Tuesday, 27 September 2022

TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve asked Naisi Chen to say the prayer in Mandarin, celebrating New Zealand Chinese Language Week.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): 全能的上帝，为你赐给我们的恩惠，献上我们的感恩。抛开所有个人利益，我们承认国王，并祈祷在我们议案的讨论与决策中得到主的指导。使我们能够以智慧、正义、仁慈和谦逊的态度处理国会事务，为了新西兰的福祉与和平，奉主基督耶稣的名祷告， 阿门。

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Layba Zubair requesting that the House urge the Government to reform the current consent laws.

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

CLERK:

Armed Forces Canteen Council, report for the year ended 31 March 2022

Māori Purposes Fund Board, annual report for the year ended 31 March 2022

Education New Zealand, Statement of Performance Expectations 2022/23 and Statement of Intent 2022-26.

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

CLERK: Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Alexandra Birt, Brenda Tairi, Helen Paddison, Ingrid Shaw, and Zorawar Mann.

SPEAKER: 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): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. Yes, on World Tourism Day, it is worth noting the Government’s work to reconnect New Zealand with the world. Overseas visitor arrivals exceeded 100,000 in July. There’s been a 20 percent month-on-month increase in capacity from key US destinations, with a total of five airlines flying to and from North America, offering up to 60 flights per week. By summer, that will be eight destinations, and we’ll see the return of United Airlines and American Airlines. We know Aotearoa New Zealand remains a top global visitor destination and it’s pleasing to see our hospitality restaurants, hotels, ski fields, and tourist attractions filling back up.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government introducing a 2.8 percent tax on all salaries and wages to fund an income insurance scheme during a cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, to correct the member, he’ll well know that this work that we’re doing—alongside the Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ—would not be due to come into place until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. I think also the really important point to make is that every year approximately 100,000 New Zealanders will lose their jobs. But we know in times of crisis, like, for instance, the global financial crisis (GFC), that number was 200,000. Each occasion where we have seen economic crises, rightly you’ve seen Governments of different persuasions—the National Party included—stepping in to make sure we don’t see significant economic scarring. Either way taxpayers pay, this is a way of ensuring there’s that certainty for New Zealanders around their future should we see such economic crises or, indeed, health issues.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that the 2.8 percent levy her Government is proposing is a tax on every Kiwi with a job, and why is she introducing a jobs tax during a cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d be interested to know whether or not the member considers the ACC levy in the same way. And the second point that I would make is that when it comes to quantums, final decisions have not yet been made. But given 100,000 New Zealanders lose their job everywhere—and everyone in this room would know someone who has been affected through significant health conditions such as, for instance, an experience with cancer—giving them surety around their future is something that many New Zealanders would welcome.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government planning to rake in $3.5 billion more in tax from workers and employers every year when Kiwis are already struggling with the cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to the cost of living issues that New Zealanders are facing, as are many other citizens around the world, we’ve worked very hard to make sure that we are, through targeted spending, working hard to decrease those impacts. We’ve done that through the cost of living payment, of which there is a final payment to be made; a 25c reduction in fuel costs at the pump, through to January next year; half-price public transport; increasing the family tax credit. The difference between us and the National Party on these issues, where they’ve opposed those moves, is they would prefer decreases to the top tax rate. We do not believe now is the time for such measures; it would also be inflationary and would not benefit those who need it most.

Christopher Luxon: How is it fair that a Kiwi worker earning $60,000 will end up paying an extra $830 a year in tax under this scheme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve already said around the social employment insurance, of course we had not finalised some of the final measures around that and nor would they be set to come into play in 2024 and 2025. But this country has now experienced the economic shocks of the GFC, the Christchurch earthquake, the pandemic. On each occasion, the Government’s stepped in with taxpayers’ money in order to lessen the impact of those and lessen economic scarring. We are one of the few OECD nations that does not have a comparable scheme. This is looking to ensure that we fill that gap.

Hon James Shaw: What year did the Future of Work Tripartite Forum first float the idea of this scheme, and are there any members of this House who were members of that at the time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member makes a good point. It was several years ago that social insurance was first raised, and, of course, some members in this House were part of things like business advisory councils that, if I recall, at that time did have a focus on training and support for workers. But now that Business New Zealand is involved, there seems to be some distancing from that piece of work.

Christopher Luxon: How much of the cost of the 1.4 percent tax on employers is expected to be passed on to workers through lower wages, and how much will be passed on to consumers through higher prices?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t believe that most OECD nations who have a scheme such as this would draw that same comparison that the member is making. The second point I would make is that I know the member has launched a petition today, and what I would again point out is that ongoing work is still being undertaken on the final details. I would also, again, just reiterate that most New Zealanders will know someone who, in their lifetimes, will either lose their job because of issues within their workplace or because they have a significant health event. Most New Zealanders do not have things like income insurance, and so we should be thinking about what we can do to lessen the economic scarring that our economy feels through those events, but also that a worker experiences.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that this Government’s spending is just so out of control it’s running out of new things to tax, and, with the jobs tax, Kiwi workers are just the latest victim of her finance Minister’s inability to make tough decisions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. But if you want to start talking about the facts, how about debt at half the rate of Australia’s, record low unemployment at just over 3 percent, more than 215,000 New Zealanders have taken up free apprenticeships, a 61 percent increase in apprentices since the pandemic, 3,800 young people in He Poutama Rangatahi, 5,200 in Mana in Mahi, and 66,000 children lifted out of poverty? We are focused on how we can support New Zealanders and workers through hard times; that member is not.

Christopher Luxon: Is she committed to pushing through this jobs tax, or do hard-working Kiwis have a chance to stop it like they did with her KiwiSaver tax, her wealth tax, and her capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I really question the proposition the member is putting forward, and, again, what I would also point out is that whilst that side of the House went through the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes and still chose to do nothing to fix the system, we’ve gone through a pandemic and we are determined that New Zealand will be better prepared to look after its workers in the future. That member is happy to pay out in times of crisis, but not to fix the foundations of our country; that is why National is not good for New Zealand.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the last time New Zealanders faced a cost of living crisis the Government of the day increased GST, hiked up ACC levies, increased fuel tax, and started taxing KiwiSaver contributions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, that’s right. In fact, they increased quite a few taxes and never ever told the electorate about it. When it comes to the work that we’re doing, we’ve quite openly said this is going to take time, it won’t likely be in place until 2024/25, and we are quite happy to have the debate with New Zealanders about how we can best prepare to support them in the future.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: 谢谢 and Talofa, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Activity in the manufacturing sector is expanding at a faster pace in the last month. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index rose to 54.9 in August—its highest level of activity in over a year, and above the long-term average of 53.1. BNZ’s economists said the result suggested an improving tone around underlying growth.

Barbara Edmonds: What does the report say about the drivers of growth in manufacturing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The pick-up was led by new orders at 59.2, the highest level in this area since July 2021, while production at 54.6 was at its highest point for 2022, and employment expanded to 53.6.

Barbara Edmonds: How does this level of activity compare globally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Internationally, expansion in manufacturing slowed in August to 50.3, from 51.1, so New Zealand’s expansion at 54.9 compares well. It compares with 51.1 in the US and Japan, while manufacturing actually contracted in August in the UK, China, the EU, and Australia. It is tough times for many people out there but there’s every reason to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector has also picked up pace. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index rose to 58.6 in August, and above the long-term average of 53.6, with significant growth in sales and new orders. Combining the activity levels for services and manufacturing sectors, the composite suggests annual GDP growth of up to 5 percent in the September quarter. On that basis, BNZ’s economists have upgraded their forecast for GDP in the September and December quarters. Again, every reason to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy going into summer.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The OECD’s latest interim economic outlook has revised downwards its forecast for global growth due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It now expects global growth to slow to 2.2 percent in 2023, from a forecast in June of 2.8 percent. Inflation is expected to ease but will remain at high levels for longer. Our economic plan is working for New Zealanders to make sure that we are well placed to respond to the volatile and uncertain global environment. Unemployment is near record low levels, exports are rising, the economy is bigger than before the pandemic, and our debt levels are among the lowest in the world. There’s every reason—

Christopher Luxon: They don’t feel it though, eh?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to be optimistic about the New Zealand economy, Mr Luxon.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: 你好, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Does she believe her Government has done enough to curb the cost of living when the Reserve Bank reports that inflation expectations are for inflation to be at 4.86 percent a year from now and ANZ have increased their peak official cash rate forecast to 4.75 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You will have seen that this Government has taken a number of measures to try and ease the impact of inflation on households. At the same time that we’ve done that, we have been very focused on ensuring that that support is both timely and targeted so as to ensure that we don’t exacerbate inflationary pressures.

David Seymour: Why aren’t these policies working?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the reasons that inflation has increased in the way that we’ve seen are many and, for the most part, tend to be international factors. The fact that we are in amongst the lowest set within the OECD is testament to that. When you look at, for instance, the impacts in the UK, the United States, those we compare ourselves to, they’ve seen much higher rates of inflation. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we can to ease the pressure on households.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that a higher official cash rate (OCR) will mean higher mortgage rates, and is she aware that nearly all banks are now offering fixed-term rates over 6 percent, floating rates headed for 7 percent—a point and a half more than Australians are paying?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am aware of the impacts of the increase in the official cash rate. I’m also aware that many other economies like ours are seeing their central banks increasing their OCRs.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s announcement of an income insurance scheme, and is she aware it will cost a worker on the median wage of $59,000, $1,634 per year on top of those other costs they’re currently facing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer both parts of the question, firstly, as I reiterated in my first answers, whilst we’ve been working on an income insurance scheme, the final details have not at this stage been finalised. The second point: the earliest we would see implementation is 2024-25. We are looking to be well beyond some of the impacts we’re seeing in inflation right now.

David Seymour: Is she aware that such a worker on the median wage with a partner in part-time work, children, and paying a typical rental or average mortgage, would get about $780 a week from the Ministry of Social Development right now, and would also get $780 from income insurance, meaning that families dependent on the median wage are no better off but pay an extra 2.8 percent tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I come back to my last answer, around the final details of a social insurance scheme, but a broader point that I would make is that that same family could be amongst the 100,000 to 200,000 people that lose their jobs in times of economic crisis. At the moment, we all acknowledge that we have a system that for those, for instance, who have been in work, the significant economic scarring of job loss, the economy and those individuals feel deeply and for long periods. That is why most OECD economies we would compare ourselves to have some form of scheme that is similar. The second point that I would make is that, God forbid, any family member ever experiences job loss where the main household income earner, for instance, experiences a prolonged medical illness like cancer. At the moment, we do not have levels of protection other than the safety net of our benefits scheme, and for many that leads to significant hardship. We are trying to improve that but also the worker insurance we have as well.

David Seymour: Which of the things the Prime Minister just said make any difference to the basic fact that, under her proposed scheme, someone on the median wage will pay $1,634 in additional levies and if they lose their job, or in the horrible situation of getting cancer, as the Prime Minister mentioned, they would get the same $780 that they’re already entitled to on a benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Many of those family members wouldn’t find themselves eligible for a benefit. Secondly, like ACC, it would allow them to receive, for instance, as was currently proposed, up to as high as 80 percent of their lost income. That is a significant difference to what’s available to them now. But, as I’ve said, I’m happy to discuss and debate the finer details once they’ve been resolved and finalised.

David Seymour: Does she stand by Grant Robertson’s statement this morning, “The mood of the boardroom has never exactly been a Labour Party love fest”? And, if so, why does she think business leaders rate her and her Government so poorly?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course I support the Minister of Finance and the statements that he’s made. I also support the decisions that he’s taken that have seen us, despite having experienced a one-in-100-year economic shock, having some of the lowest unemployment we have on record, a stronger economy than before we went into COVID, a lower percentage of people on benefits than after the global financial crisis, more apprentices, a reduction in child poverty—the things that we measure ourselves against.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it Government policy to introduce an income insurance scheme; if so, how would this scheme be funded?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is committed to the introduction of such a scheme, although final decisions on the scheme’s design have not yet been made by Cabinet. But the earliest that the scheme would be introduced is in the 2024-25 financial year. We are one of only a few countries in the OECD that doesn’t have a scheme of this nature, meaning that when redundancy or health conditions and disability results in someone losing their job, as occurs for more than 100,000 New Zealanders a year, they get far less support than those in practically any other advanced country. The scheme was developed at the urging of Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to provide an enduring solution to protect people and the economy after job losses like those seen in the Canterbury earthquakes and COVID-19. In answer to the second part of the question, the set-up costs of the scheme are being met by the Government while payments to New Zealanders who lose their jobs and to operate the scheme, will be funded by levies on employers and employees.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the Salvation Army, who said of the Government’s proposed scheme, “It will result in a two-tiered approach to welfare that is more likely to increase inequalities than reduce them.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I do not. What I think the scheme will do is fill a gap in our social security system, a gap that Governments of all shades have had to fill with ad hoc measures in the past. More than 100,000 New Zealanders lose their job every year. Not everyone has redundancy agreements. Not everyone can afford income insurance. This is about making sure that social security in New Zealand is provided for all. And on the other part of the member’s question, I’d say in this House we’re proud of the fact that we’ve increased benefits in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The member’s crocodile tears on that don’t work because National opposed that.

Nicola Willis: How much would the levy remove from the pay packet of a worker earning $60,000 a year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have those numbers with me. But what I can say is for a person earning approximately that much, they would pay around $16.12 a week in levies. And if they lost their job or if they got cancer, they would receive $928 per week in insurance payments. This is about making sure that every New Zealander is protected from the worst thing happening in terms of redundancy or getting a serious illness.

Nicola Willis: Why does he want to force New Zealanders to pay more tax when we already have a welfare system and when they’re already struggling with rising prices and mortgage payments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I want to make sure is that New Zealanders are protected in the event that they lose their job through redundancy or a health condition. The member’s own party did this in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes. We did it in the wake of COVID. It is better to have a long-term scheme, as almost every other country in the OECD does, rather than an ad hoc scheme.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that one of the reasons that a social unemployment insurance scheme has been supported by both Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions is that in addition to providing income protection, the scheme as consulted upon would also provide supports to assist workers who have been displaced to get back into the labour force, thus preventing long-term unemployment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is exactly correct and it is one of the driving reasons for the support for this scheme in other parts of the world. Active labour market policies are an important part of the scheme. People do have obligations under the scheme to be able to take up work and take up training opportunities. This is done all over the world because it is the right thing to do to protect people in the event of the worst thing happening at their work place.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand is experiencing record worker shortages and does he understand that, in that context, the last thing New Zealand workers and businesses want is to pay yet another tax to pay for a gold-plated welfare scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Government does not intend to introduce this scheme until at least 2024-25. And I’ve got a prediction for you that, when we get to that point, the National Party will do just as they did with KiwiSaver, just as they did with the super fund, just as they did for Working for Families: they criticise it in opposition, they vote against it, and then they keep it. And they would do exactly the same thing if, God forbid, they got into Government.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister’s answer to every challenge to ask New Zealanders to pay more tax and to make a grab on pay packets that are already going backwards in real terms?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat again for the member: the scheme is not designed to be introduced until the 2024-25 financial year. What we have done is work with Business New Zealand, work with the Council of Trade Unions, to come up with a scheme that supports people when they lose their job through redundancy, that makes sure they’re looked after if they get cancer and they can’t work, and that helps people retrain. This is a conventional social security measure used all over the OECD, and I think it is the right thing for New Zealand to do.

Question No. 5—Education

5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: 谢谢 and talofa, Mr Speaker. What action is the Government taking to target resources more effectively towards schools with greater educational challenges?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government’s delivering on its promise to introduce a new way of funding schools through an equity index, making sure that the right support is going to the schools and the students who need it the most. Last week, we released school funding for next year, and nearly 90 percent of schools will see an increase in their funding as we shift away from the old decile funding system.

Marja Lubeck: How will this change in funding benefit the parts of the country that need it most?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools and kura in Te Tai Tokerau have the biggest average increase of around $223 per pupil while schools in areas like South Auckland will also receive a significant average increase of around $70 per pupil. This change in the way we allocate school funding means that those schools that have the highest concentrations of disadvantaged students will get the biggest increases in funding.

Marja Lubeck: Will any schools in 2023 be worse off as a result of these changes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. We are putting in place transitional funding that means that no school will receive a reduction in their per-pupil equity and isolation funding due to these changes. In future years, any reduction is capped at a maximum of 5 percent of their total 2022 operational funding.

Marja Lubeck: Will the introduction of the equity index also increase access to other Government programmes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Around 155 schools will now be able to access additional support through the extra cash instead of school donations scheme as a result of the introduction of the equity index. If those schools and kura decide to join the scheme, the family and whānau of around 47,000 extra young people will no longer be asked for donations.

Marja Lubeck: Is eligibility to any other Government programme also increased?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The changes will also see a further 24 schools and kura join the Free and Healthy School Lunches Programme. That means that around another 3,000 children will be eligible to receive a free healthy lunch at school. This is another example of how the Government is levelling the playing field so that all kids get a fair shot at education.

Question No. 6—Police

6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Can he confirm that there were several violent robberies experienced by members of the public over the last week, and is the Government’s approach to retail crime working?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Yes, and, like most other New Zealanders, I’ve been disgusted by the recent scenes of offending. This behaviour is completely unacceptable and it has no place in our country. The Government takes these crimes very seriously. I understand that police have arrested 14 young people in Auckland and Waikato over the weekend alone. Police are ramping up the roll-out of crime prevention schemes, and we’re putting more resources into prevention so that these individuals get on to better pathways rather than getting into trouble in the first place. Police are actively following up these events to ensure that the young people involved face the consequences of their actions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Since announcing his policy around prevention, how many additional young people have been brought into that programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That was only a couple of weeks ago and we haven’t got the latest updated numbers, but I do expect that we’ll be getting regular updates on that, so I’m happy to provide the member with the numbers when they do start to come through.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What’s his response to a retail worker at St Lukes whose husband now has to tell them to be careful at work and who says that “The whole thing is just a disgrace, the Government, … people getting away with it, … it’s just really sad in our country.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely think that the situation those retail workers have been put in is unacceptable; no amount of target hardening, though, is going to solve that problem. If you look at the smash-and-grab that happened in the mall in the Waikato in the weekend, it was truly horrific. A group of young people—a significant group of young people—with hammers went into a busy shopping mall in the middle of the day and undertook serious criminal offending in front of a whole lot of onlookers. There is no amount of target hardening that’s going to stop that type of behaviour. Therefore, we do have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get these young people back on to the straight and narrow and prevent the offending in the first place, and we will ensure that those young people who have undertaken this type of offending are identified and that the follow-up action is taken and that they’re held accountable for their actions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many offenders for these aggravated robberies and ram raids have been convicted?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t got the numbers of convictions; I have got the numbers of prosecutions, though. So if we look at Auckland since the beginning of the year, 73 of these types of events have happened there. There have been 42 prosecutions, 43 referrals to youth aid, and seven cases remain under active investigation. In the Counties Manukau area, of the 64 events, 50 prosecutions have followed that, followed by 23 youth referrals, and seven remain under active investigation. Of the 71 in the Waikato, 40 prosecutions have followed, nine youth referrals, and 12 are under active investigation.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific, and the reason why it was directed at convictions is because that’s where the real consequence lies. The Minister has come to this House and he is actually unable to tell this House how many convictions there have been in relation to these ram raids and aggravated robberies. I think it’s a very basic question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, he did start out the answer—you can go back and look at Hansard, but he started out saying that he didn’t have those figures and presented other information that he thought might be helpful, I guess.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What percentage of offenders are being apprehended and charged for these offences?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I just gave those numbers. If the member cared to listen to my previous answer, I went through the number of ram raids, the number of young people who have been prosecuted, the number of young people who have been referred to youth justice as a result, and the number of cases that are still under investigation.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many of the offenders responsible for these ram raids and these aggravated robberies and the tsunami of violent retail offending in the last year—how many have been charged?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In Auckland City, there have been 73 incidents, 42 prosecutions, 43 youth referrals—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The original supplementary was that I asked for a percentage of how many of the offenders have been charged. He’s just giving me a number, not a percentage. That’s an important number in terms of how much offending has been going on.

SPEAKER: You can’t require the Minister to answer exactly the way you want it, and you certainly can’t do it by interrupting him, because you don’t know that he might have given that at the end of that answer. I don’t know, you don’t know, and now the House will never know, I guess.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about supporting sustainable agricultural practices?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Last week, the Government announced our participation in a new agricultural initiative with partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a four-year climate-smart agricultural programme, driven in partnership by the Ministry for Primary Industries and other agencies in the Global Research Alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases.

Jo Luxton: What will this initiative aim to achieve?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The programme supports the region’s policy makers, researchers, farmers, and indigenous producers in their understanding and use of low-emission and productivity-enhancing agricultural systems, technologies, and practices. This Government recognises that climate change is a global issue and that we are contributing $10 million in partnership with Latin America and the Caribbean because we know our collective interests depend on adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change on our environment. New Zealand does not exist in isolation, and it is key that we are able to share our knowledge of technology and innovative practices with other nations.

Jo Luxton: Well, how does this fit with the Government’s domestic commitments to sustainable agriculture?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Our food and fibre sector exports see lifting sustainability as vital to creating export value. This Government is committed to supporting that effort, given how vital the sector is to our economic security. We’ve worked in collaboration with farmers and growers, through the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, towards a pricing system for agricultural emissions and a pathway to reduce them. This is a world-first, and many other countries are following with great interest. In addition, we’ve committed $55 million over four years to establish the On Farm Support service. This is an on the ground service which will focus on reaching out to primary producers who are not currently well-linked with industry initiatives or advisers, to help them access information they need to meet incoming regulatory requirements.

Jo Luxton: What other Government support exists for sustainable agricultural projects?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More good news. Look, through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund, the Government has co-invested, with business, over $517 million to support problem-solving and innovation. There are now over 200 Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures projects exploring a wide range of opportunities to diversify our exports, capture value, and progress our sustainability credentials.

Jo Luxton: What projects have recently been funded through the Sustainable Food and Fibres Futures fund?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just this month, in fact, we announced $17.6 million to support the Sustainable Food and Fibres Futures fund for the Whenua Haumanu project with Massey University, working with Lincoln University and many other agencies, including AgResearch. It’s a $26.1 million programme and will be New Zealand’s largest ever study on the sustainability of our farming sector. The data collected will enable farmers to make informed decisions on the financial and environmental benefits of adopting regenerative farming practices, if they should choose to.

Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing)

8. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Is he committed to providing capacity-building and financial support to iwi and hapū to deliver housing for people in need in their rohe?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Yes. In Budget 2021, this Government made the largest investment into Māori housing, committing $730 million to deliver Māori housing supply and infrastructure. To date, we have contracted 739 houses, repaired 286 houses, enabled 1,112 infrastructure sites, and provided $8.6 million in capability funding. This Government is delivering on the promises we made to work in partnership with Māori and to deliver a better Māori housing future for our whānau.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is he aware that the Government engagement on the Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme was stopped, and, if so, what does he say to the many whānau who were relying on housing being provided through this programme and who are here today?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I say to those whānau, we are still committed to working with hapū and iwi to ensure that Māori housing aspirations are met. I’ve checked with my officials to see the interactions made between my department and the whānau involved, and I say to them—and to the member who has asked the question—the commitment is still there.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What secure housing alternatives would he propose for kuia and koroua such as Hine Boynton who lost her house to a fire and Tangi and Edward Munn who live without power and sewerage, all of whom are in their 80s and all of them would have had housing provided through the Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Housing aspirations right across the country, while they might have similar themes, are still different. I’ve always made the analogy that if you look towards a whare on a marae, they all look the same but the carvings inside are different, wherever you might go. Therefore, bespoke remedies to those challenges are really important, and why I say that is because, for example, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the access to supply to be able to remedy those challenges are a bit more readily available than, say, Waimana Valley.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m committed to ensuring that we continue to partner with hapū and iwi to deliver more affordable housing for Māori.”, and if so, does this include partnering with hapū to deliver housing for mothers like Wilhelmina Waitiri Hiakita-Butler, Gemma Hiakita, and Torerenui-A-Rua Te Pau who were struggling to provide secure housing for their whānau, and two of whom lost deposits because Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme was stopped without notice?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I continue to reiterate my support for Māori housing aspirations. I want to draw the member’s attention to a particular initiative called Toitū Tairāwhiti, which brings together hapū and iwi right across the Tairawhiti to make sure that we can meet their housing aspirations. In fact, there will be even further exciting announcements with respect to that partnership in the very near future. I also want to point out to the member and this House that through Wai 2570 stage one hearing into Māori housing, it was made quite clear that Māori aren’t starting at the same pace and at the same time as every other sector in this country. In fact, it shows quite the inequities that have plagued Māori housing aspiration for many years. This Government has stood up to that challenge, made a commitment, committed dollars, and are getting on with the mahi. There is lots more mahi to do. This isn’t a perfect system, but I am still committed to making sure that Māori housing aspirations continue to be met.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will he instruct relevant Government agencies to reconsider the approach to supporting Te Waimana Kaaku housing programme so that these whānau and others can have secure local housing provided by their own hapū?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I make the commitment to that member and to the members listening in this House that I’m more than happy to meet with Waimana Kaaku to continue to discuss their housing aspirations. But I do want to be very clear: we are committed to Māori housing aspiration. Our investment has made it clear, the way that we have continued to work makes it clear, and what I’ve asked my officials to do is look at the interactions that have all of a sudden created this perception that this has been stopped—what’s been told to me by the advisers is actually at no point in time have they seen any withdrawal of support for this matter, which makes my commitment to meet with the whānau even more solid in the House today, sir.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he agree that the Crown has an ongoing obligation to uphold the tino rangatiratanga of hapū over kāinga, and, if so, how is the Crown upholding this obligation, with respect to Te Waimana?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yes, we are. I want to present this particular document to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House called He Tapuae which works with Tuhoe to look towards how we can support their housing aspirations. What was made clear through this particular engagement is it was multi-Government agencies working alongside Tuhoe to realise those aspirations. In that particular document, it goes on to say that as chosen by the He Tapuae agreement, that there are commitments in Tāneatua, Te Umuroa Marae, Ruatāhuna; Ōpūtao Marae, Ruatāhuna; Papakāinga Marae, Ruatoki; Te Tōtara Marae, Ruatoki. So yes, the commitment is there to support Māori housing aspirations. And I’ll reiterate the point I made in the number of questions that have already been asked: my commitment is there, and I’m happy to meet with them.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Tourism: 你好, Mr Speaker, and 大家好 to members in the House. What reports has he seen on the tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. On World Tourism Day, I am happy to report, for the first month since March 2020, the number of overseas arrivals exceeded 100,000 in July, with over 130,000 overseas visitors arriving. I am very optimistic that our tourism recovery is now well under way and the outlook for tourism for the coming summer is promising.

Jamie Strange: Has he seen any reports on increased airline capacity?

Hon STUART NASH: Auckland Airport today announced that United Airlines and American Airlines will resume flights to Auckland in October, adding nearly 14,000 seats, or around 20 percent seat capacity month on month, between New Zealand and North America. Come November, Auckland will have five airlines operating direct flights to eight destinations, making it the most connected Australasian city to North America.

Jamie Strange: What reports, if any, has he seen on Queenstown’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: Beautiful Queenstown continues to lead the tourism recovery, buoyed by a strong ski season with winter arrivals this year reaching at least 90 percent of the same period in 2019. I’m pleased that the Government has been able to provide $63.3 million, on top of the wage subsidy and resurgence support payments, to help tourism in the Queenstown region.

Jamie Strange: How is the Government supporting the tourism sector?

Hon STUART NASH: Along with providing significant support to the tourism sector to get through the pandemic, we are now helping the sector recover through a $54 million innovation programme and the draft Tourism Industry Transformation Plan which will transform the tourism sector and strengthen its workforce.

Jamie Strange: What feedback has he seen on New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: I note Greg Foran, Air New Zealand CEO—just back from Air New Zealand’s new non-stop Auckland to New York service—said he had never been more optimistic about the future. And I quote, “We’re seeing optimism in travel return, not just in bookings but in the joy of getting out to experience the world.” I certainly share Mr Foran’s optimism; we all should.

Question No. 10—Broadcasting and Media

10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: 多谢, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): The Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill seeks to strengthen the delivery of public media services in New Zealand. The media landscape is changing rapidly, both here and internationally, with increased global competition and changing audience behaviours. The legislation supports the Government’s objective to ensure that all New Zealanders can access relevant and trusted public media content across the platforms they use. So the answer is absolutely yes.

Melissa Lee: Is he aware that the combined net worth of TVNZ and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) is less than the $370 million he will spend merging the two entities into Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM); if so, can he explain how spending more to merge those entities than what they are worth is a good use of taxpayers’ money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Unfortunately, that member fails to understand what the problem is. The problem is not about the budgets or the numbers; it’s about what’s happening in Aotearoa at the moment. So, yes, we understand all the numbers and the figures, but the most important thing here is that we have a changing landscape in terms of the media. We have people disappearing down rabbit holes. We need to have a trusted public media entity—that’s the absolute priority—that reflects all New Zealanders. People can’t see themselves. They can’t hear themselves. They want to see all New Zealanders and hear from all New Zealanders—Māori, Pasifika, Asian, young people. It’s not just about the dollars.

Melissa Lee: What response does the Minister have to submitters to the select committee who say, and I quote, “The editorial independence guaranteed by the bill is illusionary” and that there is an unacceptable level of ministerial control that transcends anything currently imposed on RNZ and TVNZ?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I say those submitters are wrong. My intention is that the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media should have extremely strong protections in relation to editorial independence. What is in the bill is intended to strengthen the current editorial independence that TVNZ and RNZ have. The Crown entities framework provides a well-tested set of mechanisms to enable entities to be set up at arm’s length from the Government while providing clear, transparent levers to hold those entities accountable for the delivery of their statutory objectives and other responsibilities. What the Opposition don’t understand is that we encourage people and agencies to give feedback. We don’t mind criticism. This nonsense about restricting everyone—say that to Ruth Harley who’s been very clear about some of her views. Say that to Larry Parr from Te Māngai Pāho. Say that to Māori Radio, who cut us no slack. We don’t mind criticism. We’re not all sensitive like that useless lot across on the other side.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe his statement at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and I quote him: “We need them to change their attitude. We need them to understand what we want.” is exactly the sort of interference that submitters have raised concerns about—that the editorial independence guaranteed by the bill is illusionary?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s a sad statement from the member. I absolutely stand by that comment at the select committee, and what we require is a cultural change. Of course, that’s very hard because 99 percent of the Opposition haven’t got any culture, so they don’t understand what we’re talking about. We’re trying to bring together a commercial entity and a non-commercial entity, and it’s not just about the dollars, dollars, dollars, which is all about what the National Party is saying. The member has chosen to interpret my response to the select committee in a very strange, ugly, and unique way. So I’ll be much clearer to her: I’m working really collaboratively with TVNZ at the moment. I have a great relationship with its chief executive, Simon Power, whose only weakness was that he joined the National Party earlier in his life. TVNZ currently has a commercial focus while the new entity will focus on public media, which will require a shift in terms of their view. Why? Because it’s not just about the dollars, dollars, dollars. It’s about the people. It’s about hearing ourselves. It’s about seeing ourselves. We don’t just want to look at what the National Party has put up. This is about seeing the new Aotearoa, the new New Zealand that the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t have a clue about.

Naisi Chen: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How will New Zealand audiences benefit from the creation of the new public media entity?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What a wonderful question. [Interruption]—if I could just have a second here. Providing public media services is the prime objective of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media. This isn’t just about entertainment, as the National Party would have it. Public media is also about news—independent, quality journalism—and for New Zealanders, they need entities they can trust. Our culture will be better reflected, with more accessible content and entertainment, and all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—will be represented. Our democracy will be better supported through people being able to find trusted news and information and being better informed, and our public media system will be fairer, with a wide range of New Zealanders, including young people, having access to relevant content.

Melissa Lee: 多谢, Mr Speaker. What exactly is the New Zealand taxpayer, during a cost of living crisis, getting for the $370 million the new public media entity will cost, when the money could instead be used to clear the list of patients waiting for cancer medication, with enough left over to address some of the tens of thousands of New Zealanders sitting on the worst surgical wait-list in at least a decade?

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility, he may answer.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, we could do a lot of things with a lot of money, couldn’t we? We can’t wait for every social ill to be cured before we invest in our public media. We can’t wait. If you apply that type of rationale, we’ll shut down the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, we’ll shut down kapa haka, we’ll shut down anything and everything till every social ill is fixed. The reality is we have to get on with life. We have to have a symphony orchestra. We have to have a great public media system. We have to have kapa haka. You have to realise there’s more to life than numbers and dollars, and so don’t pull that sort of rubbish on us.

Damien Smith: Does he agree with the New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) statement on the TVNZ-RNZ merger that they have significant concerns that the establishment of ANZPM would significantly undermine the sustainability and viability of commercial media; and has any opposition voiced to the merger by NZME, Stuff, Sky, or TVNZ led to any reconsideration of the Government’s position on the merger; and does he believe that $109 million in untagged funding for the new public entity is likely, in the words of Stuff, to grossly distort the market; and what responsibility does he think he has, as Minister of broadcasting, to leave a thriving, competitive market?

SPEAKER: Any one of those, and only one.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think all the questions are good questions, and I’ve met with Stuff and a number of the entities. They’re fair questions, because there are some worries out there. This entity will survive with collaboration. We need to work in tandem with the different organisations. We may have to work out what is enough, in terms of the commercial dollars. Nobody wants to shut out the smaller players. I think the member asked reasonable questions. Some of those questions will be answered through the select committee process.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What action is the Government taking to relieve teaching supply pressures in the primary and secondary schooling sectors?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education) (School Operations): Last week, I announced an investment to boost teaching supply through targeted recruitment packages. This investment boosts existing and proven programmes designed to rapidly fill projected gaps in the teaching workforce.

Camilla Belich: Why was the investment needed?

Hon JAN TINETTI: A combination of population growth changes, COVID-19, and border openings has indicated future pressures on teaching supply. We’re getting ahead and taking action now. We know that some students have missed crucial time in the classroom throughout the last 2½ years. That’s why we’ve funded additional teaching and tutoring services. We need teachers to deliver these catch-up learning sessions.

Camilla Belich: What initiatives have been further invested in to recruit international teachers?

Hon JAN TINETTI: To boost overseas teacher supply, we are extending two grants: the Overseas Relocation Grant and the Overseas Finders Fees. These grants compensate teachers and employers for the additional costs of emigrating or hiring abroad and make New Zealand more competitive with international counterparts. We’re also streamlining processing times, and fees are being waived for migrant teachers.

Camilla Belich: What initiatives have been further invested in to encourage New Zealanders to enter the teaching profession?

Hon JAN TINETTI: With over 27 years in the profession, I can attest that teaching is a great job. Growing our domestic teaching workforce is critical for our kids’ education, so we’ve increased the number of Career Changer Scholarships, funded an additional 100 places in school-embedded Initial Teacher Education, and expanded the Beginning Teacher Vacancy Scheme.

Camilla Belich: How many teachers are projected to be recruited due to these initiatives?

Hon JAN TINETTI: By investing a further $24 million in these initiatives, we plan to deliver close to a thousand additional teachers. We expect to recruit approximately 700 internationally and 300 domestically. While international teachers bring a wealth of cultural diversity and experience to our schools, it’s also important that we’re building our pipeline of Kiwi teachers at the same time.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Has he seen BusinessNZ’s 2022 survey that found that 87 percent of respondents said that it was either “difficult” or “very difficult” to fill job vacancies and 63 percent attributed their difficulties to immigration restrictions, and is he confident that the Government’s immigration work visa policies are fit for purpose?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Yes, I have seen reports from that particular survey, and some of the results are not entirely surprising, given that questions asked employers to reflect back on the conditions over the past one year. So, obviously, over a large part of that period, New Zealand’s borders have been closed to protect the country from COVID-19. Over much of that period, of course, we have also experienced record low unemployment. None the less, our border was fully open from 31 July and we’re getting on with the job of making sure that our immigration sector does support the need for skills across the New Zealand labour force. Since the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) system opened around that time, we’ve accredited over 12,000 employers, processed over 55,000 job checks, and approved nearly 5,000 visa applications. Under the residents visa 2021 programme, we have now provided residency to over 100,000 migrant workers, including 11,000 construction workers and 3,700 health workers. We’ve also approved 30,000 working holiday visas. We know that global labour shortages have created a challenging climate for international hiring, but I’m confident that the work that the Government is doing to rebalance our immigration system is helping to address skill shortages while also clamping down on migrant exploitation and making sure that workers do have fair wages and conditions.

Dr James McDowall: How does his answer to my primary question alleviate employers’ fears over chronic workforce shortages, given that top CEOs and directors responding to BusinessNZ’s 2022 survey ranked the Government’s immigration policy as one of their top concerns?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What we can do in respect of this is talk to the facts, some of which I outlined in my answer to the primary question, which is that the Government has now, through the job check stage of the accredited employer work visa, given employers’ permission—this is since July—to recruit more than 55,000 migrant workers. That actually is an indication of a system which is highly facilitative. Our system, under the accredited employer work visa, effectively requires two big things for employers to be able to recruit. One is that they are accredited employers, which means that there is not a record of migrant labour exploitation or abuses of workers’ rights, and I’m sure that is something that all members of the House would support; and, secondly, that there is a two-week period of advertising for a job in New Zealand to ensure that there is a New Zealander not available to do the work. Subject to those conditions and subject to paying the median wage, those employers, in large numbers, are being given the ability to recruit internationally.

Dr James McDowall: How are the accredited employer work visa and the working holiday schemes fit for purpose, with Queenstown Mayor Jim Boult stating that “The number of people on work visas dropped from 3000 to about 1000.”, in an article that also stated that immigration policy is “frustrating efforts to get overseas workers”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Without reference to the time period that Mayor Boult was speaking about in that respect, I can confirm that there have been 30,000 approvals provided by Immigration New Zealand for working holiday visas. In fact, recently I made announcements which doubled the number of working holiday visa places for countries with capped schemes, which received a very strong and positive response from the tourism and hospitality sectors.

Dr James McDowall: What does he say to a business owner with four restaurants in Auckland who can only operate one at a time and at reduced hours because, like many others, he can’t get enough chefs in under the accredited employer work visa scheme unless he is granted an exception to policy on a case by case basis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member’s question is not entirely clear. Employers through the accredited employer work visa scheme are able to recruit people into those roles without a particular exception, so there may be a particular situation with that employer that the member is aware of that I am not. But I can confirm that, in that category, employers are able to recruit through the accredited work visa scheme. But what this Government does say is that through the AEWV, we are turning away from the era in which our immigration system was simply used as a mechanism to bring in as much low-wage labour as possible into the country. We do put in place a median wage requirement and I’m confident that increasingly employers are making those investments to make sure that we support our workforces.

Dr Shane Reti: Of the 3,700 health workers he just described, how many were registered nurses or midwives?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is a question which I would be happy to answer if the member was willing to either put in a primary or send that information to me, I will be able to get that for him. But a relatively large number of nurses have now been approved under the accredited employer work visa scheme. The last time I checked, 301 registered nurses had been approved, and the month of August, in fact, saw the highest number of nurses given approval to enter New Zealand across both the critical purpose visa and the accredited employer work visa schemes of any month this year, which shows that we are making significant progress in this area.

