it appears that your bill is not going to get the rigour and discussion that would occur in a select committee. But thank you again for allowing not only this House but those that watch these proceedings to get an insight in terms of their vision for the country, which is pretty unattractive. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge Damien Smith for having his member’s bill drawn. I find it difficult, though, to fathom how as a country we don’t see a reason to put foreign investment into land through the investment office.

Part of this conversation seems to be that we are not open for business or open for foreign investment. As someone who comes from the region of Hawke’s Bay, where we have seen jobs grown and foreign investment into business activity that meets the special-benefit test for New Zealand, I see a positive environment and messages out to the world that where there is a strength and opportunity to grow jobs, to see the best of our primary sector doing well through foreign investment, we embrace it, and we have done so, and history shows that.

But I find is absolutely ironic to hear from the National Party that they seem to think that it’s OK to have foreign investors come in and buy up our rolling hill country land with no sniff test—and it is a sniff test—no sniff test. When I look at the amazing information that we’re able to get, we get the information coming through the Overseas Investment Act, and through that we can have a look at the investments, we can see whether this will benefit our country, we can see how much it is important to work in those areas. But, no, the National Party seems to think back in the time when they sold off thousands of hectares of beautiful rolling hill country to foreign investors.

But we can also see, through the Labour Party, that this Government—this Government—embraces foreign investment where it matters for New Zealand. That’s how we grow our economy. We’ve made sure, through calls from farmers, actually, to tighten up the investment around making sure we plant the right tree in the right place for the right reason.

Actually, when I sat on that committee, when we talked through that on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we heard many reasons around why it’s important to have these extra tests. New Zealanders do not want our land sold off without there being scrutiny. Scrutiny is what we do as a Government; it’s our responsibility to do so.

That’s why we can’t support this bill. That’s why I don’t see there being any reason to change what we are doing now, where we are making sure that we do look at it and we make sure that those have a special interest, a benefit to New Zealand. We’ll make sure that we grow the right jobs, we work with foreign investment, we attract business, and we show that we are open for business.

That’s why we can’t support this member’s bill, but, in doing so, as we go forward today in speaking about this, somebody else’s member’s bill, through a voting process, as we go through this first reading, may get the opportunity to be pulled out at the end.

But as we go through—and I think we’re about to agree on this side—we cannot support this. We cannot support New Zealand’s land being sold off without scrutiny. That’s the job of the Overseas Investment Office. They’ve got a job; they need to be given it. New Zealanders respect the fact that land needs to go through this scrutiny. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I cannot support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Thursday)