Dr James McDowall: Why should businesses have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, given comments such as those by Simon Watson, New Zealand Hot House managing director, who stated in the media: “We need to free up the immigration pathways. Wellington seem to not be listening, not understanding, and clearly don’t care anymore.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, in amongst legitimate public discourse about the immigration system, it would be useful from Opposition politicians for them to be a little bit more specific about what they actually mean by freeing up the system. Because as I have just outlined, the Government has, in respect of working holiday visas, doubled—increased by 12,000—the numbers of working holiday visa workers being able to come into New Zealand. The accredited employer work visa scheme is a simple and facilitative scheme which has given permission to recruit 55,000 workers since about July. What we know is that the other side of the House, through their policy, wants us to take away any requirements to pay those workers a decent rate for their wages. And that is something that we do not agree with on this side of the House.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Wednesday, 28 September for the first reading and referral to select committee of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill; the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Screen Industry Workers Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill; and the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Deposit Takers Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I present a legislative statement on the Deposit Takers Bill.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the Deposit Takers Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This is the third bill that results from the Government’s review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 that we commenced on coming into Government at the end of 2017. The first two pieces of legislation in that regard were the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act that changed the objectives of the Act, and also included maximum sustainable employment alongside price stability as the objectives of the bank, and also changed the decision-making structure of the bank on monetary policy to be a monetary policy committee. The second piece of legislation, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021, dealt with the structural matters pertaining to the Reserve Bank, including changes to the structure of the board and the way in which decisions are taken.

This final piece of legislation in the trilogy to respond to the Reserve Bank review is the Deposit Takers Bill. This bill is important because it does clarify and reinforce the role of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand as a prudential regulator operating at arm’s length from the Government so that financial policy and supervisory decisions do not become overly politicised. At the same time, the Government’s interests are recognised, with the bill providing some touch points for ministerial engagement and requiring the Reserve Bank to explain its actions through a variety of accountability documents. The bill also integrates previously separate prudential regimes for registered banks and also licensed non-bank deposit takers, such as credit unions, building societies, and retail-funded finance companies.

This is an important piece of legislation to provide confidence to New Zealanders that their financial system is robust and that, where there are issues that need to be investigated, followed up, and enforced, the Reserve Bank has the powers to do so. In order to do that, there are a number of parts to the bill. Part 1, in particular, defines what financial stability is, as a core objective of the Reserve Bank. This is vital. Most people understand the Reserve Bank’s role in monetary policy because they hear about that on a regular basis through announcements on the official cash rate. What is not as well understood is the role that the Reserve Bank has in terms of financial stability, the entire way that the financial system works. [Glass breaks] So the definition of financial stability that is there—never mind, it’ll clean up—includes ensuring the soundness of individual deposit-takers, promoting public confidence, and mitigating risk to the financial system and from the financial system to the broader economy. These are core and clear principles to make sure that our overall financial policy work is guided by a good framework.

Part 2 of the bill deals with firms that are within a licensing regime. Licensing decisions are important because they ensure that the public can have confidence that a deposit taker is somebody who has the appropriate ownership, management, and governance structure to provide security for those who do deposit with them.

Part 3 of the bill empowers the Reserve Bank to regulate deposit takers in a wide range of areas. It provides greater clarity than the Banking (Prudential Supervision) Act 1989 does. One of the things that has occurred with the Reserve Bank Act is that, over the last 30 years or so that it’s been in operation, a number of obligations have been added to the bank’s role without necessarily always being as consistent and as clear as it could be on what those requirements are. So we now have a modern framework to impose regulatory and prudential requirements. The word that gets used in the language here, which is used in other central bank legislation, is that of “standards”, and so we’re making sure that standards are now integrated across all deposit takers, rather than having separate tools in a Reserve Bank Act and a non-bank deposit taker Act. This gives the Reserve Bank a solid foundation to broaden their rulebook.

Part 4 of the bill provides a wider range of supervisory powers for the Reserve Bank. This is where this legislation follows through on the International Monetary Fund’s work, when they came and did a financial stability assessment of New Zealand in 2017, under the previous Government. We followed through on the recommendations, and Part 4 in particular goes close to what are called the Basel core principles, which, essentially, are making sure that, when the bank undertakes its supervisory duty, it can do so with the right tools—for example, in the bill, there is a new onsite inspection power which has not been available to our Reserve Bank but has been available to central banks around the world.

Part 5 of the bill contains a much broader set of penalties and enforcement powers that the Reserve Bank can now use more actively. The 1989 Act had much fewer but generally strong powers, and this tended to lead to informal enforcement rather than frequent use of more formal powers, such as court-based enforcement. The Australian Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was critical of an over-reliance around these informal measures in Australia, and it felt that that was one of the reasons that things weren’t caught early, which , obviously, had significant consequences for Australian depositors in their banks. So it is important that we get those penalty and enforcement powers right, to be able to make sure, again, that people have confidence that, if a bank or a non-bank deposit taker were to act in such a way that was outside the law, there would be some kind of penalty upon them.

Part 6 of the bill is the part of the bill that will, I am sure, generate the most comment and interest across the public, and that is the introduction or the establishment of a formal depositor compensation scheme. This has been a missing element of New Zealand’s financial stability and security system for some time. I don’t think I need to remind too many New Zealanders—of a certain age, anyway—about what can go wrong; in particular, in the non-bank deposit taking part of the sector. People remember what happened with various finance companies around New Zealand. People remember the stress and the pressure that was being exhibited during the times after the global financial crisis. The Government, inevitably, will be called on in those situations unless there is some form of scheme that is put in place that enables people to feel confident about their deposits. So the depositor compensation scheme that is outlined in this bill aims to promote the stability of the financial system in New Zealand by providing each eligible depositor with $100,000 of compensation protection for their protected deposits at each deposit taker.

Now, this $100,000 limit has been the subject of extensive consultation. This whole piece of legislation has been the subject of extensive consultation—two full rounds of public consultation, including an exposure draft of this particular bill. This is an opportunity to say that consultation does matter because we began with a significantly lower level of deposits being protected. But the feedback that we got during the consultation process was that we needed to recognise the importance, for the financial stability of New Zealand, of making sure that that level was set at an appropriate rate. So the $100,000 coverage limit will fully cover more than 90 percent of New Zealand depositors. That is broadly in line with international practices.

This is a balance because, on the one hand, if we had a lower coverage limit, that would reduce public confidence in the scheme and potentially risk widespread deposit splitting—so people thinking that, if it was $30,000 or $50,000, they would spread their deposits all about the place in order to still be covered, and, obviously, it would disproportionately affect smaller deposit takers. On the other hand, even higher coverage limits begin to get us into the potential moral hazard area of the scheme taking on more of the risk and making riskier investments seem like they are more palatable and, therefore, encouraging some people to put those schemes up.

The scheme will be pre-funded by deposit-taker levies and backstopped by the Crown. The target size of the fund that we need for this, and the expected time to achieve that, will be included in the statement of funding approach that the Minister of Finance is required to publish at least every five years. Officials are currently working through the sizing of the required fund size, but, if we look at comparative countries overseas, it would be from about 0.3 percent to 5 percent of covered deposits, but built up over a long period—so built up over a five-to-20-year period to make sure we ease ourselves into this system and that it doesn’t have too much impact at any given time.

I am incredibly pleased and proud that we have now brought legislation to this House to fill a significant gap in New Zealanders’ confidence in the financial system that they are part of. We have seen the damage that has been caused by the absence of this scheme. We have seen the difficulty that has been caused for different Governments by a scheme that does this not existing. I think this is a very important and necessary addition to our financial stability regime.

There are other minor elements in the bill, including resolution powers. I think it is important that New Zealanders understand there is a way forward and a way out of any difficulties that they may see. I look forward to the Finance and Expenditure Committee considering this piece of legislation. I want to thank, in my final few moments, the many New Zealanders who have contributed already to this process through the consultation, and I look forward to more submissions as we go forward from here. I commend the bill to the House.

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

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): National recognises the crucial importance of both the stability of the financial system and also its efficiency, and in this bill, the Deposit Takers Bill, we see good intentions to hold up both of those principles; however, we think this is a bill where it is particularly important that the select committee provide further scrutiny. That is because of two things. The first is that this is a bill which imposes a number of new regulatory frameworks, for which the detail will really matter, and the second is that this is a bill that imposes a new levy upon New Zealanders who are choosing to make deposits in financial institutions, and it is crucially important that in making that levy we do not see costs imposed that outweigh the benefits of the proposed regime. So National offers our cautious support for this bill, noting, however, that the detail is critically important. We wish that the select committee process provide an opportunity for people to come forward with expertise about the practical import of the proposed regulations, so that we can analyse those and determine whether, in fact, this is an improvement on the status quo.

Now, the Minister of Finance highlighted three key aspects of the bill, and I want to go through each of those in turn. The first is around improving the range of regulatory tools that are available for the Reserve Bank when it comes to its prudential regulation and supervision functions. Now, in practice, the Reserve Bank, of course, is responsible for ensuring that the way in which our financial institutions arrange their risk and affairs does not unduly destabilise financial stability. I think it’s going to be really important, however, that those who are affected by those potential regulatory powers can provide advice and feedback on how they see them being applied. I don’t think anyone wants to see a situation where, with good intentions of providing more financial stability, instead we get a situation where deposit takers see a lot more red tape, a lot more cost, a lot more regulation that doesn’t necessarily benefit overall financial stability nor benefit individual deposit makers. So that’s the first part of the bill.

The second part of the bill is providing the Reserve Bank a stronger mandate, as the resolution authority, in event of financial distress or financial crisis. Now, again, analysing how that role will work in practice and whether the people involved in it will have the expertise required is another area that National will be focusing on in the submissions process.

Finally, I want to turn to the proposal for a depositor compensation scheme. Now, this is an area where National thinks we should be very careful. That’s because of the obvious potential for moral hazard. The moral hazard here is that banks and savers could potentially take bigger risks because they know they are insured, and what that could lead to is a cross-subsidisation effect where those who are taking bigger risks are able to do so and get greater returns for their deposits knowing that, in the event of collapse, they will be shored up by those other depositors who have made lower-risk deposits in lower-risk institutions. Now, of course, this moral hazard can be mitigated through the design of a levy regime, where a levy regime carefully acts proportionately to risk and where it ensures that underlying prudential frameworks disincentivise risky behaviour. However, it is because of this moral hazard that National stresses that the detail is very, very important.

I do want to remind this House that we have had recent instances in the Parliament where well-intentioned financial legislation has been introduced, only to become incredibly destructive because of the detail of the regulation. The example to which I refer is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which members across the House supported because of its good intention of stopping predatory lending but, when it came to the detailed regulations that officials wrote, what we instead saw was that it gummed up mortgage lending in New Zealand, created telephone books’ worth of new practices and procedures for those taking part in lending, and did so with no demonstrable benefit to consumers. So, with that example in mind, National does insist that the detail of this regulatory framework, and the proposed regulations to be written under it, is critically important. We note, also, that the bill implies increased powers for the Minister of Finance in terms of directing the Reserve Bank, and, again, we are always cautious about any increased powers of that sort, because we note the potential for them to be misused.

Looking at the bill in totality, we acknowledge and recognise the amount of consultation that has taken us to this point, and we acknowledge that there have now been successive reforms to the Reserve Bank framework such that the bringing together of these two Acts has been necessitated. For National, we do absolutely uphold the concept that the core principles for effective banking supervision should be in line with the Basel core principles—that is the international standard around prudential regulation of banks—and we note that there have been instances in New Zealand’s history where we have seen significant financial instability caused by deposit takers’ failure and collapse, and we do take a real interest in preventing those sorts of things happening again.

So, as I say, this is a piece of legislation where intention is one thing but the devil could well be in the detail. We offer our cautious support, and we strongly encourage deposit-taking institutions to make their submissions on how they think this will work in practice, to be clear about the impact they think this could have on depositors and everyday New Zealanders, and for officials to provide a robust cost-benefit analysis so that we can be satisfied that the potential improvements to financial stability are not outweighed by costs to the efficiency of our financial stability system. I look forward to the select committee process alongside my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This is one where we will have to furrow our brows and concentrate, because the potential implications of this bill, if done badly, are significant and could come at a lot of cost to New Zealanders. So National offers our support to take this bill to select committee.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): 你好, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Deposit Takers Bill. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I’m really looking forward to this bill coming to us. As the Minister of Finance has said, this is the third bill of the Reserve Bank review that was instigated in 2017. Like many members of this House who do enjoy a good trilogy, I don’t think it’s a Hannibal Lecter kind of trilogy—Star Wars, there were too many prequels and now there are sequels, so I’m a bit lost on Star Wars. Actually, one trilogy that I really do enjoy is the X-Men. Now, if you could compare the Finance and Expenditure Committee to the X-Men, I think this bill would be the characterisation of Professor X in the sense that the bill is about assurance: it is a bill about assuring the consumers and Kiwis of New Zealand who put money into financial institutions that, if something goes terribly wrong, as we’ve seen in the past, the Government will be able to support them and to guarantee those deposits up to $100,000.

There are a number of parts of this bill which will indeed—as the member of the Opposition, Nicola Willis, has just spoken about—require deep consideration and critical analysis. One that I know the member that’s just on the other side of the House, the Regulations Review Committee chair—I will probably enjoy receiving their letter around the strict liability offences as well as the penalties that are in this bill. I’m looking forward to receiving that letter on what your particular views are around that, because there are a lot of regulation-making powers in this bill. Part 6 is the most important part of this bill, which is the actual depositor compensation scheme. But the Minister of Finance has set the case out very clearly for this. Consultation was done that led to this bill in 2017, 2018, and 2019, and it was off the back of the IMF review in 2014-15. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House and look forward to analysing it with the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It might be my age—I have no idea who Professor X is. If I was to pick a movie trilogy that was analogous to this bill, it would probably be The Godfather—lots of shady dealings and a few people getting knocked off! Actually, here’s an analogy: in 2008, when the finance Minister in the Clark Government, the late Michael Cullen, needed to act quickly to shore up confidence in our deposit system, he implemented—during the proroguing of Parliament, actually; we were out campaigning quite heavily. I think it was in the middle of October that the action was taken—albeit with the support of National’s finance spokesperson, the Hon Bill English at the time—to set up what was then known as the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and he did that under existing legislation. One section of the Public Finance Act—section 65ZD—gave the Minister the power to give a guarantee or an indemnity if it’s in the public interest.

About 11 months later, the then Minister of Finance Bill English had to do some tweaks to it, including putting a sunset clause on it, as the global financial crisis (GFC) passed, which was at the end of 2011, and he did so with a five-page Act. So we’re now wading through what is a 241-page bill that does more than that, but the lion’s share of the policy change in the Deposit Takers Bill is actually the setting up of a retail deposit guarantee scheme that’s enduring. I don’t know why on earth it takes 241 pages to describe that, particularly when there’s substantive work still to be done and the bill itself sets out a number of regulations and standards and fees that are still to be established years after this process started. So, if we’re to take the trilogy metaphor a little further, this bill, were it a movie, is very much in the concept stage. It’s at the white board stage. They’re selecting the executive producers and nobody knows who the actor will be, although I have a strong suspicion the lead character could change in about 11 months’ time, so we’ll just wait with interest on that.

As a member of the caucus who ran the gauntlet of the tremendous pain that was felt by those affected by the collapse of about nine, I think, finance companies during the GFC—most strongly by South Canterbury Finance, which lost about $1.5 billion of the $2 billion in deposits—it was very clear that our prudential regulation framing did need to be improved. It doesn’t matter that they got their money back; it actually caused a huge amount of stress and anxiety, health issues, pain in the community, and certainly some political challenges, and the best way to deal with that is to avoid it happening in the first place. So I think, actually, the prudential regulation of the sector is appropriate, but largely it’s in place.

I’m particularly interested in what the Minister said, and what the regulatory impact statement says, about moral hazard. Now, he seems to think that moral hazard can be managed by limiting the amount that’s covered or by putting other rules in place. The reality is that there are two types of moral hazard in this case: one is the behaviour of the banks and deposit takers, and the other is the behaviour of the investors. We can regulate the deposit takers all we like, but the investors are going to act rationally. There is a risk-return paradigm here: the higher the risk the greater the return; the higher the return the greater the risk. That is Economics 101. Currently, the 12-month deposit rate at the Westpac Banking Corporation, the Government’s bank, is 4 percent. At General Finance, it’s 5.1 percent. So there’s a 25 percent premium for the perceived risk—I’m not saying it’s a real risk; it’s certainly not right now—that a smaller organisation, that doesn’t have the sort of asset backing that Westpac does, might carry.

I haven’t had enough time to investigate what the interest rates actually were about 18 months ago, when interest rates were at rock bottom, but it’s likely that, on a proportionate basis, the difference between the registered-bank deposit rates and the building societies’ and the other finance companies’ deposit rates was probably much greater as a percentage—greater risk. Now, one must ask: if those deposits are going to be guaranteed by the Crown through a Deposit Takers Act, how on earth do we acknowledge the different risk? Because, effectively, there is no risk. I say that with the corollary that I’ve already mentioned that there’s a lot of stress and anxiety if an organisation collapses, but the moral hazard of the depositors—if they shift their deposits to the higher-return organisation knowing that they are inoculated against the collapse of those companies—is pretty high, and no amount of regulation or standards or rule making is going to change the sort of behaviour that is undertaken by depositors. It’s quite ironic, I think, that we’re doing this at a time when, I would suggest, the biggest financial risk on the Crown balance sheet is actually the Reserve Bank itself, and the estimates of the potential for loss on the large-scale asset purchase programme that the Reserve Bank embarked on is pretty high.

Now, some commentators are saying that, because it will affect both sides of the Crown’s balance sheet, that’s not going to be an issue. I’m not so sure I agree with that. Some of the numbers being mentioned about the potential for loss through that is in the billions, and, actually, the Minister of Finance has indemnified, not by law but by the existing Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, the bank against any losses. So it was printing money knowing that the risk wasn’t theirs. So, when we’re talking about moral hazard, we’re seeing evidence of behaviour that could have been different had the indemnity not been in place. Would the Reserve Bank have acted differently had they not been indemnified? I would suggest so.

So the last thing I would say about this bill—and, actually, one of the things that I like about it—is Part 7, and that is the crisis and resolution aspect of the bill. One of the things that happened after the 2011 Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme is that the Auditor-General reviewed that process and made some excellent recommendations, one of which was to have a better resolution and crisis management process in place so that we can try and cut things off at the pass, and it does appear as though those sorts of things have been very well addressed in this bill. But I agree with Nicola Willis—there’s a great deal of work for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to do, because the devil will always be in the detail of bills like this. There are 241 pages, and I expect Chlöe Swarbrick, Ingrid Leary, and Helen White will have already started on this. It’ll be a potboiler, I’m sure, and it’ll be one that will keep them up night after night, as will the submissions that will come pouring in. I might be flippant about that, but, actually, the risk that we do miss something, that we do set up a thing like the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act is an example of where we might’ve missed some of that crucial detail, and it will be incumbent on those committee members to be diligent, as I know they are, in examining the bill and making sure it can be approved. With that in mind, I wish them all the best and our cautious support for the bill remains.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d just like to pick up on a couple of points made by previous speakers. The first one is Michael Woodhouse suggesting that the biggest risk to the Government’s balance sheet is the Reserve Bank. Actually, on this side of the House, we are well aware that the biggest risk is climate change, and we have taken prudent steps to manage that, including one of the most significant Budgets. We are accounting for climate change in that and in the ongoing work that many of the ministries are doing to futureproof our country. So I think the previous speaker’s comments show the level of seriousness with which they take climate change.

But the devil will be in the detail, and is in the detail, and it’s interesting that Nicola Willis and Michael Woodhouse seem to disagree about how much detail there should be: 241 pages is testament to the amount of work and consultation that has already gone on in this area and the care which this Government is taking to ensure that we get the balance right, and it is indeed a balancing act. When it comes to moral hazard, nobody is suggesting that there should be an incentive for people to indulge in risky behaviour, and that is why the level has been set at $100,000, taking into account what’s been mentioned through consultation but also looking at the sliding scale that has been set up very deliberately to ensure that higher-risk lending includes higher levels of input via the levies so that those behaviours can be managed. Now, yes, that will get thrashed out at select committee, but the mechanisms are already in place in the bill to do that.

So this is a very significant change to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. In fact, Bell Gully has said that it is one of the most significant changes in a generation, and they don’t say that lightly. It’s been a long time coming, and we share the Opposition’s concern and memories of what happened after the global financial crisis (GFC) and the terrible situation it was for many deposit takers in New Zealand. So it’s a long time coming, and it’s great to see that it has been done so thoughtfully and carefully.

What it will do is strengthen governance, and it will also enhance director accountability and impose new standards and stronger powers for the Reserve Bank. So all of that, really, is around ensuring that some of the cowboys that are currently operating around the margins of the sector can no longer operate, and, indeed, there is a mechanism by which the Reserve Bank can apply to the District Court to ensure that certain players in the market are not trusted to take people’s deposits. So, again, that’s a good risk mitigation against the moral hazard that has been discussed.

I think this is a really good, thoughtful piece of legislation. I echo the requests from Opposition members for deposit takers and others impacted by this to please give us your thoughts. I can assure this House that we will be going through this very, very carefully. It’s an important piece of legislation, and I think that all New Zealanders can feel assured that we are not going to see the level of exposure that happened after the GFC, which caused so much trauma to New Zealanders everywhere. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’d like to start my contribution, firstly, by just saying that the financial system really exists to serve people, and not the other way around. And our economic system is there to serve people, and not the other way around. I think, in the last few decades, we’ve seen financial services significantly grow as a sector of the economy without actually contributing to growth of productivity or the things that people need to live good lives. That’s something we don’t get much opportunity to talk about in the House, but I think that, here in the Greens, we acknowledge that it’s really important that the way in which the Government regulates and looks after the financial system has to be done in a way that is there to benefit all people—you know, people are not existing simply to serve the gods of the financial or economic system, and it has kind of gone the other way.

The second thing I want to say is that the Green Party will be supporting this bill, and we have a very small but significant win in this bill, which is the depositor compensation fund, as well as a previous shift, which was the move to the board making the decisions and not just the Governor of the Reserve Bank. These are issues that the Green Party, I believe, was the first to raise in Parliament, and I went back to look at when the Green Party was calling for this, and the oldest press release I could find was from March 2013. So I want to acknowledge previous Green Party finance spokespeople: Russel Norman, who was calling for deposit insurance back in March 2013, some months before the OECD came out and urged that New Zealand take up deposit insurance as well as capital gains tax—also something the Green Party had been calling for for about a decade or more before then.

Just going back through it, of course, in June 2016, November 2016, May 2017, and on and on, we have press releases from the Green Party calling for the National Government of the day to implement deposit insurance, and, of course, in the last term of Government, when we did have an Associate Minister of Finance who was a Green. I believe most of the critical Cabinet decisions were made about this legislation, so it’s nice to see it finally come to fruition.

What I think is notable—I heard Nicola Willis, the finance spokesperson for the National Party, talk about moral hazard and some concerns the National Party might have that having deposit insurance would encourage greater risk-taking behaviour on the part of financial institutions. And I have to say this: in some ways, having a deposit insurance scheme, or, as they call it, the depositor compensation fund, is actually an improvement on the status quo, where what we’ve seen is large financial institutions becoming too big to fail, and even though there has been no kind of formal fund or scheme in place when they have gone under, they inevitably get bailed out by the Government, and that’s just, you know, by all the people who are contributing. And what misses out at that point is other crucial public services like income support, like our hospitals, and pay for our teachers and our nurses and our doctors. So, you know, when South Canterbury Finance was bailed out by the Government, it was over a billion dollars, and, of course, in today’s dollars, that would be much more. So that came at the expense of other important, crucial Government services that benefit all New Zealanders, and that was quite risky decision-making.

This scheme that has been set up, and what’s proposed in this legislation—of course, it will have to go through the select committee process, and we will want to make sure we get it right. But I think quite a lot of time has passed and there has been quite a lot of work done on it up until this point, and it is an improvement on the status quo. I guess I should say that, globally, the finance sector has become bigger and more complex and too big to fail. Some people working in that sector have become extraordinarily rich, and in some respects it’s been at the expense of everyone else, and as it becomes bigger and more complex, Governments get held to ransom, because the Government is so concerned about what happens if we have fiscal instability and the impacts on the economy for ordinary people—potentially, them losing their jobs—that they can’t afford to let those institutions fail and suffer the consequences of their risky decision-making.

So I think this is, at least, a really sensible way to do that, because it means all people who are putting money into a financial institution, saving into, investing into it—whatever it is—are making some proportionate contribution to the fund, and then people who have deposits up to $100,000 will have that covered by that fund in the case where an institution goes under. So that is a fair and proportionate response, and it means that those who don’t have the financial resources, who don’t have the wealth to be investing in institutions like that, aren’t paying to bail those people out. Also, there’s the cap of $100,000—so, I mean, there’s fairness in this in that people who have super-large investments, which is a tiny percentage of the population, are not going to be bailed out to that amount in that circumstance by this particular compensation fund.

So the Green Party is happy to see this bill come to the House. I think it’s quite overdue at this point, but it’s great that it’s come, and I hope that we’ll be hearing from a lot of informed submitters and be able to make some improvements at select committee. But I do think that we do need to think about the bigger picture and what role finance plays in our economy and in our society, and how important it is for us, as the representatives of the people in this House, to make sure that we have a system that is looking after our people. In order to look after our people, we have to look after our natural resources and our natural environments, and so it’s really important that money doesn’t become the thing that is more important than everything else. Money is the means by which we—you know, it facilitates the trade of goods and services, but that’s just one small part of what it means to be a human and to have a good life, and we need lots of other things to live a good life. This is the place where we come together to make sure that the rules are fair and that the system is fair, and we have a lot of work to do in that respect.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Public trust in the banking sector is essential for the running and functioning of the New Zealand economy. Savings aren’t safe under the bed, but, while, potentially, this is a nice backstop to a financial economy which sets New Zealand in line with the OECD, there are some other principles we should discuss around the bill, and I hope they will be taken into consideration in the select committee.

We’re giving the Reserve Bank of New Zealand a significant suite of regulations and powers, an expansion of these powers, as the lender of last resort. One can argue that protection is already in place by several instruments. One is high capital ratios set for the banks, which places the risk to protect the deposit takers with the banks and not at the feet of Government or a specialised fund. Open Bank Resolution processes are the second element that now also help protect depositor insurance—and, with this piece of legislation, this looks like we’re putting ambulances at the top, middle, and bottom of the cliff, which does not make sense because the higher level of risk of a financial institution failing is when it doesn’t meet its capital ratios requirement, which the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank should understand pretty fast and pretty quickly.

Finally, a depositor, as member Willis said, can’t actually chase around for higher interest rates with $99,000 per institution. Also, it encourages potential non-bank lenders to take on risky projects or leverage their balance sheet. No one knows how the levies will be set except banks, who have preferred terms for what the taxpayer is up for. ACT feels that the Government should slow this bill down; listen further to institutions. We’ve seen with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) what can happen if we don’t get the devil right in the detail. ACT believes this is the last thing New Zealand needs now, and that existing protections are in place and we should protect the citizen using those macro tools.

Timely payments is not clear. In the UK, as an example, if you have a situation where your bank has had a run on it, there’s a guarantee to pay in seven days or more, and it’s adjusted for inflation. One of the things about bank runs, like Northern Rock or several of the bank runs in the United States, is people just run to take all their money out. It’s a panic, and there’s no guarantee with this system in place that it’s any better than adequate capital ratios and encouraging the major banks to participate fully with supporting that balance sheet, even if they’re Australian banks. And, effectively, why you have a bank run is somewhere along inside the business—and all our banks are vertically integrated—their mortgage book blows out and they reach into the depositors’ money to actually take that and subsidise that. That is one of the reasons why these financial institutions fail.

In ACT, we also believe that, for taxpayers, it would clearly be a wish to see tight, defined constraints around the ability of Government to commit public funds in a financial crisis, which no doubt will lead us back to this place for appropriation from Parliament. Confidence in the financial system and its stability already exists. What’s the big question to rush this? Why do we need to not go through the detail? It will actually take, after Royal assent, two years to make this workable in the marketplace. So there are a lot of things to be thought through, and even though the bill has 250 pages of slammed-together concepts, it doesn’t actually deal with those three levels of bank protection that the Reserve Bank should have highlighted in its documentation.

So, to enact a single regulatory framework for deposit takers, there will be disadvantages to credit unions. There will be disadvantages to big banks. But I think it’s worth listening to big banks on this occasion to avoid the CCCFA scenario.

Timeliness of payments is a vital thing once people lose confidence in the financial system. So the seven days that resulted from the mitigation of the Northern Rock situation in the United Kingdom was one where the people were standing in the streets for seven days. They wanted all their money out, not just what the deposit was at the time. So we hopefully will never see that situation in New Zealand. We need to consider that making commercial banks stick to the adequacy ratios is a more powerful tool than what we’ve got on the table here today.

So ACT would like to see this through the next stage of the select committee. We won’t be supporting the bill at this stage, but we will give it a tight consideration, and we’d like those points to be considered by the Reserve Bank, Treasury, and the Minister of Finance. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s been interesting listening to the speeches around the House this afternoon. Barbara Edmonds definitely whet my appetite, and then, obviously, the Hon Michael Woodhouse continued that, in talking about this omnibus bill and the trilogy and what movies we can connect to this.

So I have to admit that I was a bit of a boy back in the day, and the Die Hard trilogy—Bruce Willis, yes—was one of my favourites; I can’t say a few lines of that in this, but I’m trying to think how the hell it would work in this situation. Maybe you’ve sort of got reckless deposit takers being the bad guys, and then John McClane being the good guy who maybe comes in and saves the day, which is what the Government’s doing, coming in to support this. Or maybe Pirates of the Caribbean, but that’s a bit predictable. You’ve got the bad pirates, the good pirates; you’ve got those who are sort of doing money stuff and it’s pretty easy. Then I did actually think about Austin Powers. Dr Evil; remember him? Was it $100,000 [Mimics Dr Evil]—see what I did there—actually being the limit, protecting 93 percent of depositors?

But I digress. I am being frivolous, and I won’t even mention The Terminator or Mad Max or any of those other ones which would just be absolutely ridiculous. But this is good legislation. It was 2017, as was said earlier by the Hon Grant Robertson, when this work was being done, and I look forward, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to scrutinising the bill, as has been talked about today—to look deeply into this, to get into the numbers, and to ensure that we have good legislation that will protect people into the future, promoting prosperity and wellbeing for all New Zealanders.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very good to be able to rise and speak on this bill, the Deposit Takers Bill. As some of my colleagues have already noted, we will be cautiously supporting this bill and look forward to it being discussed further at the select committee stage.

There some key aspects of this, obviously, as our friends over the way have just noted, in respect to $100,000, the key protections there—yes, we can do that too [Mimics Dr Evil]. I think that’s important because it does afford mums and dads and other deposit takers quite a lot of assurity that, in the case of financial instability or a possible run on banks, their nest egg and everything that they’ve worked hard and saved for will be protected. There’s also some key expansion of powers for the Reserve Bank (RB) in there, to step in, in the case of a severe or significant situation—they can get in there and they can carve bits off and transfer or sell out viable parts—which does give them an increased amount of power. That is noted, but there is the potential that that could be used for good as well. So we do encourage further investigation of that.

We all want a stable and efficient financial system. You know, that is very true. And, as we’ve seen over the past 15 years, when the system hasn’t been so stable, it is very important that that stability is there. We do note the steps that reserve banks took, not just in New Zealand but internationally, to shore up the system and to shore up deposit holders after the global financial crisis. But we would want this to see further scrutiny because we note that there has been discussion here around risk and there are concerns that this removes the risk. It removes it on the financial institutions, be they first tier, be they second tier. It also removes the risk, obligation, or personal responsibility on the person that is making the deposit.

Now, if I know that my deposit is going to be backed up and looked after by whoever I deposit it with, why would I go along and give it to a first-tier lender such as Westpac or ASB and get a small percentage when I can go and take it to a much higher-risk deposit taker and get a significantly enhanced rate? I think that has the potential to create some issues in the system, because the risk isn’t really owned by the players; the risk is, effectively, absorbed by the Reserve Bank. And I think we already have a pretty stable system in that regard. We do have quite a well-protected system. We do have capital holding requirements, and these have been enhanced. I think New Zealand stands out quite well as a country whose financial system is quite well protected in that regard.

A lot of people say, “What happens if the Australian banks collapse?” I fortunately, or unfortunately, had the pleasure of working for Australian banks for about a dozen years, and they always looked down on their New Zealand cousins, which annoyed me tremendously. But we did have a very good thing in that the Reserve Bank New Zealand had required that New Zealand banks have a carve-off and had to stand on their own two feet. So, in the case of things going extremely pear shaped in Sydney or Melbourne and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia or Westpac or ANZ falling over, the New Zealand equivalents, the New Zealand subs, would be able to stand on their own two feet. So I think that’s important to take into account.

I would also be concerned because I know that there will be—at some stage, the RB or someone else will have to determine what levies are paid. If you’re determining that, it doesn’t make sense for a very safe deposit holder to pay the same levy as a much riskier deposit holder. Do you get into the situation there where the RB or the Government or whoever it may be is, effectively, picking winners and losers in this game? I think that’s an important consideration to note.

We cautiously support the bill on this side of the House. We note that it has some good points. We note that mum and dad deposit takers will be very happy to see some safety—up to $100,000 in their deposits—but we would also want it to be rigorously scrutinised. I know my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse noted there were 240-odd pages to be combed through, and we hope that is done very rigorously at the select committee stage. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): 谢谢, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the first reading of the Deposit Takers Bill, which is being commended to the most excellent Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’m not a member of that committee, but I understand that $100,000 of Kiwis’ deposits in eligible institutions will be guaranteed in the hopefully rare event that that institution should fail. This bill would protect 93 percent of depositors fully.

I remember the collapse of Barings Bank and the subsequent collapse of many banks later during the global financial crisis. On a more personal note, my father very nearly lost every penny of a house sale, as they deposited the money just in preparation for a purchase. Fortunately, it was averted, but it would have been catastrophic. With regard to trilogies, I feel that The Lord of the Rings, with the Hon Grant Robertson cast as Gandalf, is a more appropriate trilogy. I commend this bill to select committee.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously, the number three has been well traversed in this House today. So, rather than talking about trilogies in pop culture, I think I’d come back to something that I know a little bit better, in the field of classical music. I’d like to talk about a piano trio. In a piano trio, often we have a viola, we have a cello, and we have the piano. I think of this bill as something quite like the function of a piano in that trio.

What I mean by that is that often the piano just kind of chugs along, makes sure that everyone is kept in time; the bassline is there, keeping it all together. And that’s the point that I’d take: being the “bassline”, being the absolute safeguard in our financial system, is this bill, and the levy system that we set up, as well—the scheme making sure that 93 percent of depositors and their money are protected; making sure that the scheme is pre-funded by all the levies that we will take. And that’s being supported by the Crown, to be that backstop, so that, for the mums and pops and everyone in New Zealand, their money is well protected. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take the final call for the National Party on this bill, the Deposit Takers Bill. As we have heard from our previous speakers, we are supporting the bill at its first reading, cautiously—cautiously supporting it, I would say. Because, in the first instance, obviously the stability of our financial sector is very important, and on that basis we absolutely want to ensure that it is enhanced where it can be appropriately done, and needs to be done—we absolutely support those aspects. There are a few elements, which I just want to touch on through my contribution, where I have some questions or some areas of concern that I hope will be addressed through the select committee process, as this traverses that aspect as well.

The initial one that I just want to touch on, and what we’re talking about here, is to try and safeguard or protect the money that has been deposited in these institutions, by everyday Kiwis presumably, so that they can have confidence that the money will be available when they need it, for whatever purpose life may bring for them. Having a cap of $100,000—I’m interested in that figure; as to exactly how that came about, noting that in Australia it’s $250,000 under their scheme, and $100,000 in this day and age doesn’t go particularly far in terms of making up a house deposit. I note the carve-out for examples where someone has just sold a house and they have a significant amount of cash, but there doesn’t seem to be a corresponding allowance for someone who is building up a deposit to buy a house. Indeed, a 20 percent deposit on a million-dollar house, for example, is $200,000; so that’s double the cap as it is proposed here. So I just wonder whether or not that could see some flexibility as well, because I would suggest having more than $100,000 on deposit doesn’t necessarily make someone financially stable enough to weather through the loss of that money if it was not caught under this cap. So that is one question I would have.

Having said that, though, for me, a lot of this comes back to personal responsibility. Now, anyone looking to deposit some money into a financial institution should, rightly, be considering the status of that financial institution: how safe is my money going to be if I give this money to a bank or to an institute? Am I likely to see it back? And, obviously, that’s reflected through the interest rates that are offered by those banks as well. We heard, I think it was, Mr Woodhouse talking about that earlier, in terms of the varying rates between a mainstream bank like the “big four”, as it were, compared to another financial lender, who may offer a higher rate to try and secure a deposit in a competitive market on the premise that, actually, they may be perceived—whether that is just a perception or otherwise—as being a slightly higher-risk investment for that depositor. Of course, the attraction for the depositor then being that they might secure a premium of a percent of more over the other banks, depending on the situation, and so that has some appeal.

So, of course, it is risk versus return, and this is a pretty fundamental tenet of economics here that we need to be mindful of in this situation, and then asking the question “Well, is it appropriate for the Government to be stepping in to try and come up with a solution here? Is it really needed? What are the costs that then might flow through?”, because I am very mindful of costs at a time when we are experiencing a cost of living crisis unlike I can remember. We are now talking of potentially—probably—putting additional costs on to depositors, and I am really concerned about that, because we are at the same time, of course, trying to encourage people to save more. Now we’re looking at impacting on that by having a higher cost for them. Because, ultimately, if the Government is putting this system in place and there’s a levy being imposed on these deposit-taking institutions, well, of course, that cost for those businesses is going to be passed on, either in terms of a reduced deposit rate that they offer to Kiwis looking to deposit money with them or, on the other side, an increased lending rate to people who are looking to borrow from that institution, which, presumably, is borrowing money on the one hand to lend out on the other side.

So, at a time when you may be looking at somebody wanting to borrow money to progress a business idea that they’ve had, a lightbulb moment, an inspiration—and we have hundreds of thousands of everyday businesses in New Zealand doing amazing things. Typically, I think, we’ve had an environment that fosters that sort of innovation and have-a-go spirit, and I would be concerned if they were then having to experience, perhaps, an increase from a 6 percent to an 8 or 10 percent interest rate on the loans that they’re able to borrow money at from these deposit-taking institutions, because of the increased levy cost in part. So there are those costs that I just don’t see appropriate consideration being given to at this stage, and that is, for me, probably one of the biggest concerns I have—as I say, a cost of living crisis and here we are putting more costs on to depositors and lenders.

But, of course, we also have a Government that can never miss an opportunity to take control of something that they may or may not necessarily need to. We just saw that in my contribution, last week, on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill that they’re putting forward, looking to get their fingers more involved there, have more say and more influence. And here they are again, looking to do exactly the same on this one. So we have a Government now saying, “Hey, we will be undertaking all of the credit assessments for these financial institutions. We will tell you, as New Zealanders, which of these institutes are best for you to invest in, which are the most risky, and which are the least risky, and therefore where you should place your money.” Now, ultimately, I’m not confident that that is a role that Government should play. Surely that is a position of the market to work through, who is or isn’t a safe bet, and that is indeed part of what I mentioned earlier around the risk-assessment element that depositors would be considering—risk versus return—when they are looking at making a decision around who they may or may not engage with in those financial arrangements.

So here we have a Government, instead, that’s looking to put that in place, to then levy on that basis—presumably making the levy based on a credit-risk assessment basis; so, therefore, the riskier the deposit-taking institution the higher the levy would be for them, compared to someone with a lower-risk profile. And, ultimately, it risks speaking to the arrogance of a Government that continues to think they know best for everyday New Zealanders. Regardless of the situation, they have the solution! Kiwis shouldn’t need to use their own minds, because here we have a Government that will do all the thinking for us! Well, ultimately, I think the market should be able to do that. Kiwis are generally pretty smart. They can make some of these decisions off their own bat and don’t need this sort of influence. And, actually, it’s a little bit like the jobs tax we’ve seen proposed as well from this Government, where they’re putting an insurance scheme in place for anyone who may lose a job—and I’m not sure whether or not that includes any outgoing members of Parliament if there was an electoral change, for example—but the impact there obviously is that it provides a solution that may or may not be needed in some instances, but ultimately ends up adding cost. And here we are again adding more cost from a Government that thinks they know best.

So these are some of the real concerns I have about this particular bill, because, as we’ve heard, I think, from Mr Uffindell as well in his contribution, the capital adequacy requirements that were brought in post global financial crisis helped to address some of these concerns, right? Because we came through that in pretty good shape comparatively, in a global context; our banking system held up pretty well. It got pretty close, as I understand it, in some instances, to there being real issues, but we got through. That having been said, there were obviously some changes brought in off the back of that—the capital adequacy requirements off the back of the Basel Accord. Basel II, I think it was, and then Basel III as well, still coming into play, saw a significant shift in the level of capital that had to be held by a bank. Now, obviously, that comes at a cost as well. So we saw an increasing margin being applied by the banks, between what they are borrowing, or buying, money at—the BKBM rate—and what they’re then lending out to everyday borrowers. That margin had to increase to allow for that cost of capital that they then had to hold over and above what they had previously held. So this is another example of that sort of thing, where we’re saying, “Hey, we’re going to see more costs coming into these businesses.” But, actually, we’ve already got some elements of protection in place. So do we really need this?

So I’m really interested in seeing what comes through the select committee process in that regard. I do just want to pick up a quote from the regulatory impact statement: “There are significant risks associated with implementation of the Deposit Takers Act, and the potential for unintended consequences. The Reserve Bank is planning is to increase resourcing”—well, how about that? More bureaucrats. What a surprise! But, ultimately, the unintended consequences is an area that we really need to see thrashed out, because I don’t have confidence at this stage that we’ve fully understood where that may sit or what might fall out off the back of that—as we saw with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act issues as well.

Lastly, I just want to pick up on the director requirements. That’s a small part of this, but an important part, I think, where it looks to change the due diligence liability requirements for directors carrying out due diligence, such that it excludes that from being eligible to be covered by directors and officers liability insurance. And that is a significant risk, I think, for any director, who will then likely take a much more risk-averse position when determining a potential investment opportunity. So that has the risk, or potential, to slow down our economic contribution, our productivity as well. So there is a number of areas that I think we really need to traverse here, and I am looking forward to some robust select committee discussions on it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Deposit Takers Bill, but also to have the benefit of being a Finance and Expenditure Committee member. So I will be listening to what I’ve heard today and I’ll be taking that back into the select committee process.

But it does strike me that, in fact, there is a difference emerging in the approaches of the two main parties on this bill, and I’d say it’s a very important one to note. What happened in the global financial crisis was that we didn’t have an appropriate system, so people who were promised high interest rates had to be bailed out completely. And it’s very much that old adage of “socialise the risk, privatise the profit”, because it was the taxpayers who had to fork out the money to cover people, to give our system stability.

This bill changes that. It shores up the system. It makes sure that it is actually a very stable system with the right regulations in place, with the right accountabilities in place, with the capacity to have a licensing regime that covers all deposit holders. At the moment, the proposal is $100,000, and it is very likely that the higher the fees are the higher the interest that’s being promised is—that it’s more of a credit risk—so they will pay higher amounts of fees towards the scheme. It is, in fact, supposed to be self-regulating and pay for itself. So no longer will the New Zealand taxpayer, who got nothing out of the high interest rates, end up forking out for the bill. That is actually a real move forward. That is a mature system and, hopefully, we will end up with a much more stable system than we have ever had, one that New Zealanders can rely on and one that’s actually better for taxpayers, and that’s a win for me. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Deposit Takers Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Deposit Takers Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 September.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to support this bill on behalf of the National Party. First of all, I just want to say a word of thanks and support for the Labour Party. They have a rich history of supporting legislation in this area, from the formation of Fonterra to the last changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act in their first term and in this second one as well. So, from the dairy farmers of New Zealand that are Fonterra suppliers, to the Labour Party a big thankyou for the way that you have engaged on that in the past, and this is another attempt to do so here. So thank you. I think that it’s good to see that—

Hon Member: That’s generous.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, it is, but it is praise that is worth giving out because it actually is genuinely deserved.

This bill has a few issues in it, though, that need to be sorted out at select committee. Previous speakers have gone through the history of what’s happened to get to this point, where farmers have voted on the capital structure that they want to have for Fonterra, Fonterra has taken that to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister has listened and, to all accounts, enabled that to happen. There are a couple of points, though, where the Minister has intervened more than the farmers would have wanted or expected, and that’s part of the negotiation process now, I guess, that goes on during the select committee process. As long as the select committee takes an open approach to that, then I think that we will be comfortable to work through with the Labour Party to see if we can get some resolution to those issues.

So one of the issues is the number of ministerial nominees to the milk price panel, which increases from one to two. Now, potentially, that is something that you could see the Labour Party seeing as an opportunity for more Government intervention, I guess, in that price-setting, and they may see that as something that they will not budge on. It probably isn’t the end of the world to do that, but it “requires the chair … to be fully independent of Fonterra, appointed only on the approval of the Minister,” and when it gets to the stage that the panel is, effectively, controlled by the Minister, I think that does take it beyond the safeguard aspect that the Labour Party may be looking at at the moment and into the aspect of control over a body that, essentially, the Government doesn’t need to be involved in. The reason I say that is that the milk price is a very open market. The other suppliers out there tend to follow the Fonterra price on the ground, rather than necessarily a milk price panel that comes up with a great, independent price that the country can follow.

The second issue is the Commerce Commission power, and that’s probably the issue I have the most concern around. The Commerce Commission as an organisation has a very poor history in New Zealand. If you look back on its inability to deal with major issues of imbalance in our commercial system, it tends to pick on the easy hits that it can do. If any organisation needs reform, it’s probably the Commerce Commission in attitude, approach, and, actually, delivery, and to give them more power is, I think, giving an organisation that doesn’t understand its role and doesn’t actually understand how it should fulfil that role a dangerous precedent. So I would be very cautious and I would caution the Labour members from giving too much power to the Commerce Commission. One issue that they’re probably acting in at the moment is supermarkets and you haven’t seen the Commerce Commission being very active in that area at all, and that just shows that they’re not a body that I believe we can engage with to the extent of this power that’s given to them here.

There are some other changes in the bill that are pretty small, but the two big ones there are, effectively, the power the Commerce Commission gets and the change to the milk price panel. Those two, I think, need to be reviewed, and I thank the Labour Party for supporting Fonterra dairy farmers and the dairy industry. But I’d just caution that there are two or three areas there that possibly could do with change, and I look forward to that happening in the select committee.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—and talofa. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this first reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. It has been said in previous speeches already—but it’s worth repeating—that New Zealand dairy farmers are world-leading, and the Fonterra cooperative has, of course, been a central part of this.

I want to do a quick shout-out, while I have the opportunity, to our hard-working dairy farmers in Kaipara ki Mahurangi, as was evident at the recent Northland Dairy Industry Awards. There were two prize-winning Wellsford farms, both first-timers, and it was great to see people like Michaela McCracken, only 21 at the time, scoop up such prestigious awards, so I thought it would be worth a shout-out.

Back to Fonterra though: as New Zealand’s largest company, their ongoing performance is critical to our economy and it’s very important that we get the settings right so that Fonterra can continue to perform well. So the Government has agreed to amend the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to support Fonterra’s morph to a new capital structure, which will enable them to compete for future milk supply on a sustainable basis.

The risk mitigation and improved transparency measures in this bill were developed with consultation with industry. They will ensure that there is ongoing support for their performance.

This bill, in our view, strikes a right balance between supporting Fonterra shareholder mandate as well as doing its bit to improving transparency in the sector. With the increasing challenges in the dairy sector in general—and the Minister, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, in her first reading speech, touched on those quite extensively—it is really important that we provide certainty and continued safeguards for Fonterra, for farmers, and for the wider dairy sector. I commend this bill to the House.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start my contribution today by acknowledging the Government’s announcement earlier, introducing a further 3,000 seasonal workers, so that’s increasing it from 16,000 to 19,000 seasonal workers a year. I know that that will be welcomed by our dairy industry in particular.

As has been pointed out, this is a bill to amend Fonterra’s capital structure to help it with milk prices when we’re seeing a potential decrease in milk supply; so to help give some certainty going into the future. It will also make it a bit more affordable for farmers to buy into Fonterra and become Fonterra-supplying farmers. So on that note, I’d like to shout out to the really hard-working Fonterra members—many of the 10,000 Fonterra farmers are in my electorate in Whanganui, particularly in South Taranaki and Stratford—and I want to thank and acknowledge them for the vital role that they’ve played in contributing to the success of our economic recovery and for taking the sharp edges off the global economic downturn that we’re experiencing.

This bill is particularly important because, as I mentioned, we’ve got a number of Fonterra farmers in my electorate. In fact, if you are familiar with State Highway 3 driving north, heading into Hāwera, just on the left there before you turn off to Fonterra’s Whareroa plant, we’ve got one of our local icons, the Fonterra cow. In addition to the Whareroa plant we’ve got the Eltham cheese plant, which is another of Fonterra’s plants, and the Kapuni plant in my electorate as well. So this is a crucial one for me, because Fonterra is a large employer in my electorate. So it is an absolute pleasure to be able to support this bill. I really look forward to hearing the submissions when they come to the Primary Production Committee which I sit on, and with that, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill, aka DIRA bill.

I join my colleague and friend across the House—and colleague within the electorate, the wonderful Kaipara ki Mahurangi—Marja Lubeck, who has rightly acknowledged the importance of the sector to the whole area including, as she says, Wellsford, as recognised in a couple of particular cases recently. So that’s very pleasing, to hear that acknowledgment, and I join her in making it to the people of our area.

It’s worth noting as well—zoomed out, so to speak, geographically at least—the importance of the rural sector, the primary sector, to our nation, most obviously the goods and services themselves, the importance of dairy to sustain us all. And in an economic sense, the export dollar that comes with those goods earning well for New Zealand—particularly well recently, I understand. And the primary sector in general, dairy within that, and of course within that again—concentric circles coming in—focusing on Fonterra itself. Of course, that’s only a part of the dairy sector, but it’s a large part—some 79 percent, I understand, so nearly four-fifths of the market and the supply and so forth within New Zealand. So, obviously, hugely important subject matter for a piece of legislation.

The legislation itself is significant because the way in which Fonterra—as something of a special case business or entity within New Zealand—is dependent on what the rules of the game that are set by this place allow it to do. Of course, in corporate law generally, that’s the case. But Fonterra—our largest company, I understand, and a particular set-up and arrangement deserving of this particular attention—of course needs certainty to be able to operate in a way that is in accordance with the rule of law, in accordance with statute, and in a way that allows all of its key players to interact with the system in a way that is fair and reasonable for them but also maximises the gains and the production and the supply of the sector as a whole. Because as we’ve discussed already at some length in this House—previous speakers, including on the first occasion of it being debated, the first part of the first reading—we all know how important it is to this country.

So, thinking about the process as a whole, others have touched on the fact that there has been consultation. Across the other side of the House they’ve said, rather breezily, that the Government’s been working with Fonterra and is keeping it very much happy. My colleague and friend the Hon David Bennett has struck a slightly more cautious note, suggesting that’s important—and, of course, he’s right to say that it’s important that the Government remain in step with Fonterra and those key players within that set-up, and in fairness to the market more generally. So that’s a note of caution which all policy makers would do well to heed as the process goes forward. From here we look forward to a select committee process, second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and so forth.

The select committee process that’s coming up will be so important because that’s the opportunity for this institution to hear from those who are on the ground, those who have muddy boots, who know exactly what is needed, they are experiencing—pardon me?

Maureen Pugh: Red Bands.

CHRIS PENK: Oh, Red Bands; I’ve had that clarification from Maureen Pugh, who’s worn a pair of Red Bands or two in her time. I don’t often wear red clothing or attire on this side of the House, but I think it’s the one exception that’s allowable.

So those who know most will contribute well to that process. Our role in this House, of course, is to decide at the first reading whether the intentions seem worthwhile—if the basic detail is workable—and we’ve concluded, in the National Party, that it’s a case of so far so good. Obviously the detail is to be scrutinised carefully going forward. So, just considering what that basic level of detail is, it’s about enabling different ways of shareholding, different levels of accountability and scrutiny within the company. For example, we’ve seen—in the way that the bill is put together—a number of safeguards, I suppose we could say. So we’re going to have an increased number of ministerial nominees to the milk price panel, from one to two—a doubling, if my maths doesn’t desert me—and the requirement for an independent chair, appointed with the approval of a Minister. Of course, there’s a certain amount of Government input to these decisions with ministerial nominees and approvals being required. We expect and hope that the Minister, from time to time, will exercise their responsibility in a cautious way, in a considered way, one that reflects not only the importance of the certainty that is needed to be enjoyed by the sector to continue to operate well but to reflect the ambition of the sector as well—we’ve seen that the restructure is being justified in terms of seeking to attract and retain supply in an increasingly competitive environment.

Other safeguards, if I may call them that: the powers being given to the Commerce Commission to issue binding directions to Fonterra following reviews. There’s been perhaps the closest it’s come, I think, to a difference of opinion across the House in terms of the value of that. David Bennett may or may not be on the Christmas card list of the Commerce Commission, but, actually, he’s right to express a healthy degree of scepticism about the performance of any Government agency. I think it’s fair to describe them as that, albeit one that has a role of scrutiny—considering, in particular, whether there are anti-competitive practices. We’re talking, after all, about a company that enjoys a nearly 80 percent share in the market; it’s almost anti-competitive by very definition. So the role of the Commerce Commission to be able to consider carefully the role of Fonterra is appropriate, and to be able to issue binding directions—well, we’ll see how that power is exercised, and, of course, it’s always important that that is done in a reasonable and knowable fashion.

So we’ve had, as I say, a bit of consultation already and that will continue. I think it’s worth noting, however, that what we are entering into in this legislation, this new regime, is actually a continuation of an existing regime and an evolution of that rather than a revolution. So, for example, in 2012, Fonterra commenced its capital structure with those two markets, as they’ve been described: Fonterra’s shareholders’ market and also the unit fund, the latter being where farmer shareholders are able to trade units in economic rights and shares—of a non-voting nature, I understand—in Fonterra. So they have skin in the game, so to speak, as well as mud on their boots, if you’ll excuse the extended metaphor. I’m trying to avoid the look of Maureen Pugh; she’s going to give me some grief about it, no doubt. No doubt I deserve it.

Anyway, the purpose is to provide the certainty, as I canvassed earlier. I didn’t really go into what’s meant by certainty, but there’s a huge value in players in a market being able to know what the rules of the game are so they can act accordingly. If we think the purpose of a market is to maximise the gains—and I don’t just mean economic gains, although, in this case, it is of an economic nature as well as a social good that we have a strong dairy and rural sector. But for the rules of the game to be known, it’s important that there isn’t the unwarranted prospect of a legal challenge. I understand that the current Act—that is to say the Act prior to the amendment that’s going to be made by this legislation—doesn’t exclude or prohibit Fonterra from undergoing this capital sort of restructure, if you like, explicitly. But there’s enough doubt about it to be a reasonable use of this House’s time to want to exclude that possibility. Not in a way, I think, and not in a way, I hope, certainly, that would deny anyone existing legal rights. But, rather, just to create a more certain regime and to ensure that those who are involved in acting in good faith, in a way that’s rational, according to the rules of the game as they understand it, and they honestly believe that to be the case, they won’t be dragged through the courts with all the uncertainty as to time, cost, and outcome that would be implied in that.

So, I’ll just conclude my remarks on a more general nature, such as I began with, having delved into at least a little bit of the detail, which is to note the strategic importance for rural communities. Again, I acknowledge that Marja Lubeck has made that comment in relation to the community which we both are able to represent. I think it’s worth noting that the community as a whole will benefit and thrive and prosper when the dairy farmers are able to do the things that they do because they provide, in turn, business and support for others who, in turn, provide business and support for others, and so on. So, for all those reasons, we commend, in good faith, this bill to the House. We look forward to further discussions at select committee and beyond.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a relatively brief final call this afternoon to sum up somewhat the main points.

Three things come to mind, listening to the contributions made today and also previously in this debate. The first thing that comes to mind—I think the most frequent comment that was made—is that New Zealand dairy farmers are in fact world leading and that’s been well acknowledged, as has the fact that Fonterra, the cooperative, has been a really central part to achieving that. Secondly, the bill will provide greater economic security for New Zealanders and also go some way to at least reducing that long-term risk to what is a $22 billion industry, our highest value export industry, in fact. And thirdly, we believe this bill strikes the right balance between supporting that shareholder mandate while also improving the transparency, which is important.

So the final comment is that we believe certainly that it’s important that this amendment bill proceeds quickly, particularly because it gives certainty to Fonterra, it gives certainty to farmers and the wider dairy sector. So I’m pleased to support this bill and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

: The question is, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 November 2022, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 64; Sharma.

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa)

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Instruction to Primary Production Committee

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 November 2022, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

It’s important that the bill proceeds quickly to give certainty to Fonterra, farmers, and the wider dairy industry. As such, it is our intention to enact this bill before the end of the year to enable Fonterra to proceed with this capital restructure as soon as possible. It will ensure all relevant regulatory changes can be made before the next dairy season, and it provides some certainty for nearly 10,000 farmer shareholders.

This bill plays an important part in the ongoing resilience and prosperity of rural New Zealand. We undertook a public consultation from April to June this year where farmer organisations, Fonterra, independent dairy processors, and other affected groups submitted on the discussion document. The consultation process was focused on the practical implications and workability of the regulatory response package.

Enacting the bill by the end of the year will require the select committee to be given a compressed deadline to consider the bill. This will be an opportunity for submissions on the bill to be considered, further to the already received submissions on the discussion document. I’m therefore proposing that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee, with a deadline to report the bill back to the House of Representatives by 10 November 2022.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on this, because we’re in a situation here where we have a report-back period that is significantly shorter than what would normally be the case for a piece of legislation. In this instance we’re talking only seven weeks or so, until early November, which raises some concerns around whether or not we’re going to see the depth of submissions that we might like to see.

So from a dairy farming perspective, obviously the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act is an important piece of legislation, and we’re at a stage in the dairy calendar at the moment where we’re just coming off the back of the calving season, and I do just want to acknowledge all of those wonderful farmers in the mighty Waikato who’ve put in the hard yards now for some eight or nine weeks through calving and are now finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. That’s a hard piece of work. They finally get a bit of a break off the back of that at this time of year, and then we are very shortly into the mating season on-farm as well. That generally, in my area, starts in that first week of October, somewhere around 7 to 10 October typically, and so then there’s another very busy period for six to eight weeks before the bulls then go out and the pressure starts to ease over the summer. That’s the typical format we see in dairying in the Waikato and there are slightly different time frames around the rest of the country based on whether they’re before or after climatically. So Southland is slightly further behind, for example.

So on that basis there’s some concern around the time frame and whether or not we’ll be able to see a sufficient range of submissions by anyone who wishes to submit, given the pressures they may be facing on-farm within their own dairy businesses through that period of time and whether or not they’ll be able to traverse fully the proposed changes in this legislation. Although at this stage the changes have been supported by 85 percent of Fonterra farmers—all those who voted in December, I believe it was, for the proposed changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—it is important that we now traverse that in more detail rather than just the vote and actually unpack that in a little bit more detail through the select committee process.

Of course, I expect other processing companies to submit on this bill, because it has significant implications for them, whether it be Open Country Dairy or Miraka or Synlait or Tatua or any number of the wonderful dairy companies that we have around New Zealand. They may all have a slightly different opinion on the relevance of this legislation and the appropriateness of it, and, of course, on the timing around that and how their business model fits within that. So on that basis, the seven-week report back that we’ve got is a very tight window of time, and we were typically expecting a number of months to be able to traverse that more fully.

Often, as I’m sure members will be aware, during that select committee process there can be requests for additional information or additional submissions from either the people who originally submitted or from other people or businesses—I use the term “person” in the context of natural persons as well as different entities within New Zealand who may wish to provide some additional context to back up a submission that’s been made by one of the other parties. Whether or not we would have the time frame to do that is seriously in question when we’re looking at a very reduced period of only seven weeks compared to the longer period we would typically have. So I think we really need to consider whether seven weeks is appropriate and whether we should be extending that longer to allow, as I say, for not only the farmers to submit but also the dairy companies.

Of course, that’s only two aspects. There could be any number of other submitters who may wish to engage on this bill, and such a tight window reduces significantly the impact to get this right. And, of course, the purpose of all of this is to ensure that we’re able to get the best piece of legislation possible to go forward for the sake of the sector, to enable them to operate within that framework as best as possible. This really is an important change that’s being proposed here. There are a number of aspects to it and a number of areas that have raised some concerns, and we’ve heard that from speakers on this side of the House. There are aspects that will need to be addressed more fully at the select committee, and we’ll be testing each of those individual concerns against the submissions made by the range of submitters.

So, again, it’s really important that we have the time frame to do that, and as we’re moving, off the back of this week, to a two-week parliamentary recess, we’re looking at only a few parliamentary sitting weeks in which to consider the bill under the proposed time frame that’s been put forward by the Minister just now. It’s a very short time frame, and I think we really do need to reconsider whether we should be pushing that further out. So I think, on that basis, I will end my contribution. Thank you.

Bills

Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I present a legislative statement on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a very important day for the future of ACC. About 50 years ago, the Accident Compensation Act 1972 was passed. This established ACC, which has become an integral part of the social support system in Aotearoa New Zealand and has become part of the fabric of our country.

Fifty years later, however, we see that women make fewer claims to ACC than men, have fewer injuries covered by the accident compensation scheme than men, and each woman’s claim costs the scheme a third less than a man’s, on average, in entitlements. We know that these inherent gender disparities in the accident compensation scheme are the result of, amongst other things, its focus on accident-related physical injuries, which are more common among men and in male-dominated types of work.

I think it’s really important to note that the evidence that outlines the disparities that exist within the scheme for women and other population groups was not something that was accidentally come upon. It was information that I had requested because I wanted to understand, as the Minister, how ACC serves all of the population groups in New Zealand. And the reminder that this serves to all of us is how important it is to ask for that equity data, how important it is to ask questions with regards to how well women are served and how well other population groups are served, because it does help to inform very important decisions that need to be made.

We also know that Aotearoa New Zealand looks very different from what it did 50 years ago. I’m very proud as the Minister to have introduced this bill and of the progress that the bill has made through the House. This bill is a first of its kind. It brings all maternal birth injuries under the cover of ACC. This change will ensure that approximately 28,000 birthing parents each year will be able to access the support they need. Expanding ACC cover to maternal birth injuries will improve the support available to birthing parents who suffer childbirth injuries and, in particular, more timely access to surgeries and to pelvic physiotherapy. This delivers on the Government’s 2020 election manifesto commitment to returning ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury.

I really want to recognise all those who submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee on this bill. I want to thank those people who very bravely came forward and shared their stories. I also want to acknowledge all of the medical organisations that brought their expertise to the committee. All of these contributions helped shape the excellent bill which was reported back.

I must acknowledge the members of the select committee, who diligently considered the large number of submissions on the bill, whose hard work resulted in two very sensible changes to the bill, which I wholeheartedly endorse. These changes ensure that the cover for maternal birth injuries is, and will continue to be, comprehensive.

I do also want to acknowledge the Labour Party women’s caucus. They were alongside me around the time that Radio New Zealand had shone a light on birth injuries and the inability for women to get cover for those birth injuries unless it was caused due to a treatment issue. It was a great example of us all being very passionate about a particular issue. Before I’d even made any progress with officials, we had already discussed it as a women’s caucus, and they have followed the progress of this bill the whole way through and enthusiastically supported me as the Minister who has had the privilege of leading this work. So I acknowledge the women’s caucus in the Labour Party.

The bill’s committee of the whole House debate was very robust. I want to again take this opportunity to reassure everyone that the bill is intended to cover all maternal birth injuries that can be caused by childbirth. The bill’s approach to covering maternal birth injuries is the best approach in ensuring that birthing parents have the support that they need to recover as quickly as possible in what will already be a time of great change in their lives.

As well as the expansion of cover to maternal birth injuries, this bill also addresses some of the changes National made when last in office which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. This bill provides more clarity on what is involved for gradual injury claims at work and more equitable cover for claimants. This includes bringing back the more claimant-friendly version of the test for work-related gradual injuries. The change will put the onus explicitly back on ACC to look into these claims and make it clearer to claimants such as firefighters what happens when they make a gradual process injury claim to ACC. We’re also reducing the threshold for injury-related hearing loss cover from 6 percent to 5 percent hearing loss. This means that more claimants can receive the care they need.

I recently introduced another change in this bill as part of my commitment to remove access barriers to ACC and improve fairness and equity within the scheme. ACC claimants who are unable to work as a result of their injuries and are on very low incomes are eligible for a top-up to a minimum weekly compensation rate which is linked to the minimum wage. Currently, these people must wait until 1 July each year for any increases in the minimum wage to be reflected in their weekly income. In 2022, this meant these people missed out on about $500. This change will mean these people will receive any planned increases to the minimum rate earlier, at the same time as the minimum wage increases.

This bill marks a step towards improving the gender balance, fairness, and equity of the accident compensation scheme. People giving birth in Aotearoa can be confident that they will be better supported by ACC with the expansion of cover provided by this bill. The bill also provides more support to injured New Zealanders, more clarity of what ACC covers, and equitable cover for claimants. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I join the Minister in acknowledging that today is a milestone day for ACC and the ACC framework that has been in place for 48 years on 1 April this year, and was the result of a royal commission report that was released in 1967—long before many of the people in this House were even born. It has endured. It is a world-leading scheme, but it was certainly written for a time and in a language that reflected the attitudes of the day. Indeed, if one reads that royal commission report, women are only mentioned in passing and to the degree where Justice Woodhouse publicly pondered what to do about the housewife that gets injured.

Erica Stanford: In the kitchen!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It’s on about page 115, Mrs Stanford, if you want to go and have a read of it. It is a remarkable reflection of the time. But times change, and this is an appropriate change to the legislation. As I said in my second reading on the Minister’s comments about equity—while I support this and this is a very much a step in the right direction in terms of gender equity in the ACC system—I do urge caution that we try and equalise the number and cost of claims that ACC pays out across the gender divide, because, actually, we know that young men particularly are much greater risk takers and will harm themselves at greater rates and to a greater extent than their female counterparts. On the other hand, sexual violence and the sensitive claims that are lodged with ACC as a consequence are disproportionately women. Actually, the solution to both of those inequities is to have fewer claims because fewer injuries are occurring. I think we should all agree that that is the equity goal that we seek.

In that regard and in relation to maternal birth injuries, it’s important to acknowledge that, on a world standard, we have one of the safest obstetric-care frameworks in the developed world, and it is certainly much, much lower than it was generations ago. But having achieved, I think, quite significant improvements in care for mothers and babies, we have plateaued somewhat over the last 30 to 40 years. And I think it’s important that as we collect more data within the accident and compensation system, we identify—while it is a no-fault system—what the causes and the potential avoidable causes of harm are so that we can reduce the impact of injuries both to mothers and to babies

I mentioned babies in the first and second readings because I believe that there are a number of harms that occur through the birthing process that are not yet covered by ACC—even though I think they should be. And it’s incredibly difficult to determine whether or not the sequelae that the baby experiences is a consequence of the labour or birth, or existed prior to the birthing process. Now, one could argue that the distinction is arbitrary and perhaps shouldn’t be there. I think it is important that while we have an excellent scheme, we do cover for accidents, but there needs to be another look at that. It won’t be easy, but I think we do need to have a look at how we cover for babies who are born with injuries or with at least sequelae that could be caused by an injury.

We heard so many stories in the Education and Workforce Committee of harm, and it is a great day because mums will get better care. But I do worry that ACC is becoming, in many parts of our health system, the default physical and mental health provider. And it’s happening because there is, frankly, better cover and better support if one is able to get a claim accepted by ACC. Now, the levy payers are paying for that—and willingly, I think—but they’re also paying for a health system that, I think, should be delivering more than it is right now. We are seeing too many examples of waiting and failures in our health system that this Government needs to address. It can certainly celebrate today, but it can’t celebrate what we are seeing in a growing and increasingly inert health system.

Now, there were some process questions that I was going to raise in the committee of the whole House. I won’t traverse why that wasn’t the case, but I think we need to actually have a look at it. Now, this could be homework for the ACC officials who I know will be listening, and the policy team either have or will—or I hope will—address them between now and when the Act comes into force. The first one is in reimbursement for our obstetric professionals where there is a birthing injury in a public hospital. Now, it’s a bit pointy-headed, but, normally, if one suffers an accident and is taken to a public hospital, acute care is provided and ACC doesn’t have to provide a direct payment. That’s covered by something called the public health acute services levy, and ACC is not obliged to pay any more than that. Alternatively, a treatment injury occurs while a person is in a public hospital and ACC doesn’t pay for that care either. That also goes to the public health acute service levy. With a birth injury, what tends to happen is, even if it’s in a public hospital, the person providing the primary care—the lead carer—is either an independent midwife or a private obstetrician.

Now—I think, quite rightly—if an injury has occurred and a claim has been accepted, they have a right to be reimbursed for the extra costs that they have undertaken, but the current Act prevents that, and I think that needs to be looked at. There is the ACC treatment reimbursement-of-costs regulations, and, I think, maternal care should be put on that list. And a further amendment is required, I think, to enable obstetricians and midwives to be able to claim for those extra costs. Currently, under section 88, they feel pretty unloved, by this Government anyway, and they’re not being sufficiently reimbursed even for the normal labour and birth—much less, the many abnormal labours and births that they’re going to have to do, and the travel. ACC is now covering for acute care and I think they should have a look at that.

The other thing is in weekly compensation. We’ve talked a lot about treatment and rehabilitation, but, actually, a mum who’s had a baby and suffers an injury that prevents her from going back to work in the time that she should is eligible for weekly compensation. But what’s clear—and I don’t think the select committee actually dived deep enough into this—is that there needs to be a reconciliation between that and our paid parental leave and our 52-week unpaid parental leave. Very often, mums will apply for the maximum parental leave but have no intention of using it at all. They’ll probably go back to work in a couple of months—in less than a year or less than the 26 weeks of paid leave—because it’s less than the normal income. If they are injured and unable to do that, how is ACC going to distinguish between when they would have gone back and when they’ve applied for leave? The other thing is: what if the other partner takes the unpaid maternity leave? Is the mum then still eligible for weekly compensation? I think they should be, but I don’t think we—as a House or, certainly, as a select committee—had enough of a conversation about the logistics of weekly compensation. It is an issue, it will emerge, there will be serious harm that will prevent mums from going back to work at the time that they wanted to, and that needs to be accommodated. On the other hand, we don’t want any gaming of the system either, and I’m sure that’s a very rare thing, but it is possible that if somebody could be earning weekly compensation that is greater than the 26-week paid parental leave payments, that also needs to be had a look at.

So it’s a good day, but I think there’s some work to do. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to talk a little bit about gradual process and disease, because I was surprised that the Minister talked about firefighters. I would have thought that she might have actually just let that sleeping dog lie. They are not well treated by the scheme. I have said that we should look at a list of conditions where the science is showing that firefighters, due to their occupational exposure, are at a greater risk of getting cancers than the general population and that they should be included in an ACC scheme. I’m keen to have a look at that when we do get back to Government. But let’s finish on a positive: this is a really good bill, and I look forward to it passing.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll pick up that positive note from the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, because this bill makes several changes to current legislation. I just want to make mention of a couple.

Firstly, I’ll pick up the challenge put on the floor by the previous speaker when he talked about gradual process injuries, because that is one thing that this bill does. It does make some changes—well, actually, it reverses changes that were made in 2010 by the previous Government, where, in a bid to save cost, the onus was reversed from being on ACC to prove that a gradual injury was, in fact, not work-related to deny that cover. A change was then put in place to make sure that the actual claimant had to prove that the injury was work-related. So that is a change that we are reversing, so it makes it a lot more “claimant friendly”, if that’s what you want to call it.

The bill also reverses the threshold put in place in 2010, where the hearing loss of a worker for a work-related injury had to be 6 percent; that is reversed back to 5 percent. So that is a good change, because it makes sure that there is more of an opportunity for Kiwis to receive fair access to cover.

Secondly, and it has been talked about most in this debate, is, of course, the extension of the compensation scheme to cover birth injuries. In fact, the majority of the nearly 800 written submissions—including 46 oral submissions—that our committee dealt with, were heard on this particular topic. As the Minister already pointed out, there were very personal stories showing that birth injuries can be extremely serious and debilitating. They were very personal stories shared very bravely by our submitters, and we’ve done it again, but I want to pause and really put on the record a massive thankyou to all of our submitters who took the time and who were brave enough to come before our committee and share those stories. I remember one of the submitters really specifically saying that while this bill would not apply to her personally, she said that she was speaking up in that select committee process about something to make a difference for others. That is, I think, a really significant and brave thing to do of people not thinking of themselves.

There’s a review clause within this bill that the Minister spoke about and that is to ensure that the list of birth injuries is futureproofed in this bill.

But additionally, what our select committee did, because the intention is for all birth injuries to be covered by this bill, is that our select committee, opened the briefing into the scheme for maternal birth injuries cover. What we actually put in our report was the line: “We hope to see the briefing reinstated in the 54th Parliament by the Education and Workforce Committee”, and through this briefing there will then be an opportunity to review the way the bill is working in practice. That will then start before the formal ministerial review process, which kicks in three years after the bill comes in place. So, basically, we strongly urge that next committee to pick up that briefing and examine that list of maternal birth injuries.

Now, when this bill is passed, 28,000 more women will benefit from the improved legislation. It’s significant legislation. I want to thank the officials and advisers for their work on this bill; my colleagues around the House; a special mention to Sarah Pallett, as our subject matter expert doing her great work; but definitely thank you to the Hon Minister Sepuloni for her bringing this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is my first opportunity to contribute to this debate, even though I was a member of the select committee.

I want to just start by picking up on something the previous speaker, Marja Lubeck, pointed out. It’s been made very clear in the initial briefing to the Education and Workforce Committee—that Marja is the chair of—that, actually, prior to 2010, there was no threshold for hearing loss. So it wasn’t that National shifted it from a certain percentage to a certain other percentage; we introduced the percentage and we did this in line with other countries like Australia and the UK. We did this in 2010. So contrary to what Marja Lubeck has just stated, we introduced that percentage; we didn’t change it. It’s interesting to note that, actually, official advice says—there are several studies that suggest that hearing aids don’t have any benefit until a person has between 5 percent and 6 percent hearing loss anyway. That was some of the information that we got at select committee. So the benefits of this change will be marginal, and, really, at best—and this has been mentioned by previous speakers—this is a bit of window dressing.

As has been mentioned in this bill in prior readings, the ACC scheme will soon turn 50; 50 years since a relatively unique piece of legislation and world-leading piece of legislation has been introduced. But it is interesting to look at it and read some of the old documents—that really does date it. If you fast forward to today, where woman are working far more than they were in the seventies—Carmel Sepuloni mentioned in her initial speech today that women make fewer claims than men and, on average, their claims are about a third of the value of what men make. Now, it’s interesting to note that, and this bill is really important today in the fact that it goes some way to adding more ability for women to claim on maternal birth injuries. But as my colleague Michael Woodhouse has pointed out in this reading today and in previous readings, what’s really important to note as well, actually, is that the reason that men claim more and have higher claims granted is because of the risk taking that is inherent with young men. I can see this because I’ve got a son and I can see this because I played hockey for many years with men, and they are inherently greater risk takers, far more reckless. But also you can understand why it is that they claim more often and that their claims are much more. So it’s really important, as Michael Woodhouse pointed out, the equity needs to be gained from both sides, not only in increasing the cover to woman—importantly, as we’re doing today—but also in making sure that men are claiming at a far lesser rate by better prevention measures.

But it is very important to note that there are some historical discrepancies as to why women don’t claim as much. And that’s why this bill is so important. It’s been mentioned many times that we know that about 85 percent of women—most woman—will experience a maternal birth injury, ranging from things that are very minor to things that are very severe and life changing. Many women in the past have struggled to get treatment and support. We all know someone who’s been in this situation or it may have happened to one of us. For me, it was a friend of mine in a coffee group who suffered an extremely severe prolapse which had huge impacts on her bonding with her child and caused severe pain for a really long time—and she wasn’t able to get any of the support that will be offered through this bill. So while the bill will change this, and it may be too late for my friend, it will aim to help 28,000 women. Again, important to note that that number has increased by about 18,000 since the first reading—from 18,000 to 28,000 as new information arose.

This bill will allow women like my friend and those other 28,000 women to access surgery and pelvic physiotherapy, cover which ACC has previously denied to many woman, resulting in pretty negative effects. And there have been a load of petitions on this case. At this point, I want to acknowledge some of the people who need acknowledging, given this is the first time I’ve spoken on the bill that was at my select committee. Firstly, we need to acknowledge Kirsty Watt, who petitioned Parliament back, I believe, in 2020—the last two years are a bit of a blur, but I believe it was 2020—to make improvements to care and rehabilitation for women post-birth. Her petition has made a difference. I want her to know that it’s made a difference. She shone another very important bright light on this issue, and here we are today. So petitions do make a huge difference, and I would encourage more people to do them.

We also need to thank the submitters, the 46 that came to our select committee, and the nearly 800 that wrote in. But for those who turned up to select committee, it was very personal and very gruelling for some of those women who needed to go into quite graphic detail in front of strangers at the select committee. Their bravery needs to be acknowledged, because, actually, that graphic detail was really important for the deliberations of the bill. So I want to say to each of those women who came in front of our select committee, thank you very much for sharing your very, very personal stories. And it’s important to note here, given their stories, that these maternal birth injuries can cause a huge amount of mental anguish, a lack of confidence, lack of bonding with the baby—as what happened to my friend—and difficulties with relationships as well. This bill will go some way to helping those women.

It was discussed in the bill around whether or not we should have a list of injuries or whether or not we should just have the words “maternal birth injuries”. What we’ve settled on, I think, is the right way to go, with a list of injuries, as the maternal birth injuries definition was too broad and could be applied inconsistently. I know that the Green Party disagrees with this view, but I think that we got it right. It was really important in the deliberations of the select committee, actually, and, at this point, I probably should thank Sarah Pallett as well, because it was very useful having a midwife on the select committee who could actually say to us, well actually, what we thought was a definition that covered lots of injuries, in fact, didn’t. And so many of the things that the officials had thought were covered in this list of definition weren’t. So there were a number of cases where we added—certainly around tears, I believe—words to make sure that all of those individual injuries were covered, even though, as the Minister has said, she intended all maternal birth injuries to be covered. And so we very thoroughly went through and made sure that they were, in fact—not only that, there were other injuries that were thought to be consequential injuries and would therefore be covered by the Act, but, again, the officials and Sarah explained to us that, actually, some of these injuries could be caused during the birthing process and weren’t always consequential. So we’ve added those in as well. So there was a lot of work done to make sure that we got that list right.

I do understand the Green Party’s problem with the bill and that it should just be a bit broader. But that’s, I think, been covered in the fact that we’ve got this review built in that needs to take place three years after the bill has been introduced, to make sure that there aren’t any maternal birth injuries that aren’t being covered that have slipped through the cracks, which may happen. And, look, I hope not, because we did go through this with a fine-tooth comb, but the officials did fill us full of confidence that they would take this review seriously and add in any maternal birth injuries that hadn’t been covered in that three-year period.

I just want to pick up very briefly on something that Michael Woodhouse, my colleague, has mentioned, and that is around the injuries to babies. I also think this needs to be looked at, and the reason I think that is because when I go into schools and I talk to teacher aides, they say to me, well, this child is fully covered under ACC because of a domestic violence incident that happened when they were a baby and the injuries that they got mean that they are covered by ACC, but this child over here is not covered because their injury happened at birth. And as we know, getting covered by ACC at birth can be a bit difficult and it’s not always clear, as Michael Woodhouse has pointed out. I do think, in line with what Michael said, that this needs looking at, because it’s pretty heartbreaking when you’re in a classroom and two children with exactly the same needs are being treated extremely differently.

I will just finish, again, by saying thank you very much to all the submitters, thank you to Kirsty and also to Sarah on our select committee for giving us a hand with this bill. I’m very happy to commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

It’s a very proud day for us, today, to be passing the third reading of this important bill. I’m very proud to live in a country that has an accident compensation scheme that’s been in place for over 40 years now. That scheme provides help to thousands of New Zealanders. It’s not perfect, but it is certainly a lot better than the absence of such a scheme. Today, we are improving this scheme once again by making sure—the most salient change in this bill will mean that when people give birth, if they are physically injured as a result of that birth, they are entitled to compensation. And I think this is really the basic thing that we can provide to people doing such an important role for the future of our country.

Again, I think it’s important to emphasise, and the Minister has said it in previous readings of this bill and today again in the House, that her view and also the shared view of this House that these changes are intended to cover all physical maternal abuse injuries caused by birth. It is a significant change to the current system where we don’t have that cover for people who can sometimes go through—what we heard in select committee and what others have spoken of—an extremely difficult physical process of birthing a child.

And I also want to join other colleagues in thanking the brave submitters for coming to our committee. It’s difficult that those people won’t be covered by this legislation, because it isn’t retrospective. But as soon as it’s commenced, which will be at the beginning of next month, the mothers and parents and babies who are injured through birth will be entitled to ACC cover. So I say it’s very much time for this bill and I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with real excitement and pleasure that I get to take a final call on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As others have said, this is a very significant day for us as a country. We’ve had this cornerstone social insurance scheme in the country that’s provided compensation and rehabilitation and support for thousands of New Zealanders every year, but it has excluded the injuries and the experience of thousands of birthing parents because it was designed in a time when the experience of birthing parents and women was not in the mainstream political discussion. It was an addendum way down in that report, as already mentioned by a previous speaker.

I’ve got to say, as a feminist who has been active on issues of equality for decades now, it’s been shocking to me to hear the submissions come through this process of the extent of pain and injury that has been suffered by birthing parents and women and their whānau, and how much that has been covered up and silenced in our society. So I do want to offer my thanks to everybody who submitted, and also to the 40,000 New Zealanders who signed the open letter to Minister for ACC in September last year, including almost all of our children’s organisations and women’s organisations and many of our health organisations, calling for this comprehensive cover, and, most particularly, the 900 birthing parents who shared their specific stories of injury.

I know that this has been traumatic for so many people, and this is a warning for anybody who may be listening who may have been affected by it that I am about to share some of those stories now, because I believe that it is important that some of the extent of the injury is on record in this House because it’s become very apparent to me the level of shame that’s been held by people who have experienced these injuries. We need to do more to break that shame and destigmatise these injuries. So I am going to share some of those stories in the House today.

I’ll quote: “I suffered from third-degree tears through my clitoris and anus during my first birth. The anaesthetic hadn’t kicked in yet. I was sewn back up by hand. I requested a female and was given a male. I already had PTSD before this, so it just added to the trauma. I felt every stitch until the last few, when the anaesthetic finally began kicking in. I couldn’t walk unaided for days. For six months straight, I couldn’t feel when I needed to pee and had accidents multiple times a day until almost nine to 12 months after birth. I couldn’t participate in any sexual activity. I found physically walking painful, but had to as I had no vehicle. It’s been nine years; I wear a pad every single day because accidents are still happening. No pelvic floor exercises ever worked. This should have been covered by ACC. I am shocked and appalled that it isn’t already. This needs to happen as soon as possible, and all historic traumatic births need to be covered.”

Then, from another woman: “In October 2020, I gave birth to my daughter and sat on a wheelchair in the car park, lobby entrance of Middlemore Hospital. Because of the position I was in, my daughter left me suffering with severe tailbone pain. Doctors say there’s nothing I can do. I applied for ACC, but it isn’t covered, but giving birth on a wheelchair was definitely an accident. I suffer with pain every day. I can’t sit for long periods of time. I need an X-ray and treatment for it as it’s really affecting my mental health.”

Another story: “In September, I gave birth to a baby that was 8lb 3. My baby was two weeks early due to a rare pregnancy complication. I’m now five weeks post-partum and have developed pelvic organ prolapse. This means that my uterus is bulging out my vaginal opening. This is treatable with physiotherapy. ACC will not cover this. If prolapses are left untreated, they get worse and the organ protrudes further until the point of needing surgery, which can cause infertility. Once a prolapse gets to a moderate stage, it’s unlikely physiotherapy will do anything. To fix this, I have to spend more than $100 per session to help with this condition, but being on a low income, I cannot afford this. This means I cannot go to physio and my condition is only going to get worse over time. This will lead to surgery and a high chance of infertility.”

These stories are hard to listen to, but, boy, they’ve got to be much, much harder to live, with that reality. So today is a milestone that birthing parents, women in this situation from 1 October, will be able to reach out and get the support that they need to prevent many of those consequential impacts in terms of their mobility, in terms of their relationships, and in terms of their ability to parent, their integrity of their bodies, and their life choices.

This is hugely significant, and I do want to acknowledge Sarah Pallett and others on the committee for the work that we did to ensure that the list was extended so that now anterior wall prolapse, posterior wall prolapse, or uterine prolapse; coccyx fracture or dislocation; obstetric anal sphincter injury tears or tears to the perineum, labia, vagina, vulva, clitoris, cervix, rectum, anus, or urethra; post-partum uterine inversion; pubic ramus fracture; and symphysis pubis capsule or ligament tears will also be added to the cover where they were not initially. So that is a significant extension to the bill because of the contribution of people with lived experience in this area, and I hope that that gives them hope in our democratic processes as well as the ability for Governments to catch up with the real world and respond when voices are raised that harm is being done.

Of course this bill—as we have raised many times—is not perfect in the view of the Greens. We wanted more general cover rather than a list. We wanted to ensure that injuries to babies are covered where they are excluded from this, and it was fantastic to hear that the National Party is now considering that. My understanding of Labour Party direction is that it is also to remove those inequities in coverage for support services for disability as a result of accident and disability as a result of birth, and that has been signalled by a previous Minister. So it feels to me as if we are building—partly through, hopefully, submissions—consensus across the House for that next step. That is critically important, because those inequities are just unjustifiable.

We also wanted stand-alone mental trauma to be covered, and it’s great that it is now on the Minister’s agenda to be looking at the mental health boundaries more broadly in the legislation, because that really does need to be done. She has also signalled that in respect of the Nick Smith changes, there are more changes to come to overturn those contractions—that was probably an inappropriate word in this context—or the bringing in of the purpose of the bill that happened in 2010.

I do just, finally, want to say that the hearing loss threshold—I was not convinced that the threshold is necessary. While it says that hearing aids may only be valuable from 5 percent or 6 percent, somebody can lose 17 percent of hearing or most of the hearing in one ear and it won’t reach that threshold and they would have value. We don’t support the arguments from the officials in keeping the threshold that high, and there’s more I could say on gradual process, but I won’t. Today is a day primarily to celebrate, and I am.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to stand here, on behalf of the ACT Party, on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have said, this is definitely a great day for birthing-women in New Zealand. It’s something that has been overlooked for many years, and, especially, that’s become very apparent when we had all our submitters come to the Education and Workforce Committee and give us their stories of very uncomfortable lives, which some of them still carry to this day—and some of these injuries occurred up to 40 years ago. So it’s sad to say that they are not going to be recognised. However, from 1 October on, women shall be recognised and looked after.

The other thing is, again, I’d also like to thank Sarah Pallett, who is a midwife, because she helped guide us through these very interesting injuries, which I will not list. But, most of all, I am very proud to say that the officials sat, listened, and came back with a revised list for us. It was great to hear that they were listening to the lovely submitters, even though their circumstances varied. The other thing is that the officials had a three- to five-year review. As most of us said, we thought five years was just a little bit too long, so I was very pleased for them to come back with the three. They also mentioned to us that they were going to be monitoring the system and, hopefully, they’re going to put a robust monitoring system in, so if anything does show up sooner than the three years, it will be added to the list. Now, that’s very important because, as we all know, there are things that constantly happen that we, who are not experts, would not know, but we would hope the medical profession would be able to do that.

Also, with my other colleagues, especially with National and the Greens, around injuries to babies—you know, the hard thing is also knowing what is natural and what is an injury. There’s so many grey zones, but there are so many babies that have come away with injuries from birth that have not been picked up and looked after by ACC, which is very sad to say that these kids then continue through their lives having difficulties in many different forms. So, again, I would actually support this bill to see how we can improve it. But the biggest thing of all, I foresee, is we’ve got to make sure that our health system and ACC are communicating a bit better. We know there is that grey zone between what is medical and what is an accident, but, the thing is, if we don’t know, then we can’t know, but if they report it, we can find out and we can add these things.

Now, the other thing I’d like to bring up is I know that we wanted to get this bill through by October. However, I felt a little bit disappointed that the select committee, of the whole debate—there were some questions that we still wanted to get a few clarifications around. It’s not because we were opposing things, but just to get some clarifications on a few things that were in this other matters bill. However, I felt that it was not given its due course. I don’t think it would have gone on for long; however, it’s just sad that it was closed down, I felt, a little bit too soon, and we could not debate a few things, which is what I thought we were here—and because, also, there might have been something in that that they would be able to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I just ask the member to come back to the third reading.

TONI SEVERIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also, as they estimated, because we added to this bill more injuries, around 28,000 birthing women would be included in this—a lot greater than what they thought. Also we know that that’s going to be another huge expense on all this, but, hopefully, it’ll be a great expense to make women feel a lot more comfortable, and, also, for women to be able to possibly go back to work sooner, if they wish to, because they have had the right treatments to fix the problems that can occur during birthing.

The other thing is, mostly, that the other matters, as Michael Woodhouse said—there are a few things in it that we could have debated a little bit more, but because the majority of this bill was around the maternity injuries, it took up most of our time at the select committee for the hearing. So we missed out, I think, as Jan Logie said, around hearing—there could have been maybe a little bit more robust information around hearing—as well as, again, what’s considered of long-term effects in section 30, and, also, as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni mentioned, about firefighters, which has been a hugely contested thing, as Michael Woodhouse said, around cancers that have been proven around the rest of the world. So it would be very interesting to see if some of these things could be possibly taken up in the next round, if not by Labour, maybe National in the next few years, if they become Government.

But, overall, I’m very pleased to say that this bill is, hopefully, going to give around 28,000 birthing women a greater opportunity for a better future for them in the long term. So I commend this bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I am so proud to be standing here this afternoon as part of a Labour Government that has brought this bill to the House. I can attest to the fact that, as chair of the wāhine caucus—Labour’s women’s caucus—I am so proud of our Minister Carmel Sepuloni for bringing this to the House.

This bill will benefit, as we’ve heard, 28,000 birthing people. That’s 76 a day who will benefit from this piece of legislation. And, I have to say, the vast majority of those will be women, but we must remember in this conversation that non binary, transgender, and other gender diverse folk also give birth, and it’s really important that we continue to acknowledge that in this House. I was struck, listening to the heartbreaking stories that have been shared—some of them this afternoon, in select committee—that, actually, many of them should have been covered as treatment injuries. So I can really appreciate that the intention of this bill is that all physical birthing injuries are covered. It takes away any ambiguity, it takes away any capacity for argument, and it allows those birthing people, those women, to receive the care that they need at the time that they need it, without delay.

So I am incredibly proud to be bringing this to the House in its third reading, with my colleagues. I can only imagine the benefits that it will bring. I’d also like to thank all of the select committee, which I am not a part of, for their incredible work in making sure that this bill did do exactly what was intended to do: to cover all physical birthing injuries. I just want to thank everybody that has been involved. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Harete Hipango—five minutes.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, and following on from my parliamentary colleague Sarah Pallett, in her previous profession as a midwife, I certainly acknowledge the contribution given to the Education and Workforce Committee, and also the submitters, members from the public who genuinely expose ourselves. And not having sat or served on the select committee, but having read the report and the detail of the submissions that have been made, particularly for the amendment within new Schedule 3A, inserted by Schedule 2 to the bill, specifying—with clarity, with specificity—the nature of the injuries to women who are birthing children to now be covered and treated under this Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Being a short call, and being one of the last speakers in the House to address this matter today, I’ve listened with particular interest and note the debates, the contributions of previous speakers. I harken back to the days in the 1980s, when I studied law and the Accident Compensation Corporation Act—as it was then—we studied that. And my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse made mention of the royal commission inquiry in 1967, which initiated the bill that was passed into law—the Accident Compensation Act—on 1 April 1972, 48 years ago, which came into operation on 1 April 1974. So hearing my colleague Michael Woodhouse talk about the royal commission of inquiry—the chair of that inquiry, I do recollect as a law student, was Sir Owen Woodhouse. And the legislation of the day—internationally, New Zealand was a trailblazer in that regard.

I always try and make a correlation from personal experience too, and having listened to Sarah Pallett, as a former midwife, speaking—I remember when I gave birth to one of my three children over 30 years ago, and the midwife who was helping with his delivery. He was an unexpected home birth, my son—and the midwife, regrettably, as a result, put her back out; so no doubt she lodged a claim for ACC as a result of a slipped disc.

But little did I know that my son, at the time, had a heart defect and that was detected later. And the law didn’t allow at the time—and certainly, he received the appropriate treatment. However, a number of we women in the House who have birthed children, some of us have been physically traumatised; some of us have been mentally traumatised. The mental trauma can prolong and endure, and those elements have been addressed in the minority view of the Green Party. And appropriately, I raise that because this week is Mental Health Awareness Week. So those are elements to factor in perhaps in due course; in time.

But I do commend the members from the public who have been through those personal experiences. And harkening back again as a woman, as a mother, there was some physical trauma that I endured that, perhaps if this legislation were available at the time, the treatment would have been made available.

I’m just going to move on again to something else. Just in terms of the process, as a lawyer, I represented a number of ACC claimants, and I had a brief word with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, a former Minister of the ACC. And I acknowledge Minister Sepuloni in terms of leading this legislation with commendable amendments—particularly addressing the birth trauma and what people go through. I picked up the reference to babies who suffer injuries as a result of the birthing process as well, but I’m going to come back to matters of process.

As a lawyer representing claimants, but also having lodged a claim as a practising lawyer myself in medical misadventure—the process wears many people down. And undoubtedly there’s a correlation between whether people have a valid claim or not. And speaking with my colleague in the hall before coming into the Chamber, there is an issue that does need to be taken into consideration. Many people are not eligible for legal aid when appealing decisions by the ACC authorities. So that’s something to harken and bear in mind in due course.

In finishing off on a positive note, I commend this bill to the House, commend the members who served on the select committee, and commend the members of the public who exposed their vulnerabilities and submitted to pass this into law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Barbara Edmonds—five minutes.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m incredibly grateful to be able to take a call on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I’m incredibly grateful to our Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for her fortitude and ability to act. When the issue was raised with her, she acted and as a member of a proud Labour wāhine caucus, I’m incredibly grateful to our sister and Minister for her kindness, and am grateful for all the 28,000 birthing parents who will be covered by this bill. I don’t have any experience on the select committee, any personal experience, but throughout this debate I’ve listened to the numerous members and so I am incredibly grateful to the Education and Workforce Committee members for the work that they did on this bill. I’m incredibly grateful for Sarah Pallett for her experience. She is one of our strongest wāhine members, who is constantly driving for wāhine measures and, as a midwife herself, she knows exactly what she was talking about. So I’m grateful to Sarah Pallett for her work.

What I can speak to is my personal experience. Having eight children within a period of nine years, I’ve got a bit of experience! So if you put them back to back, apparently I would have been pregnant for a period of six years. But, nevertheless, I was also very grateful to the medical help I had at the time that I never experienced an injury. I know that for a lot of women and for parents it is such a vulnerable time having a child, it is such a traumatic time, and it can also be a quite beautiful time.

So, on that note, I’d like to, again, thank the Minister, thank the members, and thank our Labour wāhine caucus for making sure that for 28,000 parents, when this bill has commenced, they now have an opportunity to be able to recover with the integrity and the respect that they deserve, under this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, what is quite a technical piece of legislation. Before I begin my contribution, I would like to acknowledge the Minister who has brought this piece of legislation to the House, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the Labour wāhine caucus, who worked with her prior to it coming in to the House, but mostly I want to acknowledge the nearly 800 woman or people that submitted on this piece of legislation. We heard from Jan Logie about some who had some pretty horrific stories to tell us, and they opened up, as we’ve heard, basically, to strangers, to the select committee, to the public, because a lot of it was live streamed, etc. So that’s a pretty big deal for people to do that, and open up knowing that they were not likely to be covered from this piece of legislation because it is not retrospective, but they wanted to do their bit to ensure that, going forward, women would be able to be covered should something happen during their birthing experience.

What we heard a lot of is that—and we’ve heard people talk about this before—often, men make claims to ACC and they have a lot more coverage than what women have previously, and for, sometimes, similar issues beyond the incident that happened. I mean, for example, we heard from one submitter whose husband had been out socialising at night and happened to have a slip at the end of his socialising, and he caused himself to have a strain, and yet when she had a similar injury through childbirth, she was not covered. So that’s been where the system has been quite, quite unfair.

What we also heard in the select committee is that around 85 percent of women suffer from an injury during their birthing experience. That is a heck of a lot of people. We’ve also heard from—as part of the submitters and submissions that we heard, there were some changes made to the piece of legislation, and one of those changes was that additional injuries were going to be added to it to ensure that, actually, all childbirth injuries will be covered.

So I’m really proud of this piece of legislation. There are other parts to this bill, but the part I wanted to focus on was around the maternal birth injury. So I’m very proud to commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m happy too to stand, on behalf of the National Party, in support of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading here today. I think some of the debates that we’ve heard here, some of the speeches from members across the House, remind me of a conversation we had this afternoon at the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians event, where we talked to the National Student Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In that conversation, we talked about the work of select committees, where a lot of the grunt that happens in this place happens—at the select committees. I think what we’re seeing today is that collegial experience, where everybody is aligned and so the very best comes out of the parliamentary system.

I too congratulate the members on the Education and Workforce Committee. I was not privileged to be part of the interrogation of this bill, but I do acknowledge the contribution that the team members have made, and also the submitters, on what is a very sensitive topic for many of them.

I’d just like to go back to part of the process that we’ve been through in the debate on this bill. Sadly, in the committee of the whole House, there was a truncated debate, and there were some parts of the debate that weren’t able to be expressed and aired for the public’s feedback. But I note that—I think there was something like four of the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Papers that were unable to be debated; there was certainly one from the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Minister Sepuloni’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just reminded the member, this is a third reading speech. So passing reference to processes around select committee—yep. But the main substance should be the third reading and the bill.

MAUREEN PUGH: Absolutely. Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon, the Green member Jan Logie mentioned that she would have liked to have seen more general cover from this ACC bill. But I also note that the bill itself does have a three-year formal review process. So where we have a list of conditions that are mentioned in this bill—and I won’t repeat them; I think Jan Logie did a great job of mentioning them. Some of them actually are very difficult to get your tongue around. But they all certainly are very difficult for women to deal with at the time, and, you know, in my own personal experience, they do take some recovery. So even though we have these six new conditions listed in the bill, I have confidence that the formal review process three years after the bill is enacted will allow for further conditions perhaps to be identified and added.

As Sarah Pallett, who spoke very recently and is certainly the member of the committee with the most experience in this field, mentioned before about the 28,000 claims, we know in the report that the 28,000 claims was an estimate. There is not any sort of real data that could back up what that might be. So, on that basis, we know that there could be around 28,000 extra claims made to ACC for this, and that, we hope, will be financially manageable by ACC.

But I’d also like to use the opportunity to work through one of the other clauses in the bill, clause 8, which was about work-related gradual process, disease, or infection, including occupational noise-induced hearing loss and accidents such as explosions. I realised, in reading the report, that it is quite a technical assessment that is made about hearing loss. It was mentioned earlier on that if you have a 17 percent loss of hearing in one ear—excuse me, it’s a total loss of hearing in one ear, that is a 17 percent bilateral hearing loss; whereas if you have a 17.4 percent hearing loss in one ear, that is a 5.2 percent bilateral hearing loss, which would have fallen under the current 6 percent threshold. And that is why the bill reduces the hearing loss from 6 percent to 5 percent, so that if it is a gradual process, it will be covered by this bill.

But the other issue that has not been clarified—and we ran out of time in previous debates to get some kind of feedback or assurance—was around that gradual process and whether ACC in this bill would indeed cover it, and that was in relation to the exposure over time, which would be the gradual process, that our firefighters have when they are undertaking their job in fighting the fires, because as we know, the firefighters who attend these fires have often no idea what it is they are walking into, because they don’t know what equipment is inside that house, what materials, what the furniture is made of, etc., etc. The constant exposure to these toxic fumes has now been noted by the World Health Organization as carcinogenic to humans, and as—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The bill.

MAUREEN PUGH: —Michael Woodhouse mentioned earlier, this is something that could be looked at in the future in terms of getting some further cover for our firefighters.

The bill itself has clarified where ACC cover is going to be implemented, but it also clarifies where it is not, and so we have made clear in this that it does not apply if death was as a consequence of suicide or the assisted dying in accordance with the End of Life Choice Act. Maybe that’s just a clarification that may not have needed to be made, but we do have it in this bill.

I commend the process that we’ve been through with this debate. It’s always good to see the cooperation across the House. It’s always good to see that this House is not always divided on the bills that come in front of it. We are very happy, as the National Party, to support common-sense legislation, and, as a consequence, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is my honour to take the last call on this amazing process—a very short one; that in no way reflects on how important the mahi of the last 18 months has been. I just need to acknowledge a group of people who we haven’t acknowledged at this stage, and that is our officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and ACC. It wasn’t even on their work plan, and when this issue was raised, they stepped up, they were nimble, they were responsive, and within 18 months—it sounds like a long time—they’ve managed to get us here today. They didn’t do it alone. Many have acknowledged the expertise that we were lucky to have at the select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, with Sarah Pallett, the leadership and courage of our Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and our colleagues across the House who sat in on the select committee and really took this challenge on and made sure we ended up in a pretty good place. I just want to acknowledge that select committee process for a moment, and the magic is that we have the expertise that comes to the select committee—not just the professionals but those women who shared their stories—and that is why I am very pleased and honoured to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Talk about brinkmanship, members. Well done. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m., and congratulations, Minister Sepuloni.

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

Bills

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 9 February 2023.

Our civil forfeiture regime set out in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is among the best in the world. The inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force rated New Zealand as one of only five countries having a high level of effectiveness at confiscating proceeds of crime. However, organised crime and transnational offending will always seek new ways to evade law enforcement. This is why I am pleased, this evening, to recommend the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill to the House.

This bill will improve the success and efficiency of our laws at restraining and forfeiting property derived from significant criminal activity. This will reduce the ability of criminals to continue or expand criminal enterprise and help to deter profit-driven criminal conduct. The four amendments will contribute to achieving New Zealand’s transnational organised crime strategy for responding to local, national, and transnational organised crime. These will also complement our reforms in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

I’d like to start with the new restraining and forfeiture orders. These are designed to respond to the particular difficulties that arise in going after the leaders and facilitators of organised crime. Under the current law, police must satisfy the court that either a person’s assets were derived from significant criminal activity or that the person knew they were profiting from significant criminal activity. However, organised criminal groups will deliberately structure their activities so that the leaders and facilitators avoid involvement in or knowledge of the specific offending, even as they benefit from a portion of the profits. For example, in one case involving approximately $10 million worth of property, police relied on evidence from 16 different police operations over nearly 20 years. The investigation could not identify a legitimate source for this wealth, with the owner alleged to have received a portion of the proceeds from criminal activity undertaken by other people.

The new asset forfeiture orders will allow a court to restrain or forfeit property if satisfied to the required standard that, first, the respondent has interest in, or control over, specific property; and, second, the respondent is associated with an organised criminal group whose members or participants have been involved in or unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; and, third, the respondent’s legitimate property would have been insufficient to acquire that specific property; and, fourth, the value of the specific property not explained by the respondent’s legitimate property is at least $30,000. The burden of proof will be on the police to prove these criteria to the standard of reasonable belief to believe, for a restraining order, or, on the balance of probabilities for a forfeiture order. If police prove these criteria to the required standard, the court must presume the property is tainted. The respondent will have the opportunity to rebut this presumption by proving, on the balance of probabilities, the specific property in the application was not derived from significant criminal activity. In addition, the court will have the discretion to decline to make a forfeiture order if it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. These provisions protect respondents against unjust seizure. This new type of asset forfeiture order will improve the Act’s effectiveness in disrupting organised crime. It will enable police to intervene to prevent illicit profits being reinvested in crime or used to recruit prospective members.

Next, I’ll speak to the new disclosure of source orders. These respond to difficulties arising from obtaining information from persons overseas. Police are already able to restrain assets that are in New Zealand and likely to have been derived from offshore offending, such as illicit drug trafficking and international money laundering. For example, police cases have identified criminal proceeds invested in our real estate markets and our financial sector. However, if the owner of the property is overseas, this can impede forfeiture. Domestic respondents are subject to production and examination orders. It is an offence to fail to comply with these orders, which require the production of documents or examination to answer questions. But these are not enforceable against residents where outside of New Zealand, and it is not always possible to obtain the information required for forfeiture from foreign jurisdictions. This new disclosure of source order will require the respondent to provide information on the source of a restrained property within two months. If they fail to respond, or file a materially false or misleading disclosure, the court can presume that the property is tainted. The respondent would still have the opportunity to rebut this presumption at a forfeiture hearing. This new tool will allow more investigations to be pursued and will deter further offending. This will help to protect New Zealand’s reputation as a safe, secure, and high-integrity jurisdiction against efforts to launder illicit funds here.

The third amendment fixes a technical gap in the Official Assignee’s authority to temporarily hold property seized under a warrant. Currently, property must be returned after 28 days unless subject to a restraining order, or until the determination of an application for forfeiture. This leaves a gap in cases where an application for a restraining order has been made but the courts do not make a determination until after the 28-day period. This amendment allows seized property to be retained until the determination of any restraining order. This also avoids police having to return and then re-seize property, with the risk that the respondent uses the opportunity to dispose of the assets.

Finally and briefly, this bill will allow funds in KiwiSaver to be forfeited where they have shown under the Act to be the proceeds of crime. Currently, section 127 of the KiwiSaver Act 2006 provides a general prohibition on KiwiSaver funds being passed to another person unless an enactment expressly provides otherwise. This presents any funds in KiwiSaver from being forfeited until withdrawn from the scheme. This could enable criminals to abuse the KiwiSaver scheme by hiding the proceeds of their crimes in their KiwiSaver. This change will allow funds in the KiwiSaver schemes to be subject to civil forfeiture orders. It will put KiwiSaver in an equivalent position to other retirement schemes, such as bank accounts and managed funds, which do not have a prohibition preventing forfeiture.

These amendments have been carefully designed. They strike a balance between upholding the rule of law in terms of the effectiveness at seizing illicit assets, and safeguarding human rights to a fair hearing and freedom from unreasonable seizure. The new powers will only be available where their respective evidential standards are met, and where there is a presumption in favour of forfeiture. Police must have first satisfied the courts of the relevant criteria. The court can decline a presumption if they consider it would not be in the interests of justice, and respondents will have the opportunity to rebut a presumption. At the same time, they fulfil the Labour Party’s 2020 election manifesto commitment to ensure police have the resources and powers to disrupt criminal activity and seize proceeds of crime. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the National Party will be supporting this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, to the select committee. We support any efforts to strip gangs and other organised criminal gatherings or groups of their ill-gotten gains.

It was funny to hear the Minister referring to the manifesto, because this was legislation that was first announced, with great fanfare, back in May 2021—more than a year ago—and was supposed to be delivered before the end of the year. But it turned out that the previous Minister of Justice had checked out and didn’t seem to be too interested in it. Then suddenly this year—in the context of a breakdown of law and order in many of our cities and a sense of chaos, a massive increase in gang membership, ram raiders and smash-and-grabbers all through our cities in Auckland and Hamilton over the weekend, and a sense of the Government not being in control of the law and order situation in this country and in our cities—the Government has suddenly moved fast after its slumber to actually get on with this piece of legislation.

The problem is, of course, it does have a sense of being slightly rushed, and I turn to the impact summary, and the officials say, “Oh dear, well, the analysis that we looked at on this bill has been constrained by a lack of consultation. The time frames in which the policy proposals have been prepared did not allow for a consultation beyond Government agencies affected. So we didn’t talk to the stakeholders, and so we don’t really know too much about this.” Then there was the lack of opportunity for further analysis. “With more opportunity for further analysis of the operation of the existing profit forfeiture orders, justice might have been able to develop alternative options for the organised crime proposal.” That, I thought, was a reasonably snide set of comments from officials, pointing out the fact that, if only they’d had a bit of time to actually work out what this proposal was and how it fitted with the current arrangements and how it was going to improve things, they might have done some research. What is strange to understand is why, if this was a commitment by Labour, they hadn’t got the officials on to it earlier and got themselves organised to come up with a well-designed and well-organised piece of legislation.

Now, we hope that this basis, this legislation, will do some good. It does ultimately reverse the onus of proof for people with large property which is either tainted or which has been owned by or held by a person that is associated with a member of an organised crime group and, as well, that can’t show how they obtained that property legitimately. So that does give the police extra powers to hunt down and collect these properties in order to seize them—restrain them first; and then seize them, secondly—and return that money to the people of New Zealand so that they can more effectively prosecute other people and send a clear message that crime doesn’t pay. So it may well work, and time will tell.

But it’s interesting to see that Crown Law had a look at this in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and did notice that the legislation does impact upon freedom of association, although it’s not clear just what an “associate” means. We’ve seen that Cabinet has made some subsequent changes and tightened up the definition of “associate”, so it doesn’t mean a mere acquaintance, and that seems about right. But just how wide the net for associates is, is a moot point, and we’re very much looking forward to the select committee process in order to better understand that. Then, if they are an associate, the second thing was—which was a rather strange piece of advice from Crown Law. They then argued about the threshold, and the Crown Law people said, “Well, if the threshold was $50,000 or $30,000, that might be all right, because it would indicate that there’s been some serious criminal activity. But if it was lower—if it was $10,000—then maybe it wasn’t sufficiently serious in order to justify the breach to the freedom of association rules.”

That was interesting. We understand that there was a big fight within Cabinet and the Cabinet committees about this threshold level, because the slight problem we have is that we’re going to be tough on the gangs, we’re going to sort them out—so the Government says, belatedly, after a long period of time—we’re going to show them who’s boss, but when it comes to the many Harley-Davidsons and other bikes that are roaring up and down our streets and terrorising neighbourhoods, and great swarms going down the motorway and making people nervous, because it’s all designed to intimidate, when it comes to those Harley-Davidsons, most of them are probably just a little bit under that $30,000 threshold. And so people are left wondering, “Well, what does this bill mean?” Are any of the Harley-Davidsons going to be collected? Is any of the bling that people associate with these gang members who are out there threatening and intimidating actually going to be taken?

That’s not clear, and it shows, to my mind, just another example of the kind of mixed messages that we get from the Government. They want to be seen to be tough, but they’re not really sure that they actually want to be. They want to do lots of drug rehabilitation programmes and things with gang members, but they also want to look like they’re being tough on them, and so people are confused. There’s not a clear message coming through from this Government around what the relationship is with gangs, which have increased very significantly—about 40 percent in the last few years—under this Government. So the gangs are recruiting faster than the police, and that’s part of the reason why New Zealanders are not feeling safe in their communities.

I mean, what are the issues that people raise with you when you’re on the streets in Auckland? Well, first, they’re worried about the cost of living crisis, and they’re worried about how they’re going to pay for their cheese and all the other things like that. But, secondly, they’re worried about the breakdown in law and order in our cities. They’re worried about that, and they’re concerned about it. If they’ve got kids working in retail in St Lukes Mall or in Newmarket Mall or anything like that, they’re worried about that. They’re worried about whether they might be going to encounter another smash-and-grab or a hit and run or a ram raid or all the things that seem to be going on where people face no consequences.

So we on this side of the House are prepared to support this piece of legislation at its first reading. We want to hear the select committee reports on it. We want to hear from people in the community about how this works, because we, broadly speaking, agree with any effort to make it tougher on gangs and to strip them of their ill-gotten gains. But we do have questions about it. We also make the point that it’s got to be part of a clear, consistent, and forceful response to gangs in our country. What we haven’t seen from this Government is a clear, consistent, and forceful response to gangs. What we see is not much for five years, then a panic and a few things thrown out, some weak firearm protection orders. Now we’ve got this bill around gangs; we’ve got another one that was announced at the same time—clearly in relation to a sense that they were well behind the eight ball on this issue, and they want to be seen to be making better progress. We support them in that; they do need to make better progress, because the most important thing for all New Zealanders is that they feel safe in their communities and in their homes and in their shopping malls and in their streets and they’re not feeling intimidated. And so we do need to be much more rigorous in pushing back. So that’s why we’re interested to see that.

We’re puzzled a bit by the KiwiSaver. I’m not too sure that too many gang members are greatly focused on their KiwiSaver accounts, but, you know, there is an issue there, and they’ve just kind of thrown this into the mix. We wouldn’t want KiwiSaver funds to be some kind of safe haven for criminals to put their funds. And so, yes, we agree with looking at that, but we do make the point that, when you’re scrambling around to be seen to be doing something on law and order, actually the fundamental things that the Government needs to be focusing on is making sure that there is a very clear and consistent message from Government that society doesn’t tolerate these sorts of things and there are consequences for illegal behaviour.

That’s what people are worried about. This is what people are frustrated by, particularly with the youth offenders, when they see all this stuff going on. The most consistent feedback or concern that you hear is, “Well, there’s just no consequences for these kids. They go off, they do it, and they wind up having a family conference. They get patted on the head and ‘We’ll see you again next weekend.’ ” There are no consequences, and that message has filtered through and is what is underlying the sense of chaos and disorder that we have at the moment.

Similarly with gangs, there are a few more consequences for gangs, but what has happened is that there hasn’t been that consistent, clear message from Government. It’s been mixed: “We’ll give a million or so to gang associates down in Hawke’s Bay to do some drug rehabilitation. We’ll do some other stuff. We’ll do this, and we’ll go and meet with them. The Ministers will meet with them. We’ll talk with them. We’ll do all sorts of other stuff.” And then, of all the things that the justice Minister—the previous justice Minister—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has come to an end.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): 你好。Thank you, Mr Speaker. Often in this House, we talk about those on the front line and give thanks to those police officers who are on the front line, but I’d also like to give a few moments tonight to give thanks to our detective inspectors. This is a bill dedicated to those hard-working men and women—those hard-working men and women who work with people alongside Greg Williams, who worked for hours and hours to follow the money. And that’s what this bill will enable our police officers to do even better than what they have done already, and that is to follow the money. This bill will flip the onus and enable our detective inspectors and forensic accountants to be able to dismantle criminal networks far better than they have ever done previously. I think it’s important that we highlight the history of this bill and the genesis of where this started. It was first highlighted in the National Party’s action plan on tackling gangs. I believe, if you look on the internet, you’ll find it in a Cabinet paper written for Anne Tolley back in 2014. The National Party talked and wrote and confirmed in Cabinet that they would like to go for the money back those many years ago and they failed to deliver.

So I challenge—I challenge—because if we are talking about being tough on crime, if we are talking about actually delivering—

Hon Mark Mitchell: You’re soft on crime.

GINNY ANDERSEN: —for dismantling criminal networks in New Zealand, then this is the bill that will actually do that. This is the bill that, alongside additional police officers on our front line being able to undertake a detailed response for our youth, is the type of response that New Zealand has needed for a long time.

So how this will change what’s done currently—and it’s important to highlight that, particularly for those members opposite who don’t have a long history of memory; maybe Mr Mitchell may. Under the current law, police must satisfy the court that either a person’s assets were derived from a significant criminal activity or the person knew. So they had to know about it—mens rea—and know that they were profiting from significant criminal activity. However, we know that organised criminal networks will deliberately structure their activities so the leaders and facilitators of that involvement have no knowledge of that specific offending. That’s what prevents prosecutions and the seizing of assets in this space. And that is what this bill will turn around. So I’m looking forward to the speakers that come after this and explain to me why, in 2014, the National Party agreed on it in Cabinet and then for the subsequent years failed to deliver in this space.

So what will also happen with this bill is that a new court order will mean that criminals based overseas who had their assets in New Zealand will face losing those assets unless they can prove within two months that they obtained that property legally. So if there is no overt way of showing that you are able to get the gold-plated Harley, then the onus flips for you to prove how you got that, and that is a significant change. I really hope this will enable those detective inspectors in New Zealand that do hard work in this space to do their job even better than what they do already.

This bill, in addition to what we’re doing with firearms prohibition orders, with our front-line services being more equipped in terms of police numbers, specific and dedicated operations on that front line, is one of the underlying frameworks that will really enable police to do that good work, that underlying detective work to identify where these networks are operated and how they can dismantle them in the long term.

I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is delivering on this. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is playing the smart game—the smart game—not the one-hit wonders, not the window dressing, not the look good to make you score a couple of political points; this is the long-term significant change that that side promised and never delivered upon, and this side will put to rest. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Where do I start on that contribution? So let’s start with: it’s good to see that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill first reading’s in the House. We agree to support it to select committee. Obviously, we are going to interrogate it fairly tough—we’re going to be tough with it in select committee. I’ll tell you why: because like all the other legislation this party is bringing to this House in a knee-jerk reaction, trying to respond to the worst levels of crime that we’ve ever seen in our country. By the way, we’ve never seen carjackings in New Zealand before. We’ve had five of them yet. Yeah, never. The Labour member at the back row there says “Never.”, well, go and have a look at the history and see whether or not in this country we’ve had carjackings—that is, people ripped out of their cars, held up by knifepoint, and having their car stolen or robbed, maybe even kidnapped and taken to an ATM and subjected to intimidation, violence, or assault. We haven’t witnessed that level of violence or that level of crime in this country before.

It hasn’t happened overnight; it’s percolated away for the last four or five years under a soft-on-crime Labour Government. We signalled to this Government four years ago when we came out with our law and order policy paper, and we said to them, “You have to get serious about the rising gang numbers, how organised they are, the new global networks that have been introduced with the advent of 501s, the new level of violence that they’re bringing to their daily activities, the fact that they’re willing to carry firearms, and that needs a really tough response.”—we said—“You’re going to have to stand up a dedicated gang task force.” They resisted that. They mocked it. They laughed at it. They ignored it. So fast forward five years, where are we today? We’ve got a Labour Government that’s scrambling to try and respond to a huge growth in gang numbers, like the Hon Paul Goldsmith said, “They’re recruiting quicker than our police are able to recruit, train, and deploy new staff.”

Every piece of legislation that they bring to this House, mark my word, is messing round on the fringes. It’s not meaningful. Their firearms prohibition order: no new search powers. Both ourselves and the Police Association were very clear about the fact, unless you put an additional search power in this bill, it’s meaningless. There is nothing new about it. It’s messing round on the fringes. Let me come back to this House in six months, because I’m going to be watching.

Simeon Brown: It’s just window dressing.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m going to be—it’s window dressing—watching and I am going to be tracking this just to see how effective this legislation this Government is passing is. The previous speaker: I acknowledge her experience and her past in the police service as well, and the contribution that she made. She does speak with some experience and authority on that, and I acknowledge that. But she knows as well as I do that the legislation that they’re bringing to this House that they’re passing is meaningless. She talks about our detective inspectors, I’m glad she did. Can I acknowledge our own detective inspector in my area John Sutton, one of the most experienced detective inspectors that we have in the country. He’s got a fairly good feel in terms of what’s happening in his patch—and, by the way, first time ever we had an offender get out in to the public in Rothesay Bay and Mairangi Bay with a knife and start randomly stabbing people in the middle of the day; something that that community has never experienced before.

I’ve got the Hell’s Angels that have bought commercial property in Silverdale. The first time ever—

Dr Duncan Webb: Proceeds of crime? Anything about proceeds of crime today, Mr Mitchell?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What’s that?

Dr Duncan Webb: Are you going to talk about proceeds of crime today, Mr Mitchell?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s for the Speaker to decide on—that’s for the Speaker to decide on; not for you.

Dr Duncan Webb: Just curious.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I know that you’d like me to move on. I know that it’s a bit inconvenient for you to hear the truth, and you’d like me to move on. But, actually, that’s for the Speaker to decide on.

So we are talking about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, and I’m just coming to that point right now. We had the Hell’s Angels come into my own electorate and buy commercial property in Silverdale. And as hard as the local police have worked with real estate agents, with other agencies inside my own patch, with regular quarterly meetings to try and block gangs from coming in, they still managed to get in. We had the Comancheros that tried to buy property in Omaha and Warkworth. We’ve had the Mongols that have got a presence down Silverdale as well. But the reality is this, if they’d actually had a proper bill, a proper bill with teeth, around criminal proceeds and recovery, then, actually, maybe they might’ve been able to block or maybe they might’ve been able to seize that commercial property that the Hell’s Angels have now set up in my patch. Maybe they could’ve done that. In fact, the feedback that I had from my own police area commander, Mark Fergus, is that had they had legislation like that, then they probably could’ve prevented them or they could have seized the asset. Well, you know, he laughs and he sort of sniggers, just like they were laughing today; just like the whole Labour caucus were laughing today when we’re talking about serious issues around people’s safety.

Simeon Brown: They don’t care.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They don’t care. They think it’s funny. They think it’s a joke. Stand and take a call. If you think what I’m saying is not right, stand and take your call. Challenge it. I’m up for that. That’s what we’re here for, is to debate the issues.

Simeon Brown: They’re just here to give money to the Mongrel Mob.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’d like to know, talking about that—yeah, well, absolutely. I mean, the fact of the matter is, we put up four very good policies that had they actually just decided to take a bipartisan approach and actually just take public safety seriously, they might’ve actually looked at those policies, they might’ve looked overseas and seen that the Western Australians are using them, and they’re effective. They’re using them right now. The firearms prohibition order, that doesn’t even come into effect until November. It’s not even out there to be used. It’s ridiculous. These guys are a joke. They’re an absolute joke, knee-jerk reaction. They’re trying to respond now. They’ve allowed this situation to grow over five years. That’s baked in, and it’s entrenched. It’s going to be hard to turn around.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mitchell, it’s been six minutes. Can we just spend three minutes on the bill, please?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m happy to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’ve had a pretty good run. It’s three minutes on the bill, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m happy to do that, Mr Speaker. But the only point that I’d make is this: I’m responding to issues that the other speaker also raised during her contribution that didn’t relate to the bill.

Actually the Hon Paul Goldsmith raised a very good point: this bill has been brought to the House in such a rush that the officials haven’t even had the chance to go out and do proper consultation with stakeholders.

Ginny Andersen: In 2014.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They haven’t been up—are you disputing the regulatory impact statement that says the officials haven’t had time to go out and consult with stakeholders? So this isn’t a piece of work that’s been in train since last year.

Ginny Andersen: Why didn’t you pass it then?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Pardon?

Ginny Andersen: Why didn’t you pass it in 2014?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, why didn’t we pass it in 2014?

Ginny Andersen: Yeah.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s a bit hard for me to answer that. I wasn’t in Cabinet in 2014. But I will tell you this, New Zealand was a much safer place in 2014. New Zealand wasn’t facing ram raids. New Zealand wasn’t facing carjackings. New Zealand wasn’t facing daylight aggravated robberies with multiple offenders with weapons. So the climate today in New Zealand is far more dangerous than it was in 2014. I’m sure the member would love to rewind the clock. I’m sure she enjoyed living in New Zealand back in 2014. It was a much safer country. It’s a dangerous country now, and it’s sad.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two minutes on the bill, please, Mr Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

So I’ve got a really important question on this bill. Who’s going to be deemed an associate? Who’s going to be deemed an associate? So I’d like a member of the Government to stand and explain to us who’s going to be deemed an associate, because if they had any understanding in terms of how gangs work, they do intimidate people. They probably do transfer some assets over to them. Often those people are victims themselves. The Minister struggled to explain the difference between an associate and an acquaintance. What is an acquaintance? What is an associate? So I think this is fundamentally a very important—

Hon Judith Collins: What about their accountant?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What about their?

Hon Judith Collins: Accountant. What about their lawyer? Are they associates?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. Their lawyer or their accountant, that’s a very good question from the Hon Judith Collins. Is their accountant or their lawyer or any legal expert or any person giving advice, are they deemed an associate, and are they captured by this bill, or are they an acquaintance? We don’t know. So I would ask that whoever takes a call from the Government side would take some of their 10 minutes and explain to us how that’s going to work.

The final point is this: why did the police Minister not get the $10,000 threshold across the line? That’s what the police asked for, and he couldn’t deliver it. And do you know why he couldn’t deliver it? Because he was overridden by the justice Minister. So they’re trying to be tough on crime. The chair of the committee got up and said, “Hey, this is our response. We’re being tough on crime. This is what we’re doing.” The police made a very strong recommendation to the police Minister. He couldn’t even get that across the line. The justice Minister overrode it, and she got up in the House and said the Prime Minister supported that as well. So I don’t think you can stand in this House and give us a tough-on-crime speech. Thank you very much.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): 大家好, and 你好, Mr Speaker. My goodness. They talk a big game about law and order on that side of the House when in Opposition, but when they’re in Government they fail to deliver. They couldn’t deliver a firearms prohibition order scheme in nine years, despite multiple attempts, and we did. This is a Government committed to putting the most police on the streets to ensure community safety. This is a Government committed to addressing organised crime. It is a priority for us and tonight we introduced two bills in the House to do that.

We’re taking significant steps, through this bill, to provide police with the powers they need and the additional tools to seize the illicit assets of organised crime. We know that organised criminal groups are attempting to structure their affairs to avoid restraint and forfeiture of tainted property under existing section 24 of the legislation. So we know that additional powers are needed here and we have stretched into a very new space by extending those powers to associated people. It is a hugely significant step and, actually, it’s quite an invasive technique, which shows the seriousness with which we’re taking this issue. Our law does require us to put parameters of reasonableness around those powers as well.

Mr Goldsmith referenced the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He then failed to step through the tests that you are required to do when you’re making legal changes like this. If there’s an incursion into a right, you need a justification for it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Who’s an “associate”?

VANUSHI WALTERS: The greater the incursion, the greater the justification you need, which is why there’s a difference of treatment between gang members—

Hon Mark Mitchell: No answer.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —and associates. You asked about the definition. The definition is in new section 5A, inserted by clause 5 of the bill, but that is entirely why we are going to select committee, so that we can examine that definition again, Mr Mitchell. It’s new section 5A, if you’d like to go and read that, and, I very much look forward to engaging with you, as well as all the submitters who will be coming to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What can we say about the rhetoric around crime that’s been flaring up in this House and in the media, flaring up because of the political rhetoric that we see thrown around here, not just by the Opposition—though, of course, flamed by the Opposition, begun by the Opposition—but the heartbreak it is when we see the Government pander to the Opposition—

Matt Doocey: You are the Government.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Should I explain “Parliament” versus “Government” to that member? Is he quite new? Anyway, I won’t explain—I won’t explain to that member what it is to be a member of the House of Representatives versus the Government. He’ll learn on the job. But what I will explain—because I am the only member of this House who has served for more than a decade at the front lines of our criminal justice system, in the courts, in the prisons, applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against the tyranny that would ensue if we had police decide who goes away, whose property we take, who is and isn’t guilty, without a proper application of the onus or the standard of proof—I can say that this bill does, in fact, reverse those standards.

The issue of proceeds of crimes was something that was legislated for under the last National Party Government. So what we saw, and what we have seen until now, is that if you’re charged with a crime—the standard being that the crime has to be proved against you by the prosecution, who bear the onus from the beginning of the proceedings, to a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”; that’s for the crime you’ve been charged with—police can bring separate proceedings and take your property before the crime has been proved, to a standard of “balance of probabilities” only. So you can go on and have your conviction dropped, you can go on and be found not guilty, but the property proceedings are separate. This bill lowers that standard still. So we’re not talking about a crime; we’re talking about an association with people that we generally don’t like.

We’ve got the word “tainted” used with no legal standard or precedent. Who do we know is likely to be seen as being tainted, by the police force? Well, the Government had two separate, independent studies—inquires—last term into our criminal justice system, both finding overwhelmingly that there were constituencies out there in New Zealand that we’re more likely to see charged with crime. So this Act, when it talks about association, when it talks about tainted property, we know, based on evidence, will be applied to certain groups of people, because we’re taking away the standard of proof, we’re taking away the right to a defence in lots of ways, we’re taking away the onus of the prosecution and that standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, even the balance of probabilities. So who will it apply to? It will be Māori, it will be the poor, it will be other black and brown communities, it will be people with mental illness—the people that we don’t see as fit to hold property or to have a whole lot of rights. We’re saying the police decides, not based on an allegation of crime at all but on some kind of tainting. That is prejudice. It’s not good lawmaking. It won’t save our communities from harm. It won’t keep anyone safe, because there’s no evidence the person was a threat at all. That is shameful. It’s not about keeping communities safe when we get into lawmaking like this; it’s about making politicians look tough. That’s not what we should be here for.

We know already what keeps communities safe. We know already what prevents crime. Violence is wrong and bad, and people are scared—yes—but we’re talking about property crimes committed through violence. We know that—I was going to say “the average”, but it’s actually 89 percent—89 percent of under-19-year-olds that come into our criminal justice system are then diagnosed with a serious learning disability. So dropping out of school, a lack of inclusive education, is actually a criminal justice response that we’re failing at, that we are not doing, and instead we’re doing this. That is shameful. Investing in mental health care is a criminal justice response. Investing in stable, secure housing is a criminal justice response. Livable incomes—that is a criminal justice response that would show courage, and it would show us referring back to the evidence of what keeps communities safe.

That’s what we are here for. We are here to respond to the evidence of what keeps communities safe, of what keeps our communities thriving, including our young people, and youth justice has the most evidence behind it—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Ghahraman—six minutes now. The bill, please.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: The bill takes away the onus and standard of proof when it comes to crimes committed by gangs—this mythical word that we’ve made up. It creates a new standard without due process, without the standards that we normally apply when we decide to remove someone or their property from society in order to keep communities safe. So it will not keep communities safe, but it will make a couple of politicians look tough on crime. That is callous lawmaking. I don’t commend it to the House. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand does not commend this bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill through its first reading and to select committee stage. We support this in the first instance, but we do have a few questions about it. The first one, of course, is: why did it take so long? In May 2021, it was first announced that this bill was a-comin’. That was 16 months ago. Now that it’s landed, the regulatory impact statement has only just been made available. In fact, I’ve just been able to pick it up off the Table there. And in actual fact, if you go on to the Parliament website, the bill is still not available for reading. So 16 months. I have to ask: what has been happening?

The disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement indicate that while Māori have been identified as those that are going to be disproportionately affected by this legislation, no one has consulted with them. It’s all been in-house Government agency analysis instead. And why is that? Because the time frames did not allow for consultation outside of those Government agencies. Sixteen months—16 months ago, we were told that this was on its way, and yet there wasn’t enough time for the appropriate consultation, including not enough time for the officials to look at any alternative options to put forward as well.

This Government had introduced firearm prohibition orders earlier this year, which we supported, in its efforts to prevent the illegal possession of firearms. But this bill is a failure when it comes to addressing the financial consequences for that illegal possession of firearms. In September 2021, when my bill was drawn—also a criminal proceeds recovery bill—it was to raise the threshold to be able to freeze and seize assets upon finding an illegally held firearm. Government told the public that they would sort it out, and they think they’ve done this with the firearms prohibition orders. But what I’d like to say is that when gun crime is going up in our communities by 47 percent, making sure that there is a consequence to that illegal position should also be mandated—and can be—within this legislation. Auckland homes especially are becoming riddled with gunshot wounds, and we can do a lot more in that space.

What do police find when they do raid an organised criminal facility? They tell us all the time; it’s cash, it’s drugs, and it’s firearms. Instead of supporting a bill that gave consequence to illegal possession, the Government ignored it. You had a chance then, and you have another one now, and I look forward to be able to raise this issue at select committee to see if we can improve the bill and, therefore, the safety of, and to, our communities from illegal gun crime. Consequences have been missing from Labour’s attempt at crime control, and the gangs have taken full advantage of it. But this is a step in the right direction, and we do acknowledge what the Government is trying to achieve, because to truly hit the gangs where it hurts—which is in their pockets—is to delve into the areas where police can apply to the courts to force civil asset seizure from those profiting from criminal activity and those that use the ill-gotten gains as well—this includes being able to break into people’s KiwiSaver accounts and seize funds.

ACT understands and supports, on the face of it, the reasoning behind this. People topping up their KiwiSaver and knowing that it cannot be touched is the reason why. But I’d like to go through the select committee process to flesh this out a little bit more just to ensure that it’s only the ill-gotten gains that become confiscated and not actual hard-earned savings. I do note that my colleagues from the National Party talked about gang members possibly not having KiwiSaver accounts, and I do agree that that’s probably the situation. But there are others that can be brought into this regime, and I would like to ensure that their legitimate savings are kept safe.

This bill also allows the High Court to make a disclosure of source order for those that reside overseas with property here in New Zealand—property thought to be tainted property or derived from significant criminal activity. It means that they’ll have up to two months to provide information as to how the property was acquired or risk losing it. This is an interesting concept that we’re looking forward to hearing more about from officials at the select committee.

And this bill also introduces type 1 and type 2 asset forfeitures. Type 1 is a standard forfeiture where the thresholds have been met and the forfeiture is whole. Type 2 is where an associate of a criminal organised group has property they cannot explain. In that case, a restraining order can be made if the respondent was an associate of an organised criminal group when they acquired that property; if they have been involved in, or benefited from, significant criminal activity at any time; if police can show the respondent could not have afforded the property before they acquired it; and if the market value of seized assets meets the $30,000 threshold.

And this is where I believe the KiwiSaver clause has relevance, as the $30,000 threshold does not need to be met here in an entirety. A value of it is added to the $30k threshold. However, I would like clarity on that when we get to the select committee process. I also note concerns raised by those that will be affected by this legislation, including gang members who are concerned that their family members and friends could be inadvertently caught up in this legislation. My message to them: stop involving your family and your friends in your criminal activities, and they won’t have anything to worry about.

The reality is that crime in New Zealand is becoming more vicious, more violent, and definitely serious with complete disregard to our communities. A 47 percent increase in gun crime alone means the ability to apply to freeze and then seize assets, based on that illegal position, should be considered as a way to beef up this bill and give it extra teeth. A harder approach is well overdue and needed. We look forward to this bill going to select committee and hearing from the submitters. These changes to legislation will have the potential to have quite an effect on organised crime and where its proceeds end up. We welcome these conversations and support this bill through to its first reading.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. As I rise to support this bill, I’ve been listening to my colleagues across the divide and I was very taken by Mr Mitchell’s concerns about the timeliness of our actions in this, and also with his quite remarkable assertion—as an ex-prosecutor myself—that carjacking is a new crime in New Zealand. So I was thinking about these matters, carjacking and this bill and the timeliness thereof. So I did a little bit of googling, and oh my goodness, I came across this headline: “Carjacking on the Rise in New Zealand”, the Sensible Sentencing Trust was in up in arms. The problem, however, is this particular moment is from 2014. It refers to a woman and child carjacked by armed men. And 13 August 2013: “Carjackings”, January—wait for it—2010. The Opposition had nine years to do this. There was a problem. They did nothing. We’re doing it.

This is the problem when you don’t actually bother to read the bill and discover that there is, in fact, a definition of “associates” if you get past the first page. Also, it is a problem if you don’t bother to go past the first page of Google, it is that classic issue—you have to scroll down. As they say, the best way to hide anything is to make it item 11 on Google. This is not the be all and end all; it is one piece of a large puzzle that we as Government are putting together thoughtfully and carefully. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill is going to give us a better civil regime for the recovery of criminal profits. That in itself is a worthy aim. I look forward, as a member of the Justice Committee, to investigating the many issues to make sure that we get it right for the law, for the courts, for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. The Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I need to correct that previous speaker, whatever her name is, where she said that this Government—her Government—is the first to do anything about this. Well, I would refer her to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. It’s the amendment for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Which Act is it an amendment of? Oh, I don’t know, a 2009 Act—something that we in the National Government had to deal with straight away when we came into Government at the end of 2008. We couldn’t have been any quicker. But, of course, every law which is trying to deal with criminals and criminal behaviour needs to be amended as times change and as behaviours change, because these criminals do not get rich just by sitting around and saying, “Well, let’s all comply with the law now, shall we?” They think about ways to get around it, and they have very well-paid people to help them to do that—actually competent criminal lawyers, to find out ways to do that.

When I look at some of these questions that have been asked and I listen to them—the Hon Mark Mitchell referred to “What is an ‘associate’?”, and I heard the other side of the House screaming out, “Look at 5A.” So I went to clause 5(1) inserting new section 5A in the bill, and what does it say? An associate “(a) means a person who—(i) is associated with the member or participant; and (ii) is not a mere acquaintance of the member or participant;”—in other words, knows them quite well—“and (b) includes another member or participant in the organised criminal group (whether or not a mere acquaintance of the member or participant).” So it doesn’t have to mean that; it can mean—I don’t know. So, in fact, is the lawyer acting for them an associate? I think there could be an argument.

This is going to have to get delved into in the select committee. Is their accountant—because you just know that they’re going to have accountants, and I know that the former head of the Police Association would know. They just have to have accountants involved. There are people involved working with these people. Are they themselves now going to have their property seized by the police—who have now been told by the Government it’s OK to go after criminals now, because they had five years of being soft on crime and all of a sudden it’s starting to hurt. So I know what, let’s go after them! You guys go and do something!

This is incredible, actually, that this has suddenly turned up in the House tonight. When I looked at the impact summary reforms for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009—the regulatory impact assessment written up by the Ministry of Justice—what is the date on that? It says 9 December 2020. What’s been happening between 9 December 2020 and now? This is now 2022. Is it 2022? So what’s been happening? And yet I hear that there’s been no proper consultation with the broader public. There has been very limited information available to the Ministry of Justice when they did this report. It sounds to me as though this has been a rush job, and yet a rush job that’s taken almost two years to get itself rushed. So it’s a truly extraordinary—it’s right up there with Kiwi—KiwiBuild. I almost said, you know, Kiwi something else about KiwiBuild.

But it is an extraordinary effort, and we still don’t have—other than the shouts from the other side, “Look at 5A.”, I don’t think 5A gives it to us. I can think, as a lawyer who really has practised, there’s lots of loopholes in this one. I can imagine—I see my colleague Harete Hipango, who has spent how many years in the courts, working. How many?

Harete Hipango: A few decades.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A few decades, actually—a few decades. I can see her smiling away, thinking of all the opportunities here, because, actually, lawyers are supposed to do that. It doesn’t really make them associates in the normal sense of the word, but, yes, they do get paid for their job. Are they going to be protected? I’m going to ask, on behalf of lawyers. As a lawyer who still holds their practising certificate, it would be quite nice to be able to know whether or not lawyers are going to be associates. Because we do know that there have been some lawyers jailed for actually laundering money from these particular people. So I think we need to know more about it. I’m sure that the Government will have somebody competent who could possibly speak on it. But there’s always an opportunity for someone to show where they should actually be brought forward a bit.

So thank you, we are going to be supporting this bill to select committee, and we’re going to ask those questions there.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. Can I first start my contribution by acknowledging the Minister of Justice, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for bringing this bill into the House this evening.

In 2020, we campaigned on working harder and smarter to keep our communities safer, break the cycle of offending, and tackle the root causes of crime, and, across a range of areas, that is exactly what we are doing. I’m really proud that we have increased the number of front-line police officers and that we have expanded Te Pae Oranga. I look forward to my region being the first region which will be completely covered by Te Pae Oranga panels in our community, which are doing a fantastic job in diverting crime and ensuring that people don’t reoffend.

I’m also proud to have been a member of the Justice Committee. We have been working hard on legislation to protect our communities and to put more tools with our police and front-line staff to be able to ensure that we are protecting our communities and keeping them safer. I do want to mention how effective Operation Tauwhiro has been in my area, with the huge amount of methamphetamine, cash, and guns that have been uplifted in that process, and I want to commend our police for the work that they are doing. But this is another piece of legislation to give our front-line officers more tools to be able to target those whom we are most concerned about, and they are the ringleaders of organised crime. That’s what we said we would go hard on in our manifesto, and we are. We are giving the police new powers to target the associates of organised criminal groups.

There has been a bit of discussion tonight about—and in questions over the last few weeks—the sum that we have landed on, and I’d just note that the $30,000 threshold which has been set by Cabinet is based on consistency with existing thresholds in legislation. The advice we have received is that it is New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - compliant, but we do know that the police—for operational reasons—and others may have a different view. As a member of the Justice Committee, we are actively seeking to hear those expressions and views through the select committee process and we are approaching it with an open mind about the threshold, and so I look forward to receiving submissions on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh, here we go.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —Mr Speaker. Thank you for that, Mr Mitchell. Here we do go, indeed. I’m perplexed as to why Mr Mitchell was wondering what the difference between an “associate” and an “acquaintance” was, and then I worked it out. Let me just mention it: first of all, in fact, “gang associate” is defined in the Privacy (Information Sharing Agreement between New Zealand Gang Intelligence Centre Agencies) Order 2018—have a read of that, if you want. It’s defined quite well as a person who assists in a gang member’s enterprise. But, indeed, if, Mr Mitchell, you were associated with something, you’d know it intimately, you’d work with it, and you’d understand it. So there’s no suggestion that he’s associated with this bill, because, goodness’ sake, he can’t even speak to it. If he was acquainted with the bill, it might be some passing knowledge, knowledge of a mere outline, he’d be able to mention a few salient facts. But he’s not acquainted with the bill either. He is a total stranger to the bill, and largely a stranger to the law. But it is a good bill. It’s going to make a real change in enforcement here. I commend it to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m flattered that the member wants to spend his whole time talking about me, but we have asked him to speak and explain to the House what an “associate” is in the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I heard come from that side of the House, “That will be a job for the Speaker to decide”, and he didn’t get to six minutes before he mentioned the bill, Mr Mitchell. “People in glass houses” is the reminder.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You can judge how keen or otherwise the Government are on this bill, or, in fact, around crime in general, that the last speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, spent basically one minute and 13 seconds talking about a matter—

Matt Doocey: Talking about Mark Mitchell.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —of justice and crime—and, ironically and strangely enough, an odd fascination with the Hon Mark Mitchell, which is perhaps of a greater concern. But in all seriousness, again, for people listening to this who are suffering one of the worst crime waves that we have known, the Labour Government has short-called every time. They are so dedicated—so dedicated—to the question of justice that they don’t even take full calls. As I say, the last speaker, a minute and 13 seconds was all he wished to give.

Look, first and foremost, National supports this bill to select committee—to select committee. Now, that’s important. That’s important to make sure that, actually, the public can have their say, because in concept—in concept—we think this is a good idea. It’s been rightly pointed out that National actually proposed this. The opprobrium from the other side is, of course, we took too long—too long, they say—or didn’t implement it fast enough. Well, of course, had the Labour Government decided to throw the election, or rather, not sell its soul to Winston Peters, we could probably have passed the legislation.

The second point, of course, is that crime, when Anne Tolley was the Minister, is nothing like it is now. The other side scoffs and derides, but, actually, day after day, Kiwis, like those in my own electorate, are not only seeing crime—over 30 ram raids in my electorate; over 30 in the seat of Tāmaki. It’s not acceptable, by the way, in any electorate, but in mine it’s almost unheard of. But on top of that, of course, we are often seeing—we are often seeing—the, if you will, proceeds of this criminal activity as gang members flaunt their ill-gotten wealth, riding their rather expensive motorcycles, patched and so forth, driving up and down the likes of Tamaki Drive, making a hell of a racket, showing that they’ve got absolutely no taste in music and they don’t care at all. My constituents are completely over it.

Simeon Brown: Had enough.

SIMON O’CONNOR: So in concept—they have definitely had enough, Simeon Brown. They’re totally over it. And yep, they’ll welcome this bill; the idea, the onus of proof in many ways is reversed. It’s been a very, I don’t know, tiresome, problematic, and certainly time-consuming process to prove—to prove to a criminal standard—where these ill-gotten gains came from. So reversing that onus of proof, making this a civil matter is prudent. This might be a surprise, but I actually do pick up on some of the elements that the Green member Golriz Ghahraman was articulating in her speech, that we do need to interrogate elements of this to make sure the law does not go too far. But I think there are some sufficient early indications that we might be on the right path, and I certainly want to see them teased out.

Obviously, colleagues of mine are focusing in on the word “associate”. What does it mean? I mean, we have at the moment—look, I’m no legal scholar, but I have noticed as well that the supposed legal scholars who got out could not define nor answer the question. In fact, they deliberately prevaricated. It strikes me as—I won’t spell the word “prevaricated”; it doesn’t fit their plain English policing requirements. But, you know, in their attempt to do plain English, I suspect, in this piece of law, an associate, according to the bill, is “in relation to a member or a participant in an organised criminal group,”. Well, that’s sort of useful. I think I’ve heard it intimated that these groups are clearly defined. Again, the Green Party was trying to lead ad absurdum that, you know, anyone could be called into a gang. Well, we’re not talking the militant wing of the Salvation Army here; we’re talking about known gangs. They are very clearly defined. But an associate is “a person who (i) is associated with the member or participant;”—

Dr Duncan Webb: Genius.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —brilliant. Well, “genius”, says the supposed doctor of—well, he is a doctor of laws.

Hon Member: Professor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No—well, actually, a professor is only a title; the doctorate is actually the academic quality. But let’s not disambiguate too much. Importantly so—there’s another big word, but I’ve offended at least twice on the plain language side of things.

But an associate is a person who associates—that’s a circular and stupid argument. So let’s ask the question—let’s ask the question—are members of the Labour Party, particularly Ministers, associates of gangs, because they give something like $3 million? It’s a little bit tongue in cheek, a little bit facetious, but there’s a question: are the Labour Ministers who, as Ministers of the Crown, visited gang members and gang pads, associates? Just asking that question—are they? They’ve gone remarkably quiet all of a sudden. Now, look, I don’t think they are. I want to be really clear: I don’t believe that’s the case. But looking at the law, it’s not particularly clear. Is giving money, as the Labour Government has, to a gang, a form of association? Certainly, a form of acquaintance, if I heard from Professor Duncan Webb earlier.

Nicole McKee: $2.75 million.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Two point something there—almost $3 million. Are members of the Government who go to a gang pad to have meetings associating with them? I think in the strict definition they are, but probably not in the meaning of this piece of law. So it’s very, very difficult.

And the Minister saying about receiving property—you know, that’s true. Harry Tam and his friends received almost $3 million from your Government, Minister. You may have forgotten that, that the Mongrel Mob received $3 million of hard-earned taxpayer money given to a gang. Let’s not forget that. My constituents certainly haven’t, because, as I say, not only are they annoyed at these gang members driving through their electorate, smashing the place up, but also they know darn well that the Government is not backing.

Look, the other element is—and it has only been lightly touched on—the whole engagement process. So, again, we had the complaint about how long it’s taken to get to the House, and I think I heard from the honourable member from the ACT Party, was it, 16 months since they announced—16 months since they announced this. Really interestingly, when you pick up the documents—this is the departmental disclosure statement. It says “External consultation … Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be [affected] by this bill?” What is the answer? “No.” I would add the term, “not a sausage”. No. Nothing. Nada. I’m sorry, I know it’s Chinese Language Week, but I don’t know the word for “nothing”. Nothing.

To make it worse for these virtue-signalling lefties, did they consult with iwi, mana whenua, Māori, who, of course, though they’ve waxed lyrical—well, certainly the Greens did about how they are terribly overrepresented. Well, that’s true; it would probably help if you didn’t commit crimes, but OK, it is overrepresented. You would think the Minister of Justice would go and consult with the very people affected by this, and I don’t mean taking another $3 million into the gang pad. I talk about going and engaging iwi, hapū, whānau, mana whenua—all the stuff they always talk about. Nothing; no consultation whatsoever.

Now, I’m sure the retort will be, “Oh well, they can come to select committee.”, but that’s not consistent. It’s not consistent at all, because, actually, wouldn’t you allow all people to come to select committee, rather than specialised engagement, or are you going to, Minister, and the Government, continued, and rightfully so, specialised engagement with Māori? I just think it’s shocking that nothing has been done with Māori who are, as I say, overrepresented.

Last couple of thoughts. We’ve had some debate already around the derived benefit being set at $30,000. We know that the Minister and the Cabinet have tinkered with that number, and I have taken on board some of the comments from Labour MPs that this is a consistency. But I think there’s going to be, you know, rightfully good questions brought up at select committee about: is that the right amount? It probably isn’t going to completely fit, but I’m also thinking about the tens of thousands of dollars of damage which these criminals in the gangs cause. So, again, I think in my own electorate, a lot of the time, not much is stolen. I’m thinking of one of my liquor stores. Very little was stolen; clearly useless criminals. They went for sort of a half-open bottle of chardonnay rather than the decent Glenfiddich. [Interruption] What, a half-bottle of chardonnay? Oh no, sorry, a colleague was asking; I was making light of something. No, no; I see.

But long and short, the damage that was done to the property in the ram raid went into the excess of $45,000. I mean, it’s the cost of this crime. You think of what’s just happened in St Lukes recently. So I have to wonder whether the purpose of the Act needs to be expanded to not only talk about significant criminal activity of, I think it’s five years or more imprisonment. I mean, granted, you can commit terrible crimes at the moment and still get home detention, but also they’re talking about derived benefits of $30,000 or more. I think there could be a discussion around actually criminal or significant criminal activity that has led to a significant amount of damage. On that, I will leave it there as we continue the debate of what an associate is.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, you wouldn’t think that the National Party agrees with this bill, would you, from listening to the other speakers? I mean, I think we should just really look again at what this bill actually does, because we’ve heard from the other side on numerous occasions that we need to take action on crime and criminal activity, and this is exactly what this bill does.

And on the point of the definition of “associate” and just to note, I think I’ve counted up at least seven current or former lawyers on this side of the House looking at this bill. Yes, it is correct that the definition of “associate” is in new section 5A, inserted by clause 5, but 5A has three subsections—oh, more than that, sorry. It has five subsections. In subsection (3)—

Simon O’Connor: Do these subsections associate with the prior subsections about associates?

CAMILLA BELICH: The bill works together and if you want to understand the meaning of “associate”, you need to look at what a “significant criminal activity” is, which features in new section 5A(3). And if you look, then, to clause 6, you will see “Meaning of significant criminal activity”, and you’ll see that there is a requirement, a threshold amount, of $30,000. So, yes, it is possible that there might be a scenario where there might be a professional person, as has been indicated by some on the other side, that may be covered by this, if they were associated with wrongdoing and receiving property of this threshold amount. So, hopefully, that clarifies the associate points for the people very interested in statutory interpretation on the other side of the House, and those tuning in today.

I think this is a really good bill. It looks at how we can better equip our law enforcement agencies to be able to make sure that those committing crimes and those in possession of the proceeds of crimes can be followed up and can make sure that they are unable to keep undertaking these activities which are enriching people who are undertaking often illegal activities or are associated with illegal activities. So I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 9 February 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 9 February 2023.

This bill will strengthen New Zealand’s criminal legislation to prevent and respond to the harm caused by gangs and other criminal activity. It gives effect to the Labour Party’s 2020 election manifesto to keep the pressure on gangs by ensuring we have the resources and powers to disrupt criminal gang activity, prosecute relevant offending, and seize the proceeds of crime. Recently, we’re all aware that we have seen an increase in gang violence. There is also the context of deeper changes to the gang environment, including the establishment of Australian gangs in New Zealand, resulting in increased inter-gang pressures and a greater willingness to escalate to violence using firearms. Regardless of the cause of this violence, however, its impact has been felt in our most vulnerable communities and we must respond. Many gang shootings have been in residential areas, causing distress to communities across Aotearoa, and that is unacceptable. Everyone should feel safe in their beds at night.

This bill responds by amending the Search and Surveillance Act to create new search powers for police to use during times of gang conflict. These powers will enable police to conduct a search for weapons and will enable police to locate and seize weapons more effectively when tensions between gangs are high, reducing the risk of harm to communities. These are wide powers and as such must only be used in exceptional circumstances. To use these powers, police must obtain a warrant from a judge who must be satisfied that a gang conflict exists and that the powers under the warrant may reduce the risk of harm to people or property. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect the property to be searched is used either by a member of the gang or by someone who is encouraging or assisting gang conflict. The warrant safeguard will ensure police have the tools to adequately respond to risks to public safety without undermining those rights and freedoms which are crucial to a just and democratic society.

The bill also creates a new offence in the Crimes Act, that of discharging a weapon with intent to intimidate. We know that these shootings are motivated in part by a desire to intimidate and sow fear. It’s important that the law holds those involved in threatening and intimidating behaviour to account, particularly when it involves the use of a firearm. This new offence is in addition to existing offences within the Crimes Act, which require intent to cause physical harm and provides an alternative option for dealing with firearms offending.

Shootings are not the only way in which gangs seek to intimidate those around them. Gang convoys, where large groups of gang members travel together on the road, often involve high-risk and illegal behaviour such as dangerous or reckless driving. The aim of those involved is to intimidate through a display of power and disregard for the law. The Bill responds to this behaviour by amending the Land Transport Act to expand the offences which result in a mandatory 28-day vehicle impoundment. The list now includes dangerous and reckless driving not causing injury or death, as well as aggravated careless use of a vehicle causing injury or death. It sends a clear message: if you engage in this unacceptable behaviour, we will take your vehicle.

Finally, we know that these conflicts are, in part, about profits, as gangs seek to protect and expand their share of the incredibly lucrative illicit drug trade. This scourge on our country is worth almost $300 million a year, with our most vulnerable communities targeted by organised criminal entities. Drug dealing is largely conducted in cash, which is then laundered and disguised as legitimate income. The bill responds to this behaviour by placing two additional safeguards around the use of cash. Firstly, the bill amends the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act to prohibit cash transactions over $10,000 for specific goods. These goods, which include jewellery, gold bars, cars, and bikes, are items we know are frequently used by organised criminal entities to launder money. Limits on the use of cash to purchase these goods or help disrupt money laundering efforts.

Secondly, the bill amends the Search and Surveillance Act to give police additional seizure powers in relation to suspicious cash. Under the existing legislation, police are powerless to seize the cash and investigate its origins unless they are able to tie it to a specific offence at the point of discovery. The amendments in this bill will enable police to seize cash they suspect is the proceeds of crime in order to further investigate and gather evidence of that offending. This will better equip them to disrupt criminal transactions and money laundering. Like the new search powers, this new cash seizure power has important safeguards. It is time bound, which means police must return the money if they cannot demonstrate evidence offending within the time set out in the legislation. It also can only be used in relation to cash that police believe to be more than $10,000.

Together with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, which the Government has just introduced to the House, these measures will hit those people where it hurts the most: their profits. Successfully disrupting the gang’s ability to launder money and profit from their criminal activity is key to reducing the incentives to carry out these activities in the first instance. It is important to remember that tackling organised criminal activity and harm requires us to also tackle the causes of marginalisation, which leads young people down that path. This Government is committed to ensuring those who are at risk, including young people and 501s, have the support they need to make better choices for their future.

However, it is important to note that where organised criminal entities engage in criminal behaviour and spread fear within our communities, we must respond, and respond decisively. The police need effective but proportionate powers to disrupt criminal activity, including that perpetuated by these criminal organisations. This bill responds to that need and will enhance community safety by providing clear legal authority for police to intervene and disrupt relevant criminal activity. To this end, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, firstly, can I acknowledge the new, incoming Minister of Justice, because, you know, we have got a tough situation in this country, without a doubt, but she has come in with energy and she genuinely is bringing legislation to the House and is trying to pick up some momentum and get some momentum going. So I do want to genuinely acknowledge her for that. We are going to support the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill through this first reading to select committee. Actually, I think that there are some very good amendments contained inside this bill.

But I do want to highlight one issue—that is the fact that one of the amendments is the new “Discharging [a] firearm with intent to intimidate” offence. I do want to highlight that there is a massive gap in the legislation that the Government has brought, in terms of trying to deal with the gangs, firearms, and gun violence that we see perpetuating itself through this country on a weekly basis. If I just go back to the amendment, the bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 and introduces a new offence for discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate in a public place. Currently, there is an apparent gap in the law, where law enforcement can intervene when a firearm is discharged with intent to intimidate, but only when it is to intimidate those in a dwellinghouse. The bill enables the Crimes Act to address all situations where a firearm is discharged with the intent to intimidate any person or group of people. The bill sets a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for this offence. That is a strong term of imprisonment, which will bring me to my next point.

But the point that I wanted to make around this is quite simply the fact that we have had a Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill come through the House that didn’t have any new, additional search powers. So that has meant that it’s a more ineffective bill for the police to use operationally to try and prevent the use of firearms. Although this bill is trying to toughen up the law around the discharge of firearms, there is still a big gap in terms of the Police having the legislation that it needs to stop that occurring in the first place. This bill is, quite simply, reactive—once the action has already taken place. When you’re dealing with firearms, firearm violence, and drive-by shootings, you want to avoid that first drive-by shooting, because I don’t know how we got away with it—it’s only that we obviously had lady luck on our side—the fact that no members of the public were seriously injured or killed in any of the recent drive-by shootings that we witnessed.

So I’m just signalling to the Minister that, although good legislation, there’s a big gap there, because this is reactive. The police need to be able to have some legislation and some new search powers that are proactive, that allow them to actually be able to take action, to be able to search, to be able to confiscate, to be able to take weapons off gang members—whether they’re in their vehicle, whether they’re in a gang pad, whether they’re in their own home or an associate’s home. And this bill just doesn’t do it. So I don’t know whether or not it would be within the scope of the bill to be able to look at that, and look at fixing that at select committee. My guess is that it is probably outside the scope of the bill. But I did want to highlight to the Minister that there is a gap there, and that if she’s serious about it, then she should take that up and have a look at it.

That brings me to my next point, which is a very interesting one in terms of the five years’ imprisonment for this offence. Five years’ imprisonment—that’s actually a good sentence. I think that it genuinely does reflect the seriousness of the offending. But when you go back to the departmental disclosure statement, the officials seem to have spent some time on whether or not this bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations. They’ve gone through that, they’ve spelt it out very clearly and said that there are some deficiencies that we need to have a look at. They’ve gone through consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, on which they’ve done consultation with the Attorney-General, which is the right thing to do—that information has been posted to the Ministry of Justice website. But the thing that I find very interesting is that there hasn’t been proper consultation done around the consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations—

Hon Member: What?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —yeah. And the officials have been very clear when they said, “Although there was no consultation with Māori”—so there’s been no consultation with Māori at all on this bill. And yet I’ve heard Government Ministers stand in this House—I’ve heard Government Ministers stand in this House—time and time again, and highlight the importance of consultation with our Treaty partners and iwi, to see what the impact of this type of legislation is going to be on them, because we all accept that Māori are overrepresented inside our criminal justice system. I’ve got my own views on that, and they relate to social investment and going right back into people’s lives, getting right alongside them, and trying to make sure that they don’t come into our criminal justice system.

But it’s interesting that the officials have said, “Although there was no consultation with Māori on the proposals in the Bill”—so there’s been no consultation—“due to time constraints,” because, again, this legislation has been rushed through, and we all know that when you rush through legislation, you don’t always get a good outcome. “Officials consulted with relevant government agencies and analysed proposals in this Bill against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Crown’s Treaty obligations. Officials have identified strong Māori interests in some of the proposals, particularly those which target gang activity. Māori are likely to be disproportionately affected by the proposals, as they are both more likely to be gang members (three quarters of known adult gang members in Aotearoa are Māori men) and the victims of gang harms. Furthermore, the fundamental rights involved necessarily impact the relationship between Māori and the Crown. As such, the proposals potentially support the Crown’s duty to actively protect Māori from harm, while potentially undermining the principle of equity.”

So their own officials have actually come back and reported that there are big issues around this bill as relate to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I just find it incredible—maybe if the Attorney-General is in the House, he can stand and take the call on this, because he’s definitely been consulted properly, and he has reported on this in terms of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But maybe the next Labour speaker could take a call and explain to us why there has been no consultation with Māori on this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The hits just keep on coming tonight. This is another strong bill from the Labour Party to try and do some more in this space, and it’s really interesting to see the responses we’ve seen from those opposite tonight.

So what does this bill, the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, do? In addition to the legislation already introduced relating to proceeds of crime, this bill does five main things: it addresses gang conflict, it addresses the issue of convoys, it looks specifically at the firing of weapons, it seizes cash, and it also targets watches, jewellery, and high-value goods. It goes straight for the guts in terms of crippling organised criminal networks in New Zealand, and it works in unison with the legislation that we’ve already introduced tonight.

So the first one: new targeted warrant and additional search powers to find and seize weapons from gang members during gang conflict. This requires a warrant and is “on reasonable grounds”, as well—so a new, additional tool to enable police to have more ways of targeting organised criminal activity explicitly in the space of gang conflict.

Number two: convoys. This expands the range of offences where police can seize and impound cars, motorbikes, and other vehicles. In this space, it’s important to note that there have been instances where we’ve had those areas with convoys, and this particularly identifies and provides police with new powers where there are large groups of gang members who travel together on the road and often involve high-risk and illegal behaviour such as dangerous, and even reckless, driving.

Number three: up to five years in prison for a new offence of discharging a gun with intent to intimidate. So this is providing a new way of charging, in addition to what already exists under Arms Act offences, when there is an intention to intimidate.

The fourth one is that police and other enforcement agencies are able to seize cash over $10,000 when found in suspicious circumstances—so specifically giving police additional powers for seizing cash when found in particular, given circumstances.

And the fifth one targets watches, jewellery, precious metals, stones, motor vehicles, boats—are all added to that list of high-value goods and those prohibited for sale in cash over a specified value.

This is part of a suite of measures that this Government has introduced to give police the tools that will enable them to respond to the current issues in and around gang conflict and the wider harm caused by gang and related criminal activity. You know, when you hear Mark Mitchell finding his latent discovery of love of the Treaty of Waitangi, that the National Party is on thin ice on this ground, because we have come in strong. We have put in some really strong measures that will equip our front line to not only address those emerging issues that we see around New Zealand but, on the other side, part of the other side to the response that this Government has delivered is also strengthening Te Pae Oranga, also in terms of providing better wraparound support for our young people who are coming from a background of either family harm or multiple complex issues, to try and provide that wraparound support and give those young people all the help that they need to make the right choices in life. This is done alongside the legislative tools that will be supported in the wider package, right across Government, that tackles the causes of gang participation and reduces offending in the long term.

I am really proud to be part of a Government that delivers a comprehensive response to a complex problem, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I think Ginny Andersen, the previous speaker, was being a little too generous to her colleagues about being part of a Government that’s responding effectively to a significant rise in violent crime. I don’t see that in the same way, because what we’ve seen over the past five years that this Government has been in power—five years. It’s worth just remembering about that—five years. We’ve heard many speeches from the other side of the House going on about the National Party’s record, but for half a decade—

Hon Member: What!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —this Government has been in place—

Andrew Bayly: Half a decade.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —half a decade—and over that period, we’ve moved from a situation where New Zealanders, on the whole, felt safe in their communities and in their homes and in their shopping centres and on their roads. Yeah, there are always problems, but there was a sense that the justice system in the broadest sense was working effectively. Over five years, we’ve undermined that to a state that this country now feels that the situation is more or less out of control, and you can’t now feel confident in going to the local mall in Auckland—whether it’s St Lukes mall or down to 277 in Newmarket—that there won’t be some kind of smash-and-grab with a bunch of people turning up with hammers and crowbars, causing mayhem, and knowing that they’ll get away with it, and then you can’t be sure that there won’t be a large gang convoy driving past on motorbikes intimidating the countryside.

We often think of New York and places like that where there’s always sirens wailing in the background and the sound of a chopper overhead, but that’s what Auckland feels like at the moment. There’s always the sound of a chopper overhead chasing somebody and there are always sirens wailing away, and what we’re seeing is a very significant increase in gun crime in our city and people are worried about that. This year, there have been very significant numbers of shootings in our city, and New Zealanders are, rightly, worried about whether this Government has the wherewithal to get on top of it.

So what we see in this legislation—which we’ll support. We’ll support it at this first reading and it will go off to the select committee and we’ll work our way through the issues raised by it. But, essentially, what we’ve got here is a grab bag of ideas and suggestions that enables the Government to look like it’s doing something but without really having thought through the broader issues and having a clear and coherent response to violent crime and serious crime in our communities.

If you look at the big issues in the justice sector broadly—if I was to characterise the four big issues that we think we should be focused on—first, it’s dealing more effectively with this serious and violent end of crime. What has the Government done so far on that? Well, what it has done is it has repealed the three-strikes legislation. What it has done is it has looked at the situation, seen the rise in gang violence, seen the rise in gun crime, and seen the rise in ram raids and smash-and-grabs, and what’s the conclusion that it has come to? The conclusion that it has come to is that we’re too tough on our worst criminals—we’re too tough on our worst repeat criminals in this country—and we need to reduce sentences for them because we’re too tough on them. That’s been the one conclusion that they’ve drawn, and so they’ve repealed the three-strikes legislation. It’s a very bizarre conclusion to come to.

Then, having done that, they’ve come to the House and they’ve said, “We’re really going to deal with this. We’re tough on crime and we’re going to introduce a bill which makes a new offence out of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate in a public place.” Well, I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of too many circumstances when you would discharge a firearm in a public place without intent to intimidate in a criminal setting—I mean, most people would find that reasonably intimidating. I suppose if you were firing a cannon to commemorate the death of the Queen, it might be one example, but in the gang context, I can’t think of too many situations where a gang member would discharge a firearm in a public place which wouldn’t be intimidating.

But, anyway, they’ve repealed the three-strikes legislation. They’ve come to the conclusion that we need to be softer on our worst repeat violent criminals and that they need to be in prison for shorter periods of time—that’s their broad conclusion—but, at the same time, in order to look tough, they’ve rushed in this legislation here tonight with a couple of ideas that will enable them to say that they’re doing something. But, really, their hearts aren’t in it, and that is the issue.

So when we run through the issues that have been raised in this, it’s about this new problem of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate—well, OK. That sounds good. It also provides a new warrant for police to search and seize weapons—some little tweaks there. Yep, OK, we’ll have a look at those. It expands the power of police power to seize and impound vehicles where we can expand the empowerment power to include dangerous and reckless driving where no injury or death has occurred—well, OK, that’s fine. OK, yep, that’s something we should look at. There’s a new cash seizure power for police when they find $10,000 in cash in suspicious circumstances so that they can seize that—well, OK. Well, that’s good—OK, we’ll look at that.

But the point is that you can just see what was going on in the Cabinet with Kiri Allan. She came in. We had Kris Faafoi as Minister of Justice, who took the job and then decided that he didn’t seem to really like it any more and he wasn’t paying much attention, and Kiri Allan has come in as the new Minister.

You can see the sense of that: “Oh, my goodness! We’ve been in power for 4½ years. Serious crime has gone like that, gang membership has gone like that, shootings in Auckland have gone like that, ram raids have gone like that. Oh dear, we’ve got a problem. There’s a sense of disorder and we need to do something. What are we going to do? Oh, that’s right, we’ve just reduced sentences for our worst repeat offenders. That’s been the one thing we have done. Oh my goodness, we need to come up with something. Officials, come on, find us something.”, and somebody came up with the idea of “Well, we could make a new offence out of discharging a firearm in a public place in an intimidatory manner. That’s one thing, and then, if we find $10,000 worth of cash, we can make a new seizure power for police.” They cobbled together five things and said, “There, we’ve got a law, and so we look like we’re doing something.”

Well, that, I don’t think, is a very effective way to deal with what is a serious problem facing our communities and our streets and our cities and our towns and all of New Zealand, where we’re worried about what has been this breakdown in law and order. It’s a rushed, ad hoc approach to dealing with the problem.

The second area is around youth crime, which is clearly not being dealt with effectively at the serious end. When you’re dealing with ram-raiders and smash-and-grabbers, sending them off to a family conference, patting them on the head, and saying “You shouldn’t be doing that. We’ll see you next weekend when you’ll do it again, and we’ll have another little family group session.” is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. The thing on everybody’s lips—all the dairy owners and the people working in the malls—is that there are no consequences for these kids, and we need to actually use some of the tools that we have available to us, whether it’s in community service, whether it’s home detention, or whether it’s youth facilities, and actually sheet home some actual responsibility for what are significant crimes.

The third area is dealing with the efficiency of the court system. That’s something that the Government hasn’t been really focused on and needs to be focused on, because taking months and years dealing with court cases is not helping anybody. It’s putting lives on hold. The fourth area in the justice area—which is another topic entirely, but I won’t trifle with the Speaker by going too far in this direction—is dealing with our electoral laws and standing up for and asserting the equal voting rights for all New Zealanders.

But coming back to this issue here, around dealing more effectively with the rise in violent crime and gangs, this is a modest and ill-thought-through and rapid step in the right direction. We don’t know what the consequences of it will be yet, and so it will be very important to go through this with a fine-tooth comb in the select committee process and to hear from people who are affected to make sure that this piece of legislation doesn’t have unintended consequences, of which there are very high risks therein.

So we will be voting for this bill. But we do so cautiously, and we just wish that the Government would actually come up with a clear, coherent, consistent, and well-thought-through plan to deal with what are significant issues facing our communities and our streets and our cities.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): 大家好。你好, Madam Speaker. I was one of the members who spent a portion of this evening talking about the National Party’s record—or perhaps better put, lack of record—in terms of addressing community safety in this space. Perhaps what’s more concerning is the way in which the National Party addresses this important area for New Zealand. They react; we respond. We understand that to respond, you both need to give robust tools to the Police as well as better pathways to young people: keeping them in school; keeping them in education; putting wraparound services around them when they need it, including counsellors; and keeping them fed at school as well.

It’s a pleasure to take a call in relation to this bill, tonight, which in many ways is the sister bill of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill that we also passed through first reading this evening. The two bills do sit together, and they show this Government’s strong commitment to addressing organised criminal activity.

I do want to acknowledge comments made by the Green Party member Golriz Ghahraman in relation to the previous bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, and other members who spoke of us needing to be cautious as we head into select committee to assess the bill of rights issues that are relevant here. Of course, whenever we are creating new search powers as this bill is doing, we need to consider the implications of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. The touchstone that sits behind that right is the reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusion by the State. So we need to ensure that when there is greater intrusion, there will be greater justification. At the moment, we are seeing significant public justification and significant compelling public-interest arguments on the basis of being able to investigate offending, the need to recover tainted property, and the ability to protect community safety. But we do need to carefully consider these factors as we head into select committee, which I do look forward to doing. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What can we say about this, the sister bill, apparently, of the last one, which was to do with tainted property. And we hear this word “tainted” being thrown around again with this bill. It doesn’t really have a legal definition; normally, in the criminal justice arena we talk about someone being accused of a defined crime with a defined role in that crime, but here we see a group of laws coming through that are reactionary and do little by way of being tough on crime.

The toughness that we want, I would think, is on crime—not on random people that we might have somehow screened or seen as being a threat without having been accused of a crime; which these laws don’t require, apparently. So there’s a little bit of this—and I do agree, strangely, with Mr Goldsmith when he says, “Firing a firearm for the purpose of intimidation”; you know, that bit. That bit seems to come as part and parcel of firing a firearm in public—yes, that’s true, that’s bad, and we should criminalise something like that. It turns out it is already a crime, so this isn’t adding a whole lot more.

But the thing that worries us in the Green Party is that we are selling, apparently, as a Government, this idea that lowering due process standards, lowering the standards of rights in New Zealand, and allowing for the police to just go out on fishing expeditions for people that they randomly believe might be bad is somehow keeping communities safe. Well, it isn’t. It can’t, because we’re not pointing to anything in particular that someone’s done wrong; we’re pointing to people by association. We’re pointing to property that has to be seized because it’s tainted. This vagueness breaches the principle of legality. You have to be able to tell that you’ve done something wrong before you can be sanctioned for it so harshly—to seize property, to have your rights to be free from search and seizure protected, these are values that a democracy should hold incredibly dear.

Today, we saw our police force lying about crimes being committed in order to investigate different crimes. And this loosening in the way that police conduct themselves comes from indications in this House that it’s OK that we can have a dishonest police force. We can have a police force that’s armed, so to speak, with all sorts of amorphous powers that you don’t even have to accuse someone of a crime based on evidence, let alone prove it.

To take away their property? That isn’t going to keep the community safe, because we are not even alleging a crime. What is an associate? Well, I know what an associate is from my experience in the courts, where often we’d get an opposition to bail form that would say “gang associate” and then someone would stand up and say, “What’s the evidence of this, sorry?” and the judge would have to say “What’s the evidence of this?” and the police prosecutor would have to say, “Well, his cousin is in the … ” Is that what we’re talking about here? Is that the Government’s response to crime? We know—because we’ve had two full independent inquiries last term into our police force and our criminal justice system—who this will turn against, and it’s not necessarily the people that are causing the violence and the harm. It will be entire communities that are “tainted”, to use the language of these two bills, by prejudice.

We know that those constituencies, those communities, are also the communities that are less likely to report crime, because they have been targeted over and over again by that same police force; they have been harassed, they’ve been searched. We only ever see an unreasonable search and seizure case reported where there is a crime. Where are all the other cases? Where are all the other harms of a community that’s constantly targeted by vague law and broad police powers that don’t do anything to actually target crime, to prevent crime, to keep anybody safe?

We know from the evidence what does keep communities safe. What keeps kids out of gangs is accessible mental health care; inclusive education; it’s drug and alcohol treatments that are available and accessible; it’s affordable, warm, dry housing; it’s liveable incomes. Without any of that, making new ways for police to search people and take away their property, without having to point to a crime—that’s bad lawmaking. So we won’t commend it to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill through its first reading to the select committee. The reason for that is for what this bill wants to do; it wants to address the harm caused by criminal activity, including that caused by gangs—finally—and it wants to make the community safer.

I also note, just as ACT did with the previous debate on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, that this legislation is 16 months in the making. Now, it appears, after that 16 months, that this is another rushed piece of legislation. This bill has landed in this House for debate without the regulatory impact statement. Where is the cost-benefit analysis and the other considerations that should be a part of this policy? I mean, after 16 months of promises, surely it’s sitting in someone’s hard drive? Surely the Government did not make an announcement about an announcement and then made communities wait 16 months for an incomplete legislative approach? There is reference to this supplementary analysis report instead of the regulatory impact statement. I just found the supplementary analysis report on the Table down there, it’s just been made available. We can’t read it—it’s 88 pages, so it’s pretty hard to read and comment on it for this, the first reading, but at least we have it.

So, on that basis, while ACT likes what we think the Government is trying to achieve, we will support it through to its first reading to select committee where we can—along with the other Act—delve a little further into its details; the missing details, the unread details, delivered in a rush. I’ve heard members from Labour across the House say that these two bills that have come before us are part of a smart game, so to speak—it’s about being responsive rather than reactive. Well, I would have thought a smart game would be to make sure that the correct legislative process is put in front of us all so that while we say on this side of the House that we support, we can continue to do so because we understand it fully.

Now, let me talk to the legislative changes that this bill will include. It’s changing the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 so that there is a new warrant power to search and seize weapons during a gang conflict—quite like that idea. There’s also a new seizure power for cash that is found in suspicious circumstance—over $10,000—and allowing that to be forfeited, along with powers to hold seized assets, including cash, for 28 days with two rights of extension upon application to the court and allowing for appeal. What concerns us is that suspicious circumstances are not actually defined, and it would appear that it would end up with a person having to prove to police why their assets were not brought in a suspicious manner, instead of the police proving that it was a suspicious circumstance. We’d like to just delve a little bit further into that once we get to the select committee stage.

The Auditor-General also noted that the $10,000 asset seizure was a bit too low, and we have had discussions amongst the House where the Minister of Police actually talked about whether or not there should be a threshold at all. The ACT Party says we need to be consistent with these thresholds. We’re looking at the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, which we’ve just heard, and it talks about a $30,000 threshold—that’s there. Once we start playing with those thresholds we have inconsistencies. We know that when police do their raids and they find cash, drugs, and guns, quite often it’s over the $10,000 value of the cash that has been seized.

Another point is the adding to the Crimes Act 1961 by introducing an offence to discharge a firearm with intent to intimidate. And I wonder, why on earth do we have this here? It’s already in legislation. Section 48 of the Arms Act specifically has an offence for discharging a firearm, an airgun, a pistol, or a restricted weapon in or near a dwelling house or a public place. And if it’s discharged, without a reasonable excuse, as to (a) endanger property; or (b) endanger, annoy, or frighten any person. The difference here is that the penalties are not matching those prescribed in this amendment bill, and I wonder whether or not this is just virtue signalling, saying we want to actually create a law; in actual fact, the law’s already created. It’s already there; why aren’t you using it? Why have you not amended the penalties to be consistent? Why are you trying to make yourselves look—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

NICOLE McKEE: Sorry, Madam Speaker. Why is the Government not looking at what we already have in place and actually utilising it and being honest with the community about what laws are there and how you would look to seek to improve those, and use those, instead of creating more legislation?

Another part of this bill is about prohibiting cash payments over specified amounts for certain high-value goods. It requires a change to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. We look forward to hearing submissions on that.

Another one is the response to the gang convoys, allowing for the impounding of vehicles. However, I note that this will also apply more generally to other drivers who drive dangerously or recklessly, and that is of some concern to us. But, once again, the Land Transport Act already has rules to impound, so why not use it? It’s just like the Arms Act, where the Government is trying to signal that they have spent 16 months working on a piece of legislation that is recreating the same laws that are already in place amongst other areas of law.

These two bills that have just come before the House need to have some consistency with each other if they are indeed to be related to each other as sister bills, and at this stage there are some inconsistencies between the two. ACT do look forward to fleshing these out through the select committee process and encourage people to submit their views on what this bill will mean for them, especially those that will be affected by the criminal activities and the loss of their proposed income. In that respect, ACT do support this bill through its first reading.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): 谢谢, Madam Speaker. As I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill, I would just note that it is a piece of a puzzle. As my colleagues have already discussed, it is the sister bill—and don’t you enjoy the feminisation of the language, as we go into the week after the 129th anniversary of women’s suffrage? This is the sister bill to the previous one we discussed, which was the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. Now, it’s been suggested that this is knee-jerk legislation rather than part of a fairly carefully worked-through scheme. I would refer the House to the full range of responses that we are putting forward to the long-standing problem of gang violence in New Zealand, violence that has its roots right back throughout my lifetime and even earlier—right back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth!

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, which we’ve already discussed, sets up this civil regime and closes some loopholes in the tracing of the proceeds of crime. This bill is different. It does close some loopholes, but—quickly—it sets out a new targeted warrant and additional search powers to get weapons from gang members during a gang conflict. This is a time of heightened tension between gangs, when violence and public disorder become more likely. We then expand the range of offences when we can seize and impound cars and motorbikes, particularly when they’re being used in gang displays of intimidatory driving, if I can put it that way. We also have closed the loophole on discharging a weapon with the intent to intimidate. At the moment, the only bit you’ve got of that legislation is discharging a weapon with the intent to intimidate people in a house. Now, we’ve widened that, and that is a useful thing to do—and it’s a five-year sentence, like the other one.

Finally, we have—and this does relate straight back to the previous bill—enabled the police to seize cash over $10,000 found in suspicious circumstances. And, when we say cash, we also have included valuables, jewellery, watches, precious metals, gold bars—I’m beginning to sound like an Indiana Jones movie—as well as the motor vehicles and the boats, which have been added to the list of high-value goods prohibited for sale.

Now, these are matters—true—where we need to take care. It is absolutely necessary to protect human rights and to restrict unreasonable searches, and I look forward to giving that our full attention in the Justice Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O’Connor, five minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much; that’s probably a great joy to the House that it’s only five minutes. It’s halving by each speech. The next one will be 2½ minutes.

National does support this bill, the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, but this bill is merely window dressing. We are seeing a spike in crime that we have not seen, arguably, for a generation—if not generations. It’s the amount of ram raids, the discharging of firearms, the disrespect for police officers, the disrespect for the public—it is, in itself, criminal, and the consequences are just not there. Let’s be very, very clear from this side of the House: we don’t believe there are sufficient consequences, and that’s both on a punitive front but I would also want to make the argument very clearly, particularly for those listening at home, that the National Party also believes “How do we intervene to try and change the lives, particularly of these youth offenders?”

What we have here is a Government that’s brought, tonight, two bills that all look rather decent and amazing. Hey, this is a Government, supposedly, that’s getting on with the job. But, actually, as we have teased it out through two debates tonight, we see that actually these are bills with very little substance. They don’t really go all that far and, in many ways, they’re just echoing elements of law that we already have. They are tweaks; they’re only tweaks.

As with the last bill—actually, the first point: this is an omnibus bill, which raises the question why we didn’t actually just put the proceeds of crime bill that we just discussed inside this omnibus and just make it one bill. Of course, the Government didn’t want that; they wanted to make it look like it’s two great, dramatic bills. What is, though, consistent is that, just like with the last bill, there’s basically been very little to no consultation with the public, and I want to put it on record again: no consultation with iwi Māori.

Now, that’s fascinating because, again, the left of the House make a big, big deal of always engaging mana whenua and iwi, hapū, whānau—everyone—but not on this. The Greens and others—it will be fascinating to hear from the Greens on this, because they’re all for consistency that Māori should be engaged, and rightly they should be. But the Government’s ignored that.

Look, a couple of things—and colleagues have been going through—one of the provisions of this bill is a new warrant power for search and seizure of weapons during a gang conflict. I’m going to be slightly facetious because it is this time of night. So that’s great—it’s great that we’re using the Search and Surveillance Act—but as it is, it’s during events where there is a gang conflict. I might just suggest to the Government that you don’t really need surveillance powers when gang members are firing firearms out in public; it’s pretty damn obvious.

Secondly, there’s a search power for cash found in suspicious circumstances and believed to be over $10,000. Well, a couple of things: I think, generally, anyone carrying cash these days is suspicious; most of us use EFTPOS cards. Secondly, I’m not sure how one believes something to be over $10,000; it sort of is or it isn’t. And, thirdly, with rampant inflation in this country, how is the Government going to make sure that the $5 I have in my pocket today—not because of inflation—is going to end up over $10,000?

Continuing on a slight facetious side, there is now a new offence of discharging a firearm with the intent to intimidate. Rightly, as Paul Goldsmith pointed out, that’s pretty much ipso facto, but I will admit, flying in a Huey over Baghdad, I was wondering whether fathers celebrating their daughters’ 21st birthday, firing their guns into the air, might have clipped me. Fortunately, they did not. But this is New Zealand and not Baghdad, so we don’t tend to do that with firearms.

And, finally, they’re going to change the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. I mean, really, if we’re going to do plain English, we’ve got to get shorter titles to bills. But, importantly, it’s going to prohibit cash payments, as Dr Henderson pointed out. She also rightly pointed out it’s not just money; it’s jewels, valuables, and so forth, which, of course, raises the question—which I am sure is on Andrew Bayly’s mind—will the Government ensure that Gib board is also included, as part of this, as a high-value item at the moment?

So, look, slightly facetious. These four elements; they’re fine. There’s nothing wrong with them. But I think for the general public to particularly understand: this is but window dressing. It’s really just an attempt for the Government to look busy. But let me make this one little guess—speculative guess, to make sure I roll out the 21 seconds remaining—this will make no difference to the crime that’s happening on the ground. The gangs will continue to intimidate. They will continue to drive along Tamaki Drive. They will continue the ram raids. The youth will still be smashing into the Michael Hill Jeweller’s and so forth, because these laws do not go far enough.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tangi Utikere—five-minute call.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): 大家好, talofa. I want to make a brief contribution in support of this bill this evening because it is about having more tools available in the toolkit for our police and others out in the community and, as others have already said this evening, this bill is in tandem with the previous legislation that passed its first reading this evening.

The bill itself does create new offences, but it also creates some new enforcement powers and opportunities available to the police. It hits gangs and organised crime where it matters most in terms of profits along the way. In terms of those new enforcement powers, they exist for a range of different pieces of legislation. One of which, when I look through the list of Acts that the bill will change in some way, is the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012. Now, this is a piece of legislation that I am very familiar with because prior to entering Parliament, for more than five years I was authorised by the Attorney-General as an issuing officer under that Act to consider applications for search warrants and production orders and to issue those warrants or orders with conditions, time frames—such as that contained in this bill—for the execution of those warrants and those orders, if appropriate. Now, some of the powers that are proposed to be exercised in this bill will be exercised once a warrant has been issued. What’s interesting to note for members is that the reasonable grounds for suspicion are still required when considering whether the application should be granted, so in my view this is a balance between the police having those tools but also respecting the democratic process that citizens also have to ensure that that statutory threshold continues to be met. It’s something that the select committee will no doubt consider as part of this process. I commend this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. This will just be a brief call. I spoke on the previous bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, in which I’ve heard tonight there’s a connection between the two pieces of legislation, and as I said in my introductory comments to the previous bill, they apply to this one also. This was one of our manifesto commitments in 2020: that we would do a range of things to ensure that our communities are safer. I’m proud of the work that we’ve done to increase our front-line police officers and to extend things like to Te Pae Oranga, the iwi community liaison panels, which we have in our communities, but also the recent announcements about the Better Pathways Package that aims to place more young people in education, training, or work to drive down youth crime.

When I think about this one, I do come with experience, unfortunately, from my electorate where I have seen the type of behaviour that this bill is proposing to address. I have seen the convoys. I have seen people being prospected with new Harley-Davidsons. So I do think that by the introduction of this range of measures, I hope—I am more optimistic than the previous speaker from the Opposition—that it will start to drive some changes, because we will be hitting them where it hurts the most, and that is the profits in their pockets and with the tools that they use to recruit.

I do want to note one interesting thing about the bill, and that is it will also apply to non-gang members. The majority of these proposals will apply to non-gang members as well, although the new search warrant powers will only allow police to search the property of members of a gang which is actively involved in conflict or those who are not gang members but who are actively encouraging and assisting the conflict. I have heard recently that, unfortunately, there are people in our community who are licensed gun holders who are supplying gangs—you know, they obtain them legitimately, but what they are then doing with them is really concerning. So it is intended that the tools that the police are given in this legislation will extend to those people if they are caught in that act, because they can be feeding those tensions which we are seeing.

So the introduction of new search warrant powers; the ability to do more when we’ve got gang shootings; as I mentioned before, the gang convoys, where we often see high-risk driving and illegal behaviour; and the prohibition of cash transactions over $10,000 for specific goods, which I can see quite clearly would be things like the motorcycles, but also we’ve got the suspicious cash there. So, I don’t intend to take any further time. I look forward, as a member of the Justice Committee, to receiving this bill and to hearing submissions on it. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve been enjoying this debate this evening, and I thought I might bring a little bit of reality to it. Look, if we could just change the law, then all this bad crime would stop, no? Does anyone actually believe that? We know it’s not going to, don’t we? What we do want to do is to actually make it easier for law-abiding citizens or people in New Zealand to be able to live their lives without having their property smashed, their jewellery stolen, and to be intimidated. We want to give the Police the lawful support from Parliament—or most of us do, anyway—to go about their job.

I’ve been listening to the Labour contributions with extreme interest, because I was actually the Minister who brought the original Search and Surveillance Act—or Bill as it was then—through to Parliament and through the third reading. Despite some very nice comments—recorded in Hansard—by the former Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the way that I tried to work with the Labour Party to come to a compromise, no, they would not support the Search and Surveillance Bill. No, they would not, nor would the Greens—no one expects that the Greens are going to, and that’s perfectly fine because no one expects it—nor did, by the way, the New Zealand First Party. Just have a look in Hansard. I’m happy to help anyone with that should they need to find themselves. But actually it was National, ACT, which then had one member, and United Future with their one member, who brought through the search and surveillance legislation which the Government is now seeking to amend to give new powers—a new warrant power to search for and seize weapons during a gang conflict. I’m not quite sure how that can’t be done right now in the heat of battle and everything else. I would have thought it was already able to be done, but I guess under this Government, Police seem to have lost the mojo by so much they basically can’t come out and make a decision to go off and just go after it, because they know or they fear they will not be supported by the Government.

I guess one of the things I find interesting is this new seizure power for cash found in suspicious circumstances and believed to be over $10,000. I think they’ve probably got enough power now, but if the Government says that this is the answer to all the things and it’s going to sort it, that would be great, too. We also have the inclusion of a new charge of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate. I think discharging a firearm without lawful purpose would probably be already illegal in the Crimes Act. I would have thought so. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009—oh yep, another one of mine—by prohibiting cash payments over a specified value for certain high-value goods. It’s good to know that the gangs will no longer be able to buy their Harleys; they’ll have to steal them. I really do think the Government needs to think this stuff through. Yes, I understand what they’re trying to do. Yes, we agree with the intent. Do we necessarily think this is going to make a scrap of difference? Not really—not really.

And then we have the Land Transport Act to extend the circumstances in which vehicles can be impounded to respond to conduct that occurs during gang convoys. Oh, I think we all know about that one. That was during the COVID lockdown when the rest of us were complying with the law and gangs had taken over certain motorways because they had tangi or some other sort of event that they were at and they were beyond the law. Well, if we over here or even they over there on that side of the House had all gone out on motorbikes or in cars and we decided to drive down in convoy, I can’t imagine how fast it would be for us to be stopped, asked for our licences, asked to have our cars impounded, because obviously we’re under the influence of something to have done that. And yet here we have: “This new legislation’s going to be all tough on crime.” It won’t make a scrap of difference, but we’re happy to see it go to select committee.

We’re happy the Government has now woken up to the fact that the public do not like to see gang leaders going in to have meetings with Cabinet Ministers in the Beehive. I think the only thing that stopped Harry Tam from coming in for his little meetings with Willie Jackson was the COVID lockdowns, and that seems to have been about it. And yet nothing in here about not paying gangs, not continuing to pay them, to fund them, and to apparently address the harm that they’ve already caused. Nothing in here about victims. It’s nice to know that there is now, after five long years of failure, an understanding that maybe things are not what they’d like them to be. It’s nice to hear from some of the members opposite who’ve talked about their electorates and how gangs have been prospecting for young people. It’s the same in my electorate and the same in other people’s electorates. That’s what they do, because the criminal gangs are inherently bad—otherwise they wouldn’t be criminal gangs. I think we see the intimidation that occurs for members of the public when we see them taking over the roads with their motorcycles, whether they paid cash for them at the friendly shop or else they stole them. I think we see that. It’s already there.

This is not going to stop that. What is going to stop it is the Government backing the Police. And that’s not going to happen until there’s a change of Government next year. It’s just not going to. They need a Police Minister who will stand up for them, not make excuses and say, “We’re going to get a report.” How about just stand up for them for a change? Why is it that the Police have to do what they have to do to just try and find people who are on the run—well, they weren’t even on the run; they were just lawfully going around in Northland, having been sent there by one Government department and allowed there. All the kerfuffle from the Government: “We’re going to get a report.” Well, the report should be about why they gave these innocent women a pass to go through and then expect the Police to go and pick it up while Northland was held in lockdown—for how many days, someone remind me?

Hon Mark Mitchell: It was 11 days, wasn’t it?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: 11 days—11 days. And who does this Government blame? They listen to a mainstream-media person who says, “Bad police did this.”, and they jump on that and say, “Well, we’re going to get a report.” Well, how about getting a backbone? How about get a spine? How about thinking about the fact that these men and women in New Zealand Police have to go out every day and night and 3 o’clock in the morning and pick up the pieces of drunken and drugged violent offenders in their homes? They have to go in there and do that, and the last thing they need is a wussy Government that goes around having those discussions with the gangs.

I heard the Police Minister talking about Police operational matters last week, claiming and crowing about some work the Police had done. I don’t see him out there claiming and crowing about the everyday work that police officers do in their jobs. They don’t get the big $10,000 cash payments that we’re talking about here, and nor should they. They don’t get that because New Zealand Police are renowned for being the Police who take corruption extremely seriously. But one of the ways of continuing down that path of not having corruption in our police force is to back them, to build their morale, and to build their professionalism. So instead of the constant harping and backstabbing of the Police, how about supporting them?

So this bill goes some way to saying the Government is putting its hands up and realises it made a mistake. And, of course, we in Opposition, in National, are not going to play the stupid games that Labour played in Opposition, where this sort of legislation—these are serious infringements on people’s normal human rights to go about their business. So there’s got to be a very good cause for it and there’s got to be some very strong measures in there to make sure that it is the right thing to do and that it is balanced on the side of doing the right thing. We’re not going to play games with it, unlike Labour did in the search and surveillance debate, where they talked about what they wanted, they got most of what they wanted, and they said, “Oh, sorry, it’s not quite what we want, so we’re not going to support you.” When it comes to these matters of serious changes to people’s legal rights, then there should be widespread support across the parties and Parliament. Otherwise, it can be easily changed very quickly without anybody giving a thought to it.

But it’s nice that there’s been a come-to-Jesus moment for the Labour Party on the search and surveillance legislation. I’m pleased to welcome them into the fold of actually, just occasionally, hearing about law and order.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): 谢谢 and talofa, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the last speaker for the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, first reading. I stand in support of this bill, as this will assist our police in the work that they do. I first want to acknowledge the hard work that they and their teams do in our community. I have three area commanders in my electorate, the northern part covered by an incredible inspector, Scott Gemmell; the central part by Inspector Joe Hunter; and also my southern part from Inspector Joe Hunter. It’s always a good thing when we do have meetings with the different area commanders in my area and the neighbourhood policing team, to discuss matters and targeted areas where some of these criminals are doing their activity. I know some of these tools would definitely help them in the work that they do.

These are targeted measures. We’ve all heard about the five measures in place, and I just want to highlight three that will do incredible work in my area. One of them is the motorbikes and vehicles and impounding cars, because we see a lot of these conveys, we see a lot of these young folk who jump on motorbikes and do crazy things down the road on Great South Road. It is not good, not only for themselves but also for other drivers on the road. So community safety is paramount. One of the other things is discharging the gun and doing drive-bys in our area. It is absolutely horrendous. It is no good for our community, and not only for that but for the targeted houses that they do: the neighbours get sprung with all these bullets. It’s a good thing that we can put this new offence there, up to five years in prison, and I hope that we can use that a lot more.

Also, I see on social media a lot of these gang members splashing their cash, making it rain on TikTok, and I think the police intelligence could use some of that social media to make sure that they’re targeting those gang members using these social media platforms.

All of these measures are intended to make sure our community and our whānau are well looked after, and I commend this bill to the House. Fa‘afetai lava.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 9 February 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Can I begin by thanking select committee members from all parties, including the chair, Jo Luxton, for their constructive participation in consideration of the bill. I appreciate the time the Primary Production Committee spent to understand this bill and the complexities of the fisheries management system. Can I also acknowledge the officials who worked with the committee, and, of course, those who took the time to submit on the bill.

The bill is needed to strengthen and modernise New Zealand’s fisheries management system. Our fisheries management system has at its heart the quota management system, and it has served New Zealand pretty well, but it does reflect the science, technology, and management approaches of the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, technology has developed in ways which gives us more choices. These choices both enable some of the changing technologies which this bill proposes to utilise, but it also enables us to meet the increasing demands of consumers to know where their food comes from, and to utilise these technologies in a way that provides consumers in all parts of the supply chain with greater assurances that our fisheries are managed sustainably.

The bill proposes key changes that will address issues that are quite old now. They were brought to light under the previous National Government in 2016, when a report was commissioned from Michael Heron QC into controversies in respect of some operations that had been run by the fisheries division of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), which were called Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp. The Heron report and those underlying reports that the Heron report looked into showed that discarding and high grading was a longstanding problem in New Zealand. The then Government proposed that we introduce cameras on boats and as is sometimes the way, we’ve had to wait a while for those technologies to mature and also to find the money to do it.

New Zealand’s not unique in trying to address these concerns. Fisheries management systems around the world grapple with them. I was recently in Iceland and it was notable to me that they are dealing with similar issues around illegal discarding that were exposed recently in Iceland through the use of drones. They were surprised by the scale of that discarding, just as I think New Zealand Ministers were surprised following Operations Hippocamp and Achilles. So the bill proposes to tackle the issue of high grading, or the discarding of unwanted fish, by improving the incentives for better commercial fishing practices. It does this by both the introduction of on-board cameras and these rules around discards which support a change in fishing behaviour, because fishers are incentivised to more selectively target the fish they want and to maximise the value of the fish that is caught.

So the bill proposes that all fish that are caught, whether they are a quota management system species or not, must be reported. All quota management systems species must also be landed, except if there is an exception provided for in regulations. The exceptions process will be evidence based and takes into account that some fish are best returned to the sea. There are three exception categories. The first is that the species have an acceptable likelihood of survival when returned. The second is that the species if retained would damage other catch on board—for example, ammoniating sharks, if they’re kept, can ruin the rest of the fish in the hold. And the third area is species-specific returns for biological, fisheries management, or ecosystem purposes. An example of that is a female rock lobster with eggs.

We know that there are concerns about the impacts of these proposals, especially amongst some inshore fishers, and the Primary Production Committee listened to a range of issues. I would emphasise that there is some flexibility for live fish to be returned to the sea to support the ecosystem. Decisions on an acceptable likelihood of survival will be guided by new factors, including the sustainability status of the stock, the fishing methods used, and relevant cultural, social, and economic considerations. Fishing methods are developing, including some new harvest techniques which make it more likely that the fish will survive if released. The proposed rules aim to incentivise fishers to avoid catching fish they don’t want. This can be achieved in part through a change in fisher behaviour, and also through the use of new technology. There’s also a range of new technologies available or being developed, including, as I’ve said, the new types of nets, alternative methods such as potting or longlining, and the use of cameras on nets.

The bill proposes a four-year implementation period to ensure that fishers have got time to transition to the new rules by changing behaviour, using new innovative fishing methods, and developing new markets. Some of the current exceptions to what fish can or must be returned to the sea will continue as they meet the new rules. Other current exceptions will be reviewed in consultation with stakeholders and Treaty partners to see if they fit under the new framework or whether they should be revoked.

The Government has committed to review 75 percent of the sub-minimum legal size returns and 95 percent of live release exceptions in the first two years. So this will provide certainty to the fishers about what exceptions remain and which ones will be revoked early on in the implementation period. If a decision is made to amend or revoke an exception, implementation is delayed by between three and six months to ensure fishers have time to adjust. And an indicative review schedule has been developed and will be made available shortly to stakeholders for feedback, which will, again, provide more certainty about the next steps.

The tightening of landing and discard rules is supported by the roll-out of on-board cameras. Cameras provide more accurate information about fishing activity, better evidence for a responsive management system, and they also encourage a change in fishing behaviour and reduce unwanted discards and waste. They’ll also support measures to reduce the bycatch of birds and sea mammals. The bill supports broader use of on-board cameras, which has been tested with the fishing industry, who are broadly supportive of the initiative.

When introduced in 1986, the penalties regime was based on the low probability of detecting illegal discarding, with high penalties when offending was proven. So it was pretty hard to catch people under the old system, and, therefore, when you did, you had to hit them pretty hard in order to act as a disincentive to that behaviour. While prosecutions will remain available as a deterrent for serious offending, the bill introduces a more graduated offences and penalties regime that can now be implemented because we have cameras on boats. There is a 50-fish limit, or a threshold, for the proposed infringement regime. That has been the subject of some scrutiny. To a certain extent, any limit is arbitrary as to where you draw the line, and we thought that was the right place to draw the line. In addition, the bill makes infringement regulations available for lower-level offending that doesn’t justify the full imposition of the criminal law.

When determining an appropriate prosecutorial response to non-compliance, the MPI enforcement officers will have a prosecutorial discretion, and they will, as with other prosecutors, consider all factors of the offence, including whether the act was intentional or accidental; the nature of the offending, including the species and quantities involved; and previous behaviour of the fisher. The proposed regime will allow commercial fishers to be penalised more proportionately and appropriately, relative to the level of their offending.

In conclusion, the select committee process has made a number of changes to strengthen the bill. There will be a small number of changes, by way of Supplementary Order Paper, as we continue to polish the bill. There are mainly technical in nature. I commend the bill to the House.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill this evening. As we are getting late into the evening I am hoping we can keep everyone focused with their attention after that first riveting contribution by the Minister. Just a couple of aspects that I wanted to touch on here. Ultimately, what we’re talking about is trying to improve the sustainability of our fish stocks and the intent there is good. That’s something that National certainly supports: enhancing that protection of fish stocks, the sustainability and, indeed, our track record speaks to that, having established 11 marine reserves over our nine years in Government. Interestingly, this Government have not yet established a single one in five years of Government, the longest period since the 1980s in which no new marine reserves have been established—but I digress.

So the intent here, as I say, is good. We will be supporting the bill at its second reading, but we do still have some concerns with it, and I’ll touch on those throughout this contribution. It stems, in part, from the quota management system (QMS)—ultimately our current model being relatively good but starting to show cracks. In my mind, it seems it’s not quite as effective or as responsive as it should be to enable us to have confidence that we are indeed protecting those fish stocks appropriately, in a timely manner, and are able to respond to any significant changes in biomass throughout our 642-odd fish stocks that we have around New Zealand. What we have seen in some of those, and we can look at the recent data from the Ministry of Primary Industries around their fish stock assessments, is that some 20-odd percent of the stocks that they assess—and they only assess a fraction of those 642—were overfished at the last assessment. So, to me, that suggests that we have some real concerns that must be addressed.

It is my intent, hopefully, through this legislation, that we will see an improvement in some of those areas, whilst at the same time actually helping to give our commercial fishers a bit more confidence. Because what we’ve seen again through the QMS process is that we have significant fluctuations. At times we can have changes of more than 100 percent increase or decrease to a particular fish stock when it is eventually assessed because there’s suddenly found to be a significant increase or decrease in the biomass of that particular fish stock. And so on that basis, it can have a significant impact on a potential business operation if you are suddenly having your total allowable commercial catch limit decreased drastically off the back of one of those fish stock assessments.

So my concern here, though, particularly for the smaller players, is around whether or not the implementation of this bill and the costs associated with it are going to outweigh the benefits. Here I am—my third contribution on three pieces of legislation where we have seen in each instance a Government that is just happy to continually impose costs on businesses. We had it with the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill—there’s millions of dollars more of additional cost going in there—we had it with the Deposit Takers Bill put forward earlier today, and now with this one. In each of these instances, it just seems that the Government have no regard whatsoever to the increased cost that their potential changes or their proposed changes will have on business. That’s simply not good enough. Business underpins our economy and we need to make sure that we are supporting it.

Of course we need to continue to evolve and to adapt, and I think we can see those expectations from our markets starting to demand different management practices with regards to fisheries, but also across the food and fibre sector more broadly. The perception around the sustainability or the traceability that people demand with their purchasing decisions, particularly from a food and fibre perspective, is absolutely critical. So we must continue to evolve to adapt to that changing demand as well, and that’s something we’ve had a really good history of here in New Zealand. Our food and fibre sector has always continued to innovate, to evolve, to adapt, and to remain profitable. So I have confidence that our commercial fisheries operators will be able to do so in this particular piece of legislation, and it’s encouraging to see that they do have a four-year transition period, as the Minister mentioned as well.

But, and I put that “but” out there again, cost is a big concern for us, and I’m not confident yet that enough was done to actually address the concerns raised by stakeholders through what was, again, another truncated select committee process. This Government seems to think, again, it knows best and doesn’t need to consult widely. We’ve seen it time and time again, and the risk is, I think, that we are not seeing an appropriate level of consideration given to the concerns raised by a number of stakeholders, particularly around that cost aspect. Yes, technologies are evolving, and it is getting easier to put some of that on board, but there are still impositions. And of course, some of the interpretation of how these main provisions will be brought into play is a real concern for these commercial operators as well, because, ultimately, what we’re being told here is “Trust us. We’ll put it all in the regulations. Just trust us, and we’ll operationalise it from there.”

Well, that’s not good enough, and that is one of the areas that we really would like to see a much clearer focus on, because, even with regards to some of the main provisions around the graduated penalties and offences, what fish can be landed and what must be returned to the sea, some of these aspects that are now going to be fleshed out through regulations, when we’re being told by officials that they are working on it and they’ll come up with an appropriate framework, well, we have seen, as I say, unfortunately, too many instances of legislation imposing significant costs on businesses without seeming to have any regard to what that ultimately means or what the unintended consequences of that may be. So that is a real concern that we on this side of the House have with this piece of legislation and the potential risk it provides to our commercial fishers whilst, of course, wanting to ensure that we are improving that sustainability aspect.

So, on those main provisions, amending the rules of what must be landed and returned to the sea—repealing Schedule 6—yep, that all makes sense. One of the aspects that I haven’t heard addressed, though, that I really would like to hear from the Minister on through the committee of the whole House stage is not just around, obviously, the first aspect—acceptable likelihood of survival; that’s fine, and negative economic value being some of the exceptions for potential discard. But research purposes is an area that I’ve had raised that, I understand, is quite niche, but I wonder whether or not that has come into consideration with regard to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd vessels, for example, being able to continue to discard. Are they then captured by these carve-outs or not, and what are the implications for them undertaking research purposes where, in some cases, they, obviously, as a part of the research process, have to land significant volumes of fish which they don’t have capacity to store on the vessel and would have to discard? So I’m interested in whether that fits within this particular carve-out for what can be returned to the sea.

I also have a concern around the graduated offences and penalties regime, and this is an area where we did push in the select committee to try and get some more change, because, whilst we support having a graduated system rather than just the blanket approach we’ve seen, or edge-of-a-cliff type of approach that we’ve seen previously, what we’re seeing now is that the graduated system is only focused around the volume of fish rather than the value. So, when we look at the discard thresholds for those penalties, if a discard of less than 50 in excess to the limit—less than 50—is discarded on any day, that’s a $10,000 fine. Over 50, it’s is a $100,000 fine. Now, that sounds like a graduated process, but, actually, if we think about the types of fish stocks that might be part of this, actually, if we catch 50 southern bluefin tuna over and above what we’re entitled to catch—50—that is a significant value of fish, then we are only liable for a $10,000 fine. But if we catch 51 pilchards—tiny little pilchards; a very low-value fish—we are liable for a $100,000 fine. So that seems clearly to be out of proportion with the level of the offence. And so it shouldn’t just be a number on that basis, but should indeed be focused around the value of those particular fish.

Then, lastly, on the streamlined decision-making process of catch limits, I think that’s actually a good aspect. It gives a bit more flexibility. The Minister then is able to be more responsive to those aspects I touched on at the start, around significant fluctuations in fish biomass that can result in a need to change the fish stock or the commercial catch limits before a formal fish stock assessment can be completed, which can take 18-odd months to do. Anecdotal feedback from commercial fishers could suggest that needs to happen earlier. So some of those aspects are good. Overall, though, we do still have significant concerns, and we are likely to be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage, but we support it for now. Thank you.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation as the chair of the Primary Production Committee who oversaw the submissions, etc., of this piece of legislation after the first reading.

Before I begin my contribution, I just want to acknowledge my fellow select committee members, who worked really well and in good faith on this piece of legislation, and, in particular, Todd Muller, who was the lead Opposition member on this. The committee worked really well together; it wasn’t easy. There were some differing views—quite strongly differing views—but we did come together and come out with a second reading piece of legislation that I think is quite reflective of most areas in which we agreed. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the advisers who worked really well with the committee. We had several meetings outside of parliamentary hours and early mornings, etc., and everyone worked well and contributed really well to that.

I’d also actually really like to acknowledge the submitters that we heard from. Some of them were actually quite heart-wrenching and emotional stories that some of our submitters told of the effects that COVID has had on their businesses, and I don’t think that we’ve stopped and perhaps thought about that so much. We’ve talked about how our farmers, our agricultural farmers, but also, actually, our commercial fishers were severely impacted during that time of COVID, when they were unable to operate. Fisheries is an important part of our economy. It employs over 13,000 people and contributes $4.2 billion to our economy overall, with $1.35 billion in export revenue, so it is a very, very important piece of our economy.

The Minister traversed many of the changes that we’ve made to this piece of legislation, but one of the things I wanted to touch on was just the importance of this piece of legislation allowing having cameras on board, and I know that some of this was initially thought of and begun under the Hon Nathan Guy. So it will be really good to see this come to fruition and have these cameras on boats. I think that’s going to be important to ensure that we do see more transparency and that it does encourage better fishing practices.

We’ve heard comments around the infringement regime, and the previous speaker talked about there being a $10,000 fine. I think that the words he didn’t include were “could be”—“could be”—but not necessarily, and I think, from what I understand, there is going to be consultation with the sector, and further decision-making around how things might look will be based upon those findings.

But we did hear that the demerit point system is going to be introduced, which I think is really good. It’s important that it is relative to the offending as opposed to one-size-fits-all, and the infringement notices that will come into force—we did have discussion around what that might look like. Is it going to look like when you get a speeding ticket or a parking ticket? So that’s my understanding of how that’s going to be, and they will expire after three years, which I think is really good because sometimes people do things without perhaps realising, unintentionally, or sometimes intentionally, but it does give people the opportunity to redeem themselves.

So, again, I just want to thank and acknowledge my select committee, who worked really well on this piece of legislation, thank the Minister, advisers, and all those who submitted to it. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is suspected, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9.a.m (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

(continued on 28 Wednesday, September 2022)

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mōrena.

Hon Members: Mōrena.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): We’re off to a cracking start—I’m loving this. When I left the Chair last evening the House was considering the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I now call on, from the National side, Joseph Mooney.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak this morning on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I’m going to start just by speaking about how important fisheries are in my electorate of Southland. I’m lucky enough to have most of Fiordland in my electorate, and this is an area that has the CRA8 fishery, which is the largest mainland fishery geographically for crayfish. It extends from Long Point south to Stewart Island and the Snares, the islands and coastline of Foveaux Strait, which is Penny Simmonds’ territory, and then northwards along the Fiordland coastline to Bruce Bay, about 50 kilometres north of Haast. While the overall area is large, almost all fishing occurs within 8 kilometres of the shore. There are 146 CRA8 quota share owners, and shares trade for more than $1.8 million per tonne equivalent. The CRA8 fleet operates in the most remote coastal area of the South Westland and Fiordland areas, and the value of the landed catch is estimated to be some $122 million, based on the average price paid to fishermen.

I also have, I’m glad to say, Te Anau, which has had a very challenging time over the last 2½ years with tourism. It’s also home to the Fiordland Lobster Company, and this is quite an exceptional company. It is Te Anau based; the headquarters are in Te Anau. It’s a vertically integrated lobster company, and it is New Zealand’s largest exporter of high-quality lobster, dedicated to the sustainable fishing and live export of wild-caught southern rock lobster. Sustainable fishing is an important point which this Fisheries Amendment Bill is endeavouring to address. I would just say that the Fiordland Lobster Company started back in 1988, when New Zealand introduced the world-leading quota management system, ensuring sustainable fishing for generations to come. A year later, in 1989, 15 Fiordland fishers created the Fiordland Lobster Company. In 2010, it expanded its operations into Australia, where it operates under brand South Australian Lobster Company. The head office is still in Te Anau, nestled in the heart of Fiordland, with lobster-receiving depots and export packing factories located throughout New Zealand and Australia. So it’s quite an amazing success story.

Now, this bill is one that is endeavouring to make some changes to strengthen the effectiveness of New Zealand’s fisheries management system. It also repeals the Fisheries Act 1983, which is no longer used. National supports legislation that enhances the protection of New Zealand’s marine environment and encourages better fishing practices that enables our fishing sector to sustainably thrive. National believes that fish dumping and illegal activity happening under the current system must change in order to prevent lost future economic opportunity. We still, however, have some strong reservations about this bill, following the select committee stage. National is deeply concerned about the potential for costs to outweigh the benefits once changes are enacted. And, on that, I should note that it is a particularly challenging time for the fishing industry. Just last month, it was reported that fishing boats are tied up, unable to feed a hungry world market. The price of fuel has increased over the last year by around 150 percent, and what this means in real terms is that fuel is consuming up to three-quarters of the value of the catch. That leaves little to pay crew, freight, and other costs, without factoring any return to the fisher. There are currently boats reported that have been tied up because it’s simply not economic to go out and fish. So we need to keep that in mind as we look at this, and that is why National is concerned for the potential costs to outweigh the benefits.

Crucially, the detail on how these amendments will be operationalised by species is left to regulations that are yet to be developed. The success of the regime depends largely on Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) pragmatism in developing these new rules for a transition period that ends in 2026. It’s certainly my hope that MPI is pragmatic, particularly taking into account the fact that it is an incredibly challenging time in the fishing industry with the costs, in particular of fuel, and that we do need to catch fish to feed the world. So the bill is not perfect, and elements of the design will be criticised by many, if not most, stakeholders because if the rule changes are not flexible enough to meet our diverse industry, in terms of species, operator size, regions, and innovation, many operators could be put out of business. That is the last thing we want to see. The sector wants a pre-set decision framework. It does understand the need to reduce bio-catch waste and accepts on-board camera implementation. They want the criteria to be applied fairly, reflecting the realities of trawl fishing. They accept that a more adaptive and granular penalty regime is an improvement on the cliff-face model that exists currently. Although some changes were made to bill during the select committee process, we are not satisfied that enough has been done to address stakeholder concerns. When National is in Government in 2023 and the transition process has begun, we will closely monitor what parts of the bill are working, which ones aren’t, and we’ll seek to improve those parts.

We have some concerns with the landings and discards sections in this bill. Currently, discards back to the sea can occur within a very strict set of exceptions, which may have a disproportionate impact on inshore fishers, depending on how pragmatic or otherwise officials are when setting those regulations. The priority should be achieving a workable outcome that increasingly focuses on the benefits of cameras on board to assist with transparency of on-board performance rather than a strict interpretation of the primary legislation. As noted in the main committee report, we remain concerned that the penalty regime has no consideration on the various value weightings of respective species. We believe that, when setting fines regarding the discarding of fish, referred to in new sections 252(3A), 252(5A), and 252(5)(ba), regard should be had in matter including the species and, importantly, value. The sector does need assurance that it won’t be hit by the bill’s proposed changes, especially businesses still grappling with the economic downturn as a result of COVID-19 and now the impact of high fuel prices and high labour costs, which is having a real impact. As I mentioned earlier, it is resulting in boats being tied up, and in fact it’s having a disproportionate impact on smaller operators—the people that we want to see stay in business. So that is something to watch closely.

This bill places emphasis on the potential for New Zealand to be a world leader in fisheries management as the result of changes proposed. That is something New Zealand has been very good at, with the development of the quota management system many years ago. This is endeavouring to continue on that same trajectory. National, however, is less concerned in this instance about doing it first and, as I said, is primarily concerned about making sure it’s done right. So this is a bill that we will be supporting, but we will be watching closely to see the impact and, hopefully, see the pragmatism from MPI in the way that it is applied, to ensure that we can continue to have sustainable fisheries and people can remain in work and continue to feed the world from New Zealand’s fantastic waters. So, with that, I will conclude my remarks.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Mōrena. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. It’s been a long process through select committee and as we’ve seen in recent times, a really great one because at select committee we get the experts in and they’ve really helped us grapple with some incredibly complex issues that are seen in very, very different ways by a huge range of stakeholders who will want the best for our moana and our kai moana, but have different ideas about how we approach that.

This bill is a result of realising that we need to take the opportunity to upgrade our arrangements, our quota management system and our fisheries management system. These came about more than a generation ago when we didn’t have the knowledge, the data, the technology, and the ability to really judge and assess what is going on under the ocean, and to be able to modernise that is a really great opportunity. And of course the other side of that is, as we’re leaning into the world environment, the global market, we want to be able to hold our heads up high honestly and say that we have a sustainable fishery, and to lead by example. That isn’t just about delivering fish that is sustainably caught, but teaching the rest of the world how we can do it. I think there’s some wonderful intellectual property as well as cultural practice we can share as we lead the way, it’s exciting times.

The cameras and the landing and discard rules, this is about incentivising behaviour. This is about focusing the mind and making sure that every opportunity to improve technology and practice means that our fisheries are best protected. I want to thank all of those who turned up to select committee, especially our fishers from Taranaki, our inshore fishers. We heard about those fishers who are really struggling with their costs of production at the moment. I really appreciate and want to acknowledge the huge effort they’ve gone to over the years to really be proactive about taking up new technology and really testing out the opportunities that come with having cameras on boats and the additional data and knowledge that they will be able to contribute to the system. That will take years to implement, because we do need to make sure that we learn how best to use this data. They engaged in good faith and we truly believe that this is a bill that is fit for purpose. I recommend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. It was a very interesting bill to join the Primary Production Committee on.

Can I start by thanking all the submitters. We had nearly 500 submissions, and 56 submitters presented in person. They, particularly the individual fishers, gave the committee a much-better appreciation of some of the practical issues around fishing, their concerns about rising fuel costs and around rising maintenance costs for older boats. I came away with a very strong impression that those who don’t own quota, or don’t own annual catch entitlement, and have to lease it, but who are doing the hard work at sea, are really being squeezed. Really, I think it’s incumbent on Government to look long term about what sort of support is needed and how we enable people to transition out of the industry. The answer is not as National is suggesting, to roll back the regulation, but to look at the future here, and there may well be an opportunity for some people to transition out and for Government to help them do that. Can I also thank the recreational fishers and environmental groups for their really thoughtful submissions and for quite a number of submissions from industry.

There are a lot of people who care about our oceans, who care about fish, and who care about fishing. But we need some fundamental changes to the Fisheries Act 1996 to achieve sustainable fisheries management in the interests of healthy oceans, not just tweaking it. It is disappointing that Labour, this term, without the handbrake of New Zealand First—which, of course, got big donations from fishing companies—is not using its strong majority to make substantial changes to the Fisheries Act.

There are elements of the bill which the Green Party supports, but we do have this fundamental concern that, as the Environmental Defence Society noted, the bill entrenches the existing single-stock utilisation - centric approaches to fisheries management under the quota management system (QMS). It doesn’t progress or resolve issues with the implementation of the sustainability principles in the Fisheries Act.

The provisions that we do support are the new rules around landing and discards. They’re intended to help discourage dumping, discourage high-grading, and ensure that all fish that are caught are reported, accounted for, and brought back to port. They are intended to ensure that fishers are more selective—they actually catch the fish that they want to sell. Of course, in the QMS, we’ve had a requirement in the Fisheries Act that all QM species are supposed to be landed, but we’ve had very complex, very permissive, and very broad exceptions. We saw the huge scale of dumping, misreporting, and under-reporting when Dr Glenn Simmons from Auckland University did a 2016 report, and he showed that, since the 1950s, fishers have caught more than double what they reported and what New Zealand reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Then, we had the Heron review after Operations Hippocamp and Achilles when the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) didn’t prosecute. That Heron report showed that there was widespread dumping of unwanted fish, and MPI’s decisions had been flawed.

So now we do have the requirement in the bill that fish be brought back to port. I’m sure fishers were listening closely to the Minister last night, when he highlighted that the current exceptions to landing requirements, which are listed in Schedule 6 of the Act, will continue to apply for up to another four years. Officials advised us that some of those exceptions will continue indefinitely.

Also, the bill provides, in clause 14, in new section 72A, a significant discretion to the Minister to be able to provide exceptions to the landing rules and to allow fish to continue to be returned to the sea. The committee’s recommendations here removed the very subjective criteria, “negative economic value”, which was problematic. But there is a big exception if there is an acceptable likelihood of survival of the stock or the species, and the Minister can have regard to social, cultural, and economic factors that the Minister considers relevant when deciding on that exception. So we think that provides too much flexibility, and we have got a Supplementary Order Paper there.

Another of the concerns, which is one that we shared with fishers, is that because fish have to come back to port, there may not be markets for some fish and there is a potential that they end up going to landfill. So we want MPI to look at this really closely once the bill’s passed, and ensure that we don’t have fish being caught and then ending up in landfill, because that would be the very worst outcome, one almost as bad as fish being caught and going to be processed to fishmeal, a very low-value use. So we really want MPI to have a very close look at what happens to fish that are being brought back to port that don’t currently have a market.

So while the industry had concerns about the landing and discards rules—and I really thank organisations, like Fisheries Inshore, which very helpfully produced a graphic illustration of some of their concerns, and talk about a shared vision for fisheries—I think everybody’s got a shared vision of sustainable fisheries. It’s how we get there where there’s a lot of conflict.

So there are concerns from the industry about the landing rules, but major concerns around the pre-set decision rules from environmental and recreation fishing organisations. The industry did support the pre-set decision rules. As Barry Torkington, who’s a former commercial fisher said—and I quote—“In return for cameras on boats, this bill quietly lays the foundation for changes that have been widely unpopular in the past, yet highly desirable to commercial interests.” These changes, because they allow the Minister quite wide scope when applying the rule to make changes to the total allowable catch or the total allowable commercial catch, there is a big concern from environmental NGOs, recreational fishers, that this will allow changes that benefit the industry without allowing public submission. They pointed to a number of examples—the fishing down of rock lobster in the Hauraki Gulf; tarakihi, though the Minister’s recently made decisions on that; scallops and the fact that throughout Aotearoa there is really destructive scallop dredging, overfishing has occurred and really collapsed our scallop stocks. Changes have only occurred there because of widespread public concern and the Minister being flooded with submissions.

So the concern of a lot of organisations is that because MPI at the moment only has the ability to adjust catch limits for between 20 and 30 stocks—and it’s saying that it needs these pre-set decision rules to allow it to be more agile, more flexible—there is the risk that too much can happen behind closed doors, with too much influence from commercial industry and without that ability for the public to really have their say. Certainly, when pre-set decision rules are first developed, or when they are amended, there is public consultation, but there is no ability to consult when the rules are actually applied. So if the original rule has too wide a range for adjustments to the total allowable commercial catch, for example, there is the potential for decisions which might drive the stock down. So there is a fair amount of scepticism amongst those who think MPI is far too closely aligned with commercial industry, and is captured by it, around how these pre-set decision rules will actually work.

But the lost opportunity—what’s missing from the bill? There’s no change to the purpose of the principal Act. We’ve still got that 19th century mentality that there are no limits to the exploitation of nature. I take issue with the statements from the previous National speaker that this is about fishing to feed the word; that sort of an ethos is how we really deplete stocks, how we deplete our fisheries, how we don’t recognise the current crisis and the need for fundamental change.

There’s been no updating and strengthening of the precautionary principle in section 10 of the principal Act. That’s been unchanged since 1996, despite 25 years of progress and developments in international law about how we better define “precautionary fisheries management”, and despite the United Nations General Assembly and the Food and Agriculture Organisation developing guidance and calling on States to better define “precautionary fisheries management” and apply it.

So there are elements of the bill, particularly around the landing and discards rule, that we support, but it is a lost opportunity to go much further and recognise the oceans crisis, recognise the huge depletion of a number of our fish stocks and the impact that that has had on ecosystems. It is a lost opportunity to move to really good ecosystem-based management.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT won’t be supporting this piece of legislation at this second reading, and I’ll iron out why, if I may. We had a very collegial relationship in the Primary Production Committee when this piece of legislation was heard, and we had dozens—dozens and dozens—of submitters come in: coastal fishermen, recreational fishermen, blue-water fishermen, and coastal—

Angie Warren-Clark: Fishers.

MARK CAMERON: —fishers—yeah, thank you very much. There’s a real problem, and I’ll iron it out, if I may, with new section 72A in clause 14. It’s been well canvassed that this is very, very problematic and, if I may—I’m sorry for the interjection; I didn’t make sense of it over there—there’s a real problem with the coastal commercial fishing fleet and the blue-water fleet. If I can highlight the reality of it, the simple fact is that the coastal commercial fishing fleet often catches a plethora of species: mid-water fish, surface fish, deep-water reef fish. Anecdotally, we heard multiple submitters say, “Hey look, in this instance, mid-column fish”—things like mullet and kahawai—“are being caught in the same net. One is targeted and one is not.”

Now, just very quickly as we go through this, new section 72A speaks to treating bycatch, and it’s not monetised in as much the same way as high-value species. If I may read it out, it’s having discard of 50 fish, more or less, having a penalty regime attached to them. In that regard, if I may, that would speak to pilchards having the same penalty regime attached to them as 50 kingfish.

The industry has gone to massive lengths to try and minimise and reduce unwanted bycatch. Six-inch mesh has gone to a 5-inch and then it’s gone to a 4-inch, the design of the mesh has changed from a diamond to a square, corkline technology has improved massively, leadline technology has improved massively, and yet there is still unwanted bycatch.

When it talks to landing and discards, deck wash—now, I just want to try and conceptualise this for people who have never spent any time at sea on a boat. You’ve got a 2-tonne net, potentially, in the blue-water fleet coming aboard with a tonne or half a tonne of fish inside of it, and there will be subsequent species that are caught. The technology is emerging. We absolutely agree—and this is logical, and all the submitters agree—that the likes of the camera roll-out was beneficial to the industry, and, by virtue of that, they could then understand the health of the ecosystem and the biomass.

But as proposed—and I want to speak to the practicality, not the political theatrics—this is a really difficult problem for coastal fisherman, and it was canvassed by Joseph Mooney earlier. Fuel costs are monumentally more than they were 12 or 24 months ago, and that’s one thing. A lot of the seasonal staff that came into, especially, the blue-water fleet—this industry and these commercial operators couldn’t get staff. Then you’re throwing this at them.

The reality is that there is a 13,000-strong part of society—employees, staff—that goes into this and that is part of this industry, and it’s worth billions. There is emerging technology, but I go back to the practical application of the Fisheries Act as it is being proposed. Landings and discard rules, a penalty regime—and let’s read it out, if we can. It speaks to discard of 50 or more fish being faced with a $100,000 fine, and fishers that offend two or more times in a three-year period could receive a maximum $250,000 fine. Well, gracious me, how does that work if you’re a set-netter commercial fisherman on an inshore fleet? Are you going to be prosecuted for the one offence on which perhaps you haven’t had your day in court? You go on about your business, you’re out fishing again, and there’s a subsequent bycatch of 50 fish or more.

Now, I don’t know if anyone understands the mullet fishery—yellow-eyed mullet. That’s a mid-water to upper-water column fish species. Inadvertently, there are commercial fishermen that catch them for the sake of selling them to the bait fish market. They have bycatch of kahawai. Instantly, there’s potentiality for a massive prosecutorial reality there.

Now, try and reconcile this. The industry has gone through rigorous change in mesh size, floating cork development, and leadline so they can actually set these nets at different places in the water column. This is the kind of innovation that this industry is constantly seeking to improve on, and yet here we have an exponentially ramped-up prosecutorial reality for 50 or more bait fish being treated as if they’re high-value southern bluefin tuna.

Based on this sort of logic—or the lack of it, I think, is the point—ACT won’t be supporting this bill at the second reading. We want to give this industry some surety to invest in the future, because at the end of the day, most of the concern is around table fish—or what you might call exotic fish species that are, basically, sold to domestic consumers here in New Zealand—being heavily predated or fished out. Again, the technology is emerging. Thus far, the industry has done marvellously well, I think, to adopt the narrative of having cameras on boats to further alleviate bycatch. I don’t think that, as proposed, the penalty regime we are being confronted with here is anywhere feasible based on the technology as it sits. We cannot support this bill at this second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): 谢谢, Madam Speaker, and talofa. I’m very pleased to be speaking on this Fisheries Amendment Bill, a bill that’s trying to incentivise the change of fishing behaviour to target fish rather than have them being discarded. As the previous speaker, Mark Cameron, was talking about, one of the ways of doing that is this graduated offences and penalties regime, and I want to spend a moment talking about that. At the moment, under the current Act, penalties are very high and so it seems unfair to prosecute those low-level offences, and so there’s been an aim to have proportionate offences for more effective and frequent enforcement.

What happens at clause 20 of the bill, which amends the penalties section at section 252 of the Act, is this then refers back to section 72—that’s amended by clause 13 of this bill. What the Primary Production Committee has done at that clause 13 is separate out the “50 or fewer” and the “more than 50” offences that the previous speaker referred to.

Clause 20, the penalties section, has three important different parts: one, at new subsection (3A), is that where there are two or more offences within three years, then that $250,000 maximum fine applies for your second offence; at new subsection (5A), that 50 or fewer can result in a $10,000 maximum offence; and then in the middle, at new section 252(5)(ba), is that more than 50 can result in the $100,000 which is in the current Act. So that’s how this this graduated offences and penalties plays out within the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party will support this bill, but I have some concerns about the nature of the legislation. I think the first one is what the ACT Party just raised, rightly, around the 50 fish and the size of those fish depending on, you know, the type of fishery and what the fishing process involved is. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense on a practical level, and so certainly that’s an issue that needs to be addressed, because it just doesn’t make any sense on a practical level.

The other side of it is, I want to just draw a parallel to the dairy industry, for example, around the discarding of dead animals. Basically, in this process here, you’re going to have to bring back everything on the boat. That’s essentially what they’re saying, and that’s what the Minister wants to see. So it’s a sledgehammer approach; it’s not taking into account any practical nature of it. The Labour members shake their heads, but that’s what the bill says. You bring it back, and there are very small exemptions but, effectively, you have to bring it back. And then what’s going to happen to it? It’s like a dead cow; you have to pay to get rid of that, don’t you? You have to pay 80 bucks to JD Wallace to get rid of that, and that’s going up every day.

So what’s going to happen here is that basically that dead fish that you’re bringing back, it’s not going to be a marketable product to that extent. It’s going to be expensive for small fishing companies. It’s going to be a real impost on them. The big guys will work out a way of doing it, and they’ll have connections, and they’ll make approaches with the companies that will use that product, but the really small fishers are going to find it hard, and they’re going to be stuck with all this dead fish that has to go into landfill, which is exactly what the Green Party doesn’t want to see happen. I don’t think anybody potentially sees that that is a better result than that fish being at sea, so I’m not sure if the practicalities of this bill will actually work. First of all, you’ve got an issue around that size of fish, and taking into account the comparable species, but also the practical reality of what actually do you do with the dead fish that comes back. There’s not going to be a market for it. The Green Party said there could be other uses for it. People aren’t going to be buying dried fish that come off a boat like that, are they? It’s not what you’re going to be buying at the supermarket. So its potential problem is that it goes into landfill. That’s the reality.

Ian McKelvie: It’s better for your dead cow, Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr McKelvie would like to sell a dead cow, but I don’t think you can get away with it.

So it’s one of those things that is a very delicate area. Everybody wants to protect the fisheries. Everybody wants to see New Zealand fisheries thrive and be a valuable resource for commercial and non-commercial use; there’s no doubt about that. That’s a given, and that’s why we have a quota system and all those things. But we also need to realise that this is not a simple industry, where a Wellington politician can say, “Anything that’s caught can come back.”, like David Parker does, and think that’s the practical reality of how you do business. The reality is that there will be bycatch, and 50 is not much, and the exceptions are very difficult to make a reality. So it’s going to be a situation where I think you’ll have the fishing industry come back and knock on Parliament’s door within a year or two and say that this is a bill that has demonstrably caused a lot of grief, especially to smaller fishers. You might want to have an industry dominated by a couple of big fishing companies, but I think that most industries in New Zealand are better when there’s some small business in there as well. If we don’t have that variation, we don’t have the next generation of fishers coming through that are actually more proactive in wanting to look after the fishery and that. So I think that there’s some work that still needs to be done on this, and the Minister should take that on board and relook at some of those issues.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): 谢谢, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to stand and talk on the Fisheries Amendment Bill—not a select committee that I’ve sat on, in terms of the legislation, but I have kept a real interest.

I wanted to just start by correcting the record in terms of when we talk about fisheries and people out fishing, the easiest term is “fisher”. So that’s for those of us women who fish, and there are many in the industry out there. So that’s just a clarification; let’s try and use non-sexist language in the House.

So, secondly, I’d also just like to talk on one particular part, in terms of the catch. Basically, what this bill is looking to do is around selective targeting. It’s incentivising and supporting our fishers out there to use better methods to catch fish. Now, this small fisher that we know is using the technology, or using fishing technology that really supports a sustainable catch method because they cannot afford the large parts of technology out there. So this piece of legislation will hopefully change the way that we move about.

It is also really important that we think about fish in the context of the world. Recently, I was in Malaysia and I looked at the type of fish that that country eats. Never underestimate what fish we have and can eat in this country. I think that that’s where the secondary market comes in, and I think that this is about change to an ecosystem model, as opposed to a high-grade model where we just take a very selective amount of fish, mouli up the rest, and throw it over the side. I commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems as though everybody in this House has got a sustainability story when it comes to our fishing stocks, and I just want to reminisce about the time that I went to the Chatham Islands with my good colleague Paul Eagle. It is in his electorate, and we got the privilege of going over there. What I found was that whilst the rocks were flush with pāua and the space around the island was filled with crayfish, actually, they used to have a booming scallop industry there. The scallops are long gone from the area, and they are poorer for that—poorer because they’ve realised that, actually, they didn’t manage the sustainability of the scallop stocks around the Chatham Islands, and now they’re a distant memory.

So everything that we do has to be set up around the sustainability of our fisheries. It is a grave concern. We do have climate change—it has arrived—as well. The industry is under increased scrutiny. So we need to make sure that we’re doing the best that we possibly can for the sustainability of our fish stocks if we want them to last on into the future and if we don’t want to have more stories like the scallop industry, or lack of, in the Chatham Islands.

This Fisheries Amendment Bill is a really good bill that brings all of those settings into the new age. This isn’t the end, though. We’re going to have to keep adjusting the settings when it comes to the sustainability of our fishing stocks now and into the future. So I commend it to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the perspectives that has been missing in this debate and indeed the report back from our select committee to this House from our deliberations on the Fisheries Amendment Bill is that there was no agreement at all across the various stakeholders who presented on the bill, and that gave a very clear voice to the fact that issues relating to our oceans and fisheries are some of the most contested in this country. We had impassioned submissions from commercial fishers and particularly those, as my colleague Mark Cameron from ACT mentioned, inshore fishers who are owner-operators who are particularly concerned that the rules around landing and discards along with cameras could ultimately lead them to decide that it is all too hard and that they have to walk away from a sector and an industry that in many cases has been in their lives and their families’ lives for generations.

We had recreational fishers who saw this bill as a Government-inspired attempt to partner with the commercial sector to ensure that more fish were harvested at the expense of recreational fishers. We had iwi representatives who said that in no way did this bill address the fact that from their perspective the primary relationship with respect to any issues relating to oceans and fisheries was one of the Crown and iwi and that a consultative framework was missing. Then we had the NGOs who said that this bill will see the treasured taonga of New Zealand, our exclusive economic zone, further threatened, further put under pressure, at the expense of future generations.

All four stakeholders said that this bill does not meet their expectations, with the exception, I would argue, of, broadly, the seafood industry, who has been working for years through successive Governments to try and get a framework that was more relevant than the framework that exists today. One that creates some flexibility and surety for their business as to what they should bring back and account for—not only under their annual catch entitlement but what they needed to bring back as opposed to discard to the sea. One in which the rules around how to manage a particular fishery, a particular species, could have some clear framework that could be agreed up front, so that when the fishing stock changed over time they didn’t need to go through an incredibly laborious process of ensuring that every one of those stakeholders was in alignment before the Government or the Minister of the time made the change. And, of course, what was outlined to us at the select committee was that you will never get that alignment. The degree of dysfunction and disconnection between those particular parties is at record levels.

Therefore this bill is a step forward in and of itself but it doesn’t in any way deal with the fundamental tension that exists in our oceans and fisheries space. Now, the Government has set up, for the first time, a Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Minister Parker, but there is an inherent tension in the way the Minister delivers against that mandate. On the oceans side there are people such as the very respected, in my opinion, Eugenie Sage from the Green Party who gives voice to the concerns of many in the New Zealand that the pressures on our oceans generally are not being appropriately focused on, and then the same Minister has to reflect on the fact that we have a $1.6 billion seafood export industry. It is a big part of our primary sector. We deliver—not only to New Zealand but to the world—food that is highly valued, and somehow he has to manage a quota management system that reflects on the interests of Māori, ensures that we don’t over fish, ensures that customary rights are protected, and ensures that over time the oceans in this country are improved and enhanced.

And so this bill, rather than dealing with those inherent tensions, adds more layers of framework and rules and scaffolding to what I would argue is a fundamentally dysfunctional system. Now, the National Party will support the bill because landings and discards and particularly, actually, a framework to get pre-set decision rules with respect to how you approach a particular species makes sense. But the rules in here, when we tried to grapple with it as a select committee, were mind-numbing. And I have to say, with respect, that we’re getting only two-minute contributions on behalf of the Government side on a bill that has got this degree of complexity. I think I can speak generally on behalf of all colleagues across the House who sat on that committee—and we were constantly having to use every bit of our brains to try and navigate this—when I say that to now listen to two-minute speeches that sort of tip over the top of it, I think, does a disservice to the sector and actually to the bill that we are trying to progress.

Tāmati Coffey: You agreed; we agreed. Let’s go.

TODD MULLER: I was at every single one of those—thank you, Mr Coffey—every single one of them. And it deserves more reflection on the challenges of trying to get the balance right. Now, I think where the balance has been broadly struck is the concept, as I said earlier, of a pre-set decision framework across the various species of the quota management system—makes sense. If you can create a sort of parameter in which all the players can operate and operate in a way that is more flexible and able to respond more deftly to data—which tends to turn up in sort of clumps—around the effectiveness and the healthiness of that particular species, that makes sense conceptually. But what I noticed as we walked through this process was it was just layer after layer of additionality of more process, of more considerations, and of more decisions being handed, essentially, back to the officials and the Minister to have to grapple with. So all the rules associated with the pre-set decision rules across all the species that currently sit in the quota management system, that sits in front of us for four years; all the rules around landings and discards and what counts and what doesn’t and what’s survivability. All of that has to be dealt with species by species over the next four years. And you could actually see it, frankly, in the faces of the officials when they were putting on a good face that, “Yes, we’ll be able to manage this.” Frankly, they can’t manage the current obligations on them, in all honesty, based on not a function of competency; it’s a function of resources and what’s expected of them. And we have layered up even more on Fisheries New Zealand over the next four years in partnership with the sector.

Our view is that, on balance, where there is a choice between pragmatism and being pure, the National Party signals very clearly—we have an expectation that the officials and the Minister default to what is practical, and you have had good contributions from this side as to some of the challenges, particularly for inshore fishers, of getting that balance right. We intend to focus on that very significantly. We have three Supplementary Order Papers that we will talk to, which I think add greater clarity to the balance that is sought by this bill. But I remain disappointed that the great opportunity of trying to genuinely create a framework that tries to put in alignment those tensions between commercial and recreation and customary, and the NGOs who want us to essentially look at a postcard. That has not been resolved, and until it is resolved, the great potential of our moana stays unrealised. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): 谢谢.Talofa, e te Mana Whakawā. Always an honour and a privilege to stand to make a contribution in this House, and in this case, the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Parker for his leadership in shepherding one of many important bills into the House. I hear that it was bipartisan select committee, so I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of Jo Luxton in chairing this committee. I want to thank the submitters for all their submissions into this bill. Can I remind the House that this Fisheries Amendment Bill would amend the Fisheries Act 1996, and that the amendments proposed will modernise and strengthen the New Zealand fisheries management system.

The bill would do five things. It will empower the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries to establish pre-set decision rules for sustainable measures. Secondly, it would amend the commercial fishing rules related to the landing and returning of fish, and empower the Minister to require or permit fish to be returned to sea. It will introduce a graduated offences and penalties regime, and lastly, it will extend the requirements for the use of on-board camera monitoring to include fishing and fishing-related activities, including sorting, processing, and discarding of fish.

My favourite catch of this bill is in Part 1, clause 4, amending section 2(1), where it is about the substantive provisions and it talks about what actually would happen about the returning of the fish, how cameras would be installed, and how data would then be reviewed after it has captured. I don’t want this to be the one that gets away, let’s reel it in. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Screen Industry Workers Bill

Third Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I present a legislative statement on the Screen Industry Workers Bill.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: 谢谢，Madam Speaker. I move, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be now read a third time.

Firstly, I’d like to thank the officials, the clerks, and the select committee members who worked on this bill, and those members who submitted and presented to the committee. When people talk about Aotearoa New Zealand’s screen industry, they mention our breathtaking landscapes, they’ll recall spectacular visual effects and digital artistry, they’ll think of strange and fascinating fictional worlds beyond our own. What they don’t see are the people behind the creations. They don’t see that it is our talented crew who make these impossible shoots possible—our writers who tell our stories to the world, and our actors who deliver authentic and moving performances. They don’t see the combinations of creative vision and logistical nous required when producers bring stories to life.

The success of our screen industry reflects the quality of work that goes into making a production. The bill honours that work and delivers on a commitment to restore collective bargaining rights to the screen industry. Those rights were removed when the previous Government legislated under urgency to remove film production workers from the legal definition of an “employee”, known as the “Hobbit law”. For more than a decade, film production workers have been prevented from testing their employment status to gain access to fundamental employment protections. As of 2018, there are 15,000 people doing screen production and post-production work. Of these workers, 85 percent—12,800—were hired contractors. This means an industry where the majority of workers cannot bargain collectively or access minimum employment entitlements such as the minimum wage. Most screen production workers’ median monthly income earnings are under $4,000. Workers are offered contracts on a “take it or leave it” basis, demonstrating the imbalance in bargaining power between them and the people who hire them.

In 2018, we asked the industry to find a new way forward for themselves and we set up the Film Industry Working Group. We asked them whether they could design a system that would allow workers to bargain collectively while giving production companies the certainty they need. The Film Industry Working Group didn’t just manage to design a new model, they unanimously recommended to Government to adopt it. Their model represented their shared vision for a thriving industry and forms the basis of the Screen Industry Workers Bill. We want our screen industry to flourish and to empower workers and the people who hire them, referred to as “engagers”. The Screen Industry Workers Bill will help to achieve this.

The legislation has several components. First, it creates new rules for individual contracts in the screen industry—these are agreements between the workers and the engagers. The bill will give all workers the opportunity to negotiate their contracts and requires that certain types of terms be included in all contracts. It prevents contracts from being terminated just because workers exercise a right they have under law or their contract. Next, the bill provides a framework for collective bargaining in the screen industry. There are two types of bargaining that can take place under this legislation. The first is occupational bargaining, which would result in new minimum terms and conditions of work across the industry. These minimum terms can be built on through the second type of collective bargaining known as “enterprise bargaining”. This type of bargaining can take place within single productions or companies. As with any other collective relationship, problems may arise in contracting relationships or during collective bargaining. In these situations, the legislation allows parties in the screen industry to use dispute resolution processes that already exist in the employment system. This legislation is novel and has been designed based on the unique features of the screen industry. For this reason, the bill requires a review to be started before the fifth anniversary of its commencement. This will allow for reflection on whether this new workplace relations regime for the screen industry is working well.

Finally, I’d like to address the misguided belief the Opposition has about the bill. Members of the Opposition have previously argued that the bill creates a less flexible labour market. This concern stems from the mistaken belief that occupational contracts will remove the right for individual workers and engagers to agree their own terms. This is incorrect. Individual workers and engagers can still negotiate contract terms. However, they cannot go beyond any minimum terms set by the industry through collective bargaining. This is appropriate because it represents the industry’s articulation of minimum working standards. This is not a model that the Government alone could have devised and I want to acknowledge the Film Industry Working Group and other stakeholders in the screen industry. They deserve recognition and credit for their work on this bill since 2018.

Ultimately, the bill represents compromise and a collective vision, and it’s an example of what can be achieved through meaningful and respectful tripartite processes, and when workers, employers, and the Government come together. The legislation provides the groundwork for a new era in screen industry. As our screen industry continues to grow, it will help to ensure we aren’t just known for great works we produce, but that our screen industry is also known as a great place to work. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party will not be supporting this legislation and will continue to oppose it. We’re at the third reading of the Screen Industry Workers Bill—I suppose just another example of a Government that never seems to be interested in thinking about our international competitiveness and how we make a living in this country. Here we are at a time, we look around the world—a dangerous time geopolitically, but also very treacherous conditions economically, seeing dollars plunging and falling, slow growth, high inflation, cost of living pressures. Under all that, the general conclusion that most sensible people would come to is that this is a time when we need to be concentrating on building our economic strength as a country, looking for new ways to succeed internationally and globally, focusing on our international competitiveness and on our productivity so that we’re fit to fight, so that we can foot it with the best in the world.

But instead of doing that, what we see time and time again from this Government is an obsession or a focus on helping out their friends in the union and adding costs and complications wherever you go. We’re in the middle of the fair pay agreements crisis situation, which is going to introduce an enormous amount of rigidity and complications to our labour market relations at a time when we need to be more flexible and agile and responsive than ever, and this legislation, dealing with a specific area in the screen industry, is of the same ilk.

Let’s just go back—it’s slapdash legislation in the whole approach to it, because it was introduced by Iain Lees-Galloway. I don’t know if people can remember Iain Lees-Galloway; he was an interesting rooster. The former Minister came in, introduced this in a flurry in early 2017—no, was it 2020; 2020, I think it was—and then we rushed off to a select committee, in a shortened period of the select committee so we didn’t hear from everybody as long as we would’ve liked, because this was a great, urgent thing that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway was going to introduce and do, even though there was no great problem that they were trying to fix. The legislative arrangement that the previous National Government had come to in 2010 to keep the Hobbit films happening in New Zealand, which most people enjoyed—it was great entertainment; we loved it. The industry’s working pretty well. But this manufactured crisis, a little bit like this kind of manufactured crisis that we have in why we need to merge Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and TVNZ—nobody can quite understand why; it’s not obvious to anybody why we need to be doing this, why this is a big focus. But, anyway, that’s $370 million - odd, they’ll just do that; why not? This legislation, again, you know—what’s the great crisis that they’re needing to deal with? Nothing, really, other than that the unions want it.

So Iain Lees-Galloway, he brought it in, rushed through the select committee stage, and then, suddenly, woomph—it just fell into the freezer and they forgot about it for three years. It was during the period of Kris Faafoi’s long snooze, when nothing much happened. He was resting. He was recuperating and focusing on other things. Nothing happened. Lost interest, lost his way—a bit like how they lost their way on law and order and a whole bunch of things. Everything just sort of slid for a little while.

And then what happens is we have the re-emergence of an ideologue of the left—Michael Wood. He took up the role, and he, of course, is very determined to push through everything he possibly can. He came over the horizon there, ready to defend and protect and strengthen union rights at every step. So we’ve got the fair pay agreement ripping through the House—again, a solution looking for a problem, adding costs, adding rigidity, making it more difficult, particularly, actually, for small businesses. Great for the big businesses that get to construct all this sort of stuff; very difficult for the small businesses. So he’s pushing all that through, and at the same time this piece of legislation is coming through.

And it comes at a difficult time for the industry, of course, because they’ve been through, like everybody else, extraordinary difficulties around the COVID restrictions, which have seen us lose a number of productions; big difficulties around the lack of immigration, or the difficult immigration system that we’ve got—this Government’s determined to make it difficult for people to get in. So, like every industry, they’re struggling to get people to turn up and to be the workers. So that’s complicated.

They’re also trying to figure out what this TVNZ-RNZ merger means for them and their industry. So there’s a lot of complication around that. And they’re also struggling with overall costs, like every—you know, whether it’s the fuel that they need to get the buses and trucks to the production site, whether it’s the chicken sandwiches; everything’s more expensive. So they’re dealing with all that, and they’re also trying to navigate their way in a highly internationally competitive industry. So when all that is going on, what is the last thing they need? The last thing they need is a completely different new industrial relations process which introduces collective bargaining to an industry that has never had that before and has to set up a whole lot of new procedures. The poor old Screen Production and Development Association of NZ has to get into negotiating around collective agreements. There’s all sorts of additional work, complication, difficulty, and opportunities for tension and discord within the industry—a return, potentially, to the real discord that we had back in 2010 when a bunch of Australian unionists came over and stirred things up. So that is the real risk.

So, many people are asking, “What on earth are we doing this for?”, and the only obvious answer is that Michael Wood, being an ideologue, being very keen to do everything he can to strengthen the power of the unions, is determined to do this.

So we don’t support it. We don’t think it will help. We don’t see the burning platform here. All we see is it’s just another example of a Government that does not seem to recognise the relationship between adding costs, regulatory uncertainty and confusion, and extra layers of complication—how that flows through to the cost structure of our society, which feeds through, ultimately, to cost of living pressures but also a lack of international competitiveness for our country.

And, you know, you can roll your eyes on the other side of the House, you can be dismissive of it, but ultimately, as a small trading nation, our international competitiveness matters because we’re a long way away from the rest of the world. If you’re looking at it from the point of view of Hollywood or somewhere else—“Where are we going to invest our money? Are we going to do it here or there or elsewhere?”—New Zealand is not the easiest option. We’re a long way away. We’re a long way—yes, we do have pretty mountains. We’re not the only country in the world that has pretty mountains, I’m bound to point out. We’re not the only country in the world that has nice forests and lakes. There are other places that have nice forests and lakes as well, and they have snowy mountains there. We seem to be somewhat complacent about how we operate, in the world that we operate. It is a highly competitive world, and we need to be doing everything we can to ensure our industries are agile and able to respond.

Now, we’ve had a pretty successful industry in that sense, and this bill won’t help—in fact, it’ll make it harder. I don’t think the purpose of Government should be to make things more difficult for industries in New Zealand who are trying to foot it with the best in the world and to provide opportunities for New Zealanders, and, of course, who work hard to provide the entertainment that we all look forward to, in an industry that gives New Zealanders the thrills that they have and the stories that they like to celebrate and everything that is positive about the screen industry.

So, you know, we here on this side of the House stand behind the industry. We want them to succeed; we want them to do well. We want them to be internationally competitive, and we want them to succeed and continue to entertain and to delight us. What we don’t want to do is make life more difficult for them, and this bill will do precisely that.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You’ve just go to love it when the Opposition talks about rushing through legislation and pushing through laws and bills, when, in fact, this particular bill reverses the fundamental employment protections that the National Government in 2010 took away from workers in the screen industry. They took away fundamental rights, which are recognised all through international law, to bargain collectively. So that’s the hypocrisy of the Opposition for you.

They’re also out of touch with the extensive process that this bill went through from the start. The screen industry was completely involved. They came up with practical solutions that actually would restore their workers’ rights, as well as, at the same time, still reflecting the needs of the industry. This bill implements unanimously agreed recommendations from the Film Industry Working Group, which consists of industry guilds, the dreaded “union” word, production companies, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and Business New Zealand. The only party here, in this argument, that is not agreeing to this bill is the National Party. Every other stakeholder has said, as it says in our department report, “We don’t support the status quo.” Every submitter has not supported the status quo. It’s only the National Party who doesn’t want this bill to get through. What this bill does is, basically, reinstate the right for workers to get together to talk about protections, to have minimum wage protections, to be protected from bullying, to have their holidays, to have their health and safety.

And just one more comment: when Mr Paul Goldsmith said, “Why on earth are we doing it?”, I remember, in his second reading speech, he said the industry is in increasingly good shape. Well, this is the shape it’s in: median monthly earnings for contractors versus workers have just gone down—have gone down, down, down. The top rate now was the bottom rate 20 years ago. That’s the shape the industry is in. That’s why we’re making these changes, and the real danger, actually, of the National Party not agreeing to this bill is that the certainty this bill brings, which the industry needs, is actually undermined by the National Party being the only stakeholder in this process not agreeing to this bill. I commend it to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, the speaker that has just resumed her seat, Marja Lubeck, represents, very starkly and clearly, the fundamental ideological difference between the socialist left that is dominated by union activists, and those of us on the right side of the politics in New Zealand who understand, treasure, and value the rights and freedoms of individuals to negotiate their own terms of employment and agreements with their employer in a way that provides flexibility, certainty, and, most importantly, in a way that provides economic goodwill and growth for us as a nation. My colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, in his very good contribution on this, the third reading of the Screen Industry Workers Bill, made a number of those exact points.

This is a piece of legislation that one can’t help but feel is a piece of legislation that has only been pushed through the Parliament as a result of a new Minister determined to exert his ideological views about the roles of trade unions on New Zealand workers, in a way that his predecessor didn’t. His predecessor Kristopher Faafoi had some very good common-sense things, and he managed to put this piece of legislation on the backburner, because he knew and understood that it would create problems, that it would have a negative impact on our economy, and it would be very bad, actually, for workers in the film sector. What we’ve heard today just confirms all that stuff.

Of course, the current Minister and the speaker that’s just resumed her seat both came to this Parliament by way of trades hall—union representatives, union delegates. One only has to remember, to understand the philosophy and motivation for this piece of legislation, a little bit of the history of labour parties around the world—of course, back in the 1800s, when there was a need and a time for trade unions, when they were relevant, when they were coherent, meaningful, and modern, there was a need. That time has long since passed. What happened was that the trade union movement around the world established itself in a way that ultimately decided that, sooner or later, they needed parliamentary representation if they were going to make the changes that they needed. So labour parties sprung up in places like the United Kingdom, in Canada, Australia, and, of course, in New Zealand. The parliamentary Labour Party, effectively, became the political wing of the trade union movement.

So many people, today, often forget that history, they forget the connections, they forget the motivation—they don’t necessarily join up the dots that see a bill like this coming to the Parliament that will be a handbrake on innovation, a handbrake on enterprise, and a handbrake on economic development in the international film sector, for which New Zealand has a very proud, and rightly proud, record of magnificent success.

My colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith made the very good point that New Zealand is not the only country in the world with beautiful landscapes, with snow-capped mountains, with blue skies, lovely lakes, and lovely vistas. The people who make movies around the world are competitive creatures and they will make movies in environments where the regulatory and legal opportunities exist for them to do so successfully. It’s not like there’s any shortage of people wanting to participate. When the National Government passed what has become affectionately referred to as the “Hobbit law”, a massive freeing up of opportunity—not only for those businesses but for the individuals who were engaged in it, who were successfully employed, who were contracting, who were earning very good money, who would otherwise not have been doing so.

So this is a piece legislation that was originally promised by a fellow by the name of Iain Lees-Galloway. Most people in the Chamber probably—in fact, certainly the Labour backbench—weren’t in Parliament when this fellow, Lees-Galloway, was here, it was so long ago. He promised—in fact, Labour promised, back in 2017 at the election, that they would pass this piece of legislation in their first hundred days. Well, their five years of failure is stark, not only on this piece of legislation but it’s stark in every other aspect of Labour Government’s policy initiatives. Five years of complete and utter failure—inability to understand the basic mechanism of a thriving, flourishing, and prosperous economy. Our total economy is now paying the price for that lack of understanding, that lack of knowledge, and the stubborn determination that the parliamentary Labour Party has in following through on their promises to the trade union movement.

So this is a piece of legislation that unions don’t like. The reason they don’t like it is because, currently, there is virtually no collective bargaining in the film industry, as the majority of film production workers are actually contractors. That’s a situation that suits the contractors, it suits the employers, and there’s no shortage of people wanting to take up the flexibility that comes with being a contractor.

Now, I know that the Government fundamentally don’t like contractors. The reason they don’t like contractors is because independent contractors don’t become members of a trade union—they don’t become a member of a trade union. Of course, since the establishment of the Employment Contracts Act back in the 1990s, trade union membership has dropped significantly and steadily. The reason it’s dropped significantly and steadily is because most New Zealanders don’t find relevance from being a member of a trade union. They don’t find any benefit from paying their $500, $600, $700, or $800 a year membership to be a member of a magical collective that is somehow going to further stifle their employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.

So unions don’t like the prospect of people having freedoms, of people having free choice, of people negotiating terms and conditions with their employer, and they want everybody to be pigeon-holed, to be boxed in together as a unit of labour, if you like, a unit of production. But we on this side of the House see things in fundamentally different terms. We see people as individuals, as people who are able and capable of determining their own employment arrangements that benefit most effectively from the flexibility that comes with a nimble, flexible approach to the economy, and to employment conditions.

All around the world, other countries have looked at our industrial relations environmental landscape and they’ve said, “By crikey, over the last 30 years, since the 1990s, New Zealand has got it right.” But since this Labour Government came into Parliament, or came into power, they’ve determinedly tried to change every single aspect and turn it back to the “good old days”, as they see it, of union dominance, union control, and decisions being made behind closed doors at trades hall. The days of that, I thought, were long gone. I thought that that was long, long over. But the current Minister, of course, is a Minister who comes from a trade union background. He was an organiser in the FinSec union, and I guess that, probably, after the next election, that’s where he will go back to—to a trade union of a similar sort, because there’s going to be a whole lot of those Labour members, who came from that union delegate role, who will be looking for new jobs after the next election.

So they’re trying to use their absolute majority in this Parliament, at the moment, to pass this piece of legislation. They’ll pass it, and then it will be up to a future Government to have a look at it, to determine how unhelpful it’s been, how impossibly difficult it’s made employers’ opportunities, and how little work is being done in terms of film production in New Zealand, because those companies will have simply taken their capital, their enterprise, and their imagination and innovation to another country. It will be New Zealand—it will be New Zealanders—that lose out as a result of that ideological change that the Labour Party and their union friends seem so determined to foist upon hard-working, innovative, imaginative, and creative New Zealanders.

Well, we on this side of the House take a fundamentally different view. We have faith in New Zealanders. We trust them. We understand that they can and will make sensible and fine decisions based on what is good for their own creative talent, what is good for the opportunities that are provided to them. So this piece of legislation is little more than the Labour Party belatedly, finally—not in their first hundred days, but finally—under duress, I suspect, and a little bit of nudging, pushing, and prodding by the trade union movement, they’re trying to get this passed while they have a Parliamentary majority to achieve that. Well, we’ll have a look at it when we get the opportunity, should we get the opportunity to be in Government at the next election. This will be a piece of legislation that will be firmly on our radar. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a proud day today to be in the House to right what is a significant wrong that was implemented by the last National Government. The last speaker, Scott Simpson—I disagreed with his entire speech. He seemed to have not noticed the fact that the contractor status of screen industry workers is maintained by this particular legislation, as agreed by the Film Industry Working Group. He was also wrong about Kris Faafoi being the last Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and he’s wrong about what this bill does and what the importance of this bill is.

His colleague Paul Goldsmith said, “What is the crisis?” I’ll tell you what the crisis is. I worked as an employment lawyer and I had people in the screen industry come to me while this legislation was in force, and I had to say to them there is nothing I can do for you—there is nothing I can do for you—because, regardless of the true nature of your job, you are treated as a contractor and you have no rights. That is a crisis, and that is important to New Zealanders, and that is why it’s so important that we pass this Screen Industry Workers Bill today and return the dignity and mana to this incredibly important industry of creative individuals that bring so much joy and so much culture to our country—such an important industry.

I just want to briefly reflect—I wanted to be quite hopeful with this speech, because we’ve done quite a lot of work in this area, and we have gone through what happened under the last National Government at length in the second reading. So I wanted to talk a little bit about ex - Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly and the involvement that she had during this dispute. This was a horrible experience that she had to go through for standing up for the fundamental rights of an industry. The Government came in—at the time, the National Government—and took away the employment rights of an entire industry. No select committee process, no consultation—they had nothing. She stood up with them. She was vilified. She was told that she was being unpatriotic. She said, at the time, it was outrageous that the Government removed workers’ rights in the way that they did. I agree, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, rise to celebrate this piece of legislation and a righting of a grievous wrong in our country.

It’s not what I intended but I want to start my speech with just a little bit of a review of history, because the National Party is so busy rewriting it that I feel compelled to be able to put some of the reality back on track. So we’ve heard that, actually, there was no reason for this legislation—none whatsoever—and that the National Party had intervened to save an industry and protect workers. Whereas, actually, and I’m also going to, in this, reference part of Rebecca Macfie’s biography and some material in that biography of Helen Kelly, where she talks about the process that’s led to this legislation today and what was happening under National, saying that “unlike their international peers, New Zealand actors didn’t work under union contracts and were increasingly aggrieved that their pay and conditions seemed to be getting worse, despite the growth and success of the New Zealand film … in the global film industry,” and that New Zealand cast and crews—and this is quoting from it—“had become known as the ‘Mexicans of the South Pacific.’ ”

I want to acknowledge the racism in terms of reference to Mexicans in that statement, and that came from an American context. But that was the reality for the people behind our creative industries, film industries, and screen industries at that time. It was where we heard of an attempt of one production where they went to the producer to have the discussion about having a collective contract and the entire cast was sacked and recast, just for wanting to have the conversation.

So there were efforts to be able to unionise and change this. There were efforts that then led to a boycott of the Lord of the Rings films that naturally, I think, in terms of the public conversations and how dear those films were held to New Zealanders, led to an uproar in response to that. Then, at that point, the Council of Trade Unions intervened and got an agreement between the producers and Equity New Zealand to be able to negotiate a resolution. Problem solved. But then big capital in the form of Warner Bros. and their executives flew into the country late at night and met with John Key. Then, under urgency with no select committee process, a law to remove employment rights for our film and screen industries were put in place with no public transparency, no ability for people of this country to have a say or even understand what was going on.

We have seen that the rights and the pay and the conditions of these people that feed so much of our sense of cultural understanding, as well as promoting this country to the world, have just been eroding ever since. That is the history and why this piece of legislation is so important. It was Labour Party policy to overturn this, but while we hear from other speakers that “The Labour Party is just so ideological, they’ll just do that.”; actually, the Labour Party decided to bring together a film working group with producers and guilds and unions to negotiate a solution rather than just overturning it. They heard the potential concerns and wanted a sustainable solution to the problems in our film industries. It got agreement of all of those parties over a 10-month process. It was not what I would normally describe as a slapdash process, but that’s what we heard from the National Party, despite their legislation passing in urgency after a late-night meeting with international interests—that, I might describe as slapdash, knee-jerk, offensive, and anti-democratic, but, hey, that’s for another day.

So we have this piece of legislation that has gone through a long select committee process, and a lot of really good changes were made in that in terms of the detail and strengthening it. I really want to acknowledge that a lot of occupational groups today is so important. I think I acknowledged Equity New Zealand and Denise Roche in the House to observe this because this is such an important day for our actors as well as our writers and our directors and editors, and they have been waiting for this.

Collective bargaining will be a game-changer for many in our screen industries. It represents a maturing of the industry and a sign to me that as a country and as a Government and as a support party, we are no longer willing to sacrifice our artists to the altar of exploitative interests. Once this bill is in effect, all contracts will have the protection against sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination, and unfair termination. That’s what the National Party is arguing against. I hope they feel proud. I would not be proud to be taking that position; I find it embarrassing. Every person in the industry will have these contracts with the protections even before collective bargaining, and they will maintain their independent contractor status, as has already been clarified because the National Party does not seem to understand the legislation.

I really want to acknowledge that the fearmongering that I’ve heard from National about this putting our industry under threat neglects to mention that these protections are in place everywhere else in the world. This is not setting up additional protections for our workers; this is providing our workers with the same protections as those in other countries so that they are not treated as the lackeys and the cheap buy of big corporate interests, which is what John Key created and reinforced and went behind. So this bill will support a more stable industry where producers will be able to predict their budgets, and their budgets will be able to be based on reasonable wages and conditions, and they will be able to plan for that as they can in other jurisdictions.

Today is a day to celebrate our creators, and rather than just say that in words, to say it in a way that matters, in a way where we get behind them having the ability to have basic protections, and, hopefully, increasing pay and conditions at work. The Green Party is stoked to be able to support this piece of legislation.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Screen Industry Workers Bill, a bill about the relationship between employers and employees. I’d like to start by thanking those businesses and employers who funded New Zealand’s Queen Elizabeth II memorial holiday. I’m sure all employees were grateful to their employer for paying for this holiday and will work extra hard to make up the shortfall in funds. The painting and plastering business with 50 employees cost between $18,000 and $20,000 for the day. The sawmill owner with 16 staff: cost them $3,500.

Marja Lubeck: Back to the bill. Come on.

CHRIS BAILLIE: It’s coming up. The CEO of a large security company: costs them $140,000 for one day. And the hospitality owner with 32 staff, up to the eyeballs in debt after the one-in-100-year pandemic, which is continually used as an excuse by the Government: having to find an extra $4,500. I thank those people and I hope everyone enjoyed having the day off in memorial.

The bill has been well traversed, and although I wasn’t there for the select committee process, it just seems to me that it is unnecessary. The Film Industry Working Group has suggested four principles apply to all screen production work, and they seem to make sense. Parties must act in good faith in their dealings with each other. Contractors doing screen production work must be protected from bullying, harassment of any kind, and discrimination. People who engage contractors must act fairly and reasonably when terminating contracts, and contractors doing screen production work must receive a fair rate of pay in relation to their skills and the scale of the production.

It makes you wonder if the Government has ever seen employment contracts. Here’s a contract for a delivery driver: 12 pages—12 pages. In those 12 pages, it covers remuneration, it covers termination, it covers employee protection, it covers work safety, it covers employment relation problems, and everything must be dealt with in good faith. A 13-page contract for the hospitality industry covers all of those things, as well. They have to take them away for a week, consult with people, discuss it, take it to a lawyer if they want, and then they sign it. To say that those protections are not already in place is just misinformation.

But the only difference is that this Government doesn’t think individuals are capable of making their own decisions, and only the Government or unions can work out the pay and conditions in an employer-employee relationship. It believes that those people who want to work hard and get ahead don’t want the interference of Government, especially unions. Actually, we know it, because we run businesses, and we deal with workers every day. They don’t want it. Times have changed, and workers are more capable than ever of being masters of their own destiny. They don’t need to be patronised and treated like fools.

A few weeks ago during a debate, the Greens’ Jan Logie said that they’d like to go back to the 1970s, when the unions were strong. Shops weren’t open on the weekends. Pubs shut at 10 o’clock. Maybe we should go back to 6 o’clock closing, because that worked really well—such fantastic times. But, as is typical of the ideology of the left, they still want the benefits that workers have gained since those times: four weeks’ annual leave, not two; two weeks’ sick leave, not none; 12 days of statutory holidays, or 13 in some years; and the numerous other leave provisions that business owners have to pay for. It is unfortunate we have a Government of such division, convincing employees that they are continually being treated terribly, and all employers are rich and just want to get out as much as they can—just so far from the actual reality.

The disconnect between the Government and the union affiliates with the real world is open and on display every day, like Andrew Little saying sick leave won’t hurt businesses a bit—$2 billion; the Council of Trade Unions president stating it’s only one day for the Queen’s holiday—costing businesses $450 million; and the Public Service Association saying that they don’t believe in performance pay. You need to digest that. What they’re saying is they don’t believe that if you work hard, you should be paid more. When I tell workers that, they really don’t believe me. They’re sick of people telling them how to—these are the people who are telling the Government how to run businesses.

This bill is another example of the ideology of a Government devoid of business experience. It will affect the screen industry in New Zealand. It’s just becoming too hard to do business in this beautiful country. ACT believes most employers are good people who just want to run a profitable, productive business, whether that’s in the film industry or whatever, and we believe that most employees or contractors just want to work hard and get ahead. We believe the best way to do that is for the Government to leave them alone and treat them like adults. It has worked for the last 30 years. ACT cannot support this bill. Thank you.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy to take a call on the Screen Industry Workers Bill. The previous speaker, Chris Baillie, was in the Education and Workforce Committee throughout the process, and throughout his speech he was referring to employees, but this bill is about contractors, and that’s two different things.

All the speeches from the Opposition MPs were just a rant—anti-worker rant, anti-union rant—there was no substance; there was nothing. And what a shame.

This bill aims to create a workplace relations regime for contractors in the screen industry. It simply provides certainty about the employment status of screen production workers. In 2010, the Employment Relations Act 2000 was amended to remove film production workers from its definition of “an employee”. By doing so, it took away all their basic rights, such as getting paid minimum wage and bargaining collectively. This was a gross injustice that needed to be rectified, and this is exactly what this bill intends to do.

This bill does a few things but mainly restores the mana and dignity of the screen industry workers. It introduces a duty of good faith for workplace relations—for example, between contractors and their engagers. It creates a two-tiered collective bargaining framework, allowing bargaining to occur across occupational groups or within enterprises. It simply restores the occupational-level bargaining, enterprise-level bargaining, and dispute resolution.

This bill is important because it delivers on a commitment to restore collective bargaining rights for film production workers. It’s the rights which were removed when the previous Government legislated under urgency what is known as the “Hobbit law”. This bill is all about righting the wrongs, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Sam Uffindell—five minutes.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very good to be able to get up and talk on this bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill, and we’ve heard different points of view from both sides of the House. Repealing the “Hobbit law”, as it was called, within the first 100 days. Well, I’m not sure how many days we’re on now, but we are well down the road, as this Government continues—and you’ve heard it before from the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Scott Simpson and from our colleagues in the ACT Party, but I will say it again: this is an attempt by this Government to force its union ideological agenda on the New Zealand workforce.

I actually have a sister who works in the film industry, and she is a contractor. That flexibility has given her the ability to enter into agreements—voluntarily—get good wages out of it, and work to how she wants to work. That suits most people very well. And do you know what? People don’t need to be forced into what they’re wanting to do. People can make up their own mind, and we trust people to make up their own mind. Your Government’s advice is actually that the changes we made in 2010 worked. I hear the people in the Green Party talking about what happened when international people flew into New Zealand and met with John Key at midnight. Oh my goodness! Well, guess what we got out of it! We got a trilogy, and how well did that work? That set up thousands of jobs in New Zealand, billions of dollars coming in. That’s what happens when you’re pragmatic, when you work with people and you make things happen.

Would that have worked under your provisions? Would these companies have come to New Zealand? Would they have come over and set this up? I’m not sure if they would have, and that’s the risk we run, because what you guys don’t realise is that we live in an international labour market, and people can choose to go and work wherever they want, and people can choose to film wherever they want. Unlike your side of the House, we’ve figured this out: New Zealand isn’t the epicentre of the world, and we have a very dynamic community, where people and jobs flow. So you need to have good conditions and you need to be internationally competitive, and if you’re not, guess what happens! Those jobs walk away.

We back freedom to choose. We want New Zealand to be internationally competitive. Now, I know it’s taken you guys a while to get to this point, but, as has been acknowledged, you do have a new Minister in charge—Michael Wood—and he’s been very busy. He had on a very smart, bright red tie, showing his political affiliations yesterday, and it’s great to see, from your side of the House. I shouldn’t use sarcasm, but it is good of you to see that you’re pushing your ideological agenda on us. But we don’t support it. We don’t support this bill, because we fundamentally think that it will reduce our competitiveness. We know that it will reduce workers’ right to choose. Gross revenue increased under the changes made by National. You need to remember that. Under the status quo, New Zealand is a very competitive place for people to come and work. Your own advice is that the amendments made by National in 2010 worked. This bill removes flexibility.

Angela Roberts: No, it doesn’t.

SAM UFFINDELL: It will send production companies offshore. And you might say it won’t, but if you’re a production company and you need to pay more, what are you going to do? You might go to Switzerland; you might go somewhere else. Mexico was brought up earlier today. You may go somewhere where it is more competitive. And do you know what? Workers might do the same as well, because they may want to arrange their own contract. Heaven forbid people can actually sit down with an employer and determine what their working arrangement is going to be! I know it doesn’t bode well for you guys over there, but that’s the reality of how people like to engage.

There’s going to be increased uncertainty. Are film companies going to dive into New Zealand? They might sit on the fence for a little bit. We don’t know; they might wait out the turbulence. The law as implemented by National helped to bring the trilogy here. They brought in a huge amount of money into this economy. They created a number of jobs, and you guys are fundamentally putting that at risk with your ideological agenda. The National Party opposes this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next speaker, I’d like to remind the member who just resumed his seat, Sam Uffindell, to not use the word “you”, because every time you do, you bring me into the debate. I didn’t want to stop you while you were making your speech, but it’s a reminder for next time.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): 谢谢，Madam Speaker. Again, some grace will be given to the member that’s just sat down, Sam Uffindell, because this bill has been before the House during a period where the member—anyway, we’ll stop there.

But what I wanted to say is that Wellington is not the only place in New Zealand that is the centre of the film industry for New Zealand. Queenstown is a lovely, great place to have film, but, actually, one that is closer to home, in my electorate of Mana, is Kāpiti. Currently, in Kāpiti, we have a budding screen industry that’s growing there. And I want to acknowledge Ryan Cole, who is from Raumati, who just won an Emmy for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Comedy or Drama Series (One Hour) - 2022 for his work on Stranger Things. He had done that sound editing from his home. He had done that, as a New Zealander, based here, in Kāpiti, still working for an international company, because he has that ability.

There’s also another budding screen industry worker from Raumati, and she’s currently working on the Indiana Jones movies. She is currently in Los Angeles at the moment working on that film—again, based here in New Zealand, working there. But the interesting thing about this is she is the union rep. She is waiting for this bill to get through because she absolutely agrees with this bill. We’ve been working together to make sure that what she wants to look at, for the part of this bill, that she clearly understands it so that when it is enacted, she knows how to support her members who will have a choice—and, again, who will have a choice and are contractors—to join a union.

So, therefore, I don’t have much further to say. I thank the Education and Workforce Committee and the Minister for the work that they did on this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased to stand and take a call on this piece of legislation, the Screen Industry Workers Bill. I am a business owner and I employ staff, and I’m not from a union background but I can see that benefit, absolutely, of ensuring that those people who work as employees or as contractors have a voice.

This bill simply gives people who are contractors in the screen industry a voice and rights that they have not had previously. My colleague Camilla Belich talked about her experience as an employment lawyer, and she herself said that when people from the screen industry came to see her because of issues they were having, she could not help them because they had no rights. Why is the National Party so fundamentally against giving good, honest, working people basic rights that protect them from sexual harassment, bullying, and give them basic wage entitlements and sick leave entitlements? I don’t understand why that party is so against looking after the working people of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): This will be very uncomfortable for the left because they don’t really like hearing consistent logical thought, so brace yourselves and buckle in. You can see the lack of commitment from the left—they’re taking exceptionally, exceptionally short calls. After almost years of prevarication on this bill, they’ve finally—finally—got it to the House.

Angela Roberts: So are we rushing it?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I have to address this—if someone says they’re rushing it, of course they are.

Angela Roberts: Or are we dragging it out?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Now they’re saying, “Have we been dragging it out?” Well, actually, the Labour Party has, because, like so many of their promises, they said that they would sort this in their first 100 days, and, as Sam Uffindell has just pointed out, we are well past 100 days of this Government. In fact, I think most Kiwis are finding that they’re well past this Government entirely. But that’s the first question around this bill: why has it taken so long for a Labour Party promise to come to the House?

This is not a question about the merit of the bill—obviously the left like it. The question is: why has it taken so, so long to get here? [Interruption] We sort of have a choir going on from our lefty friends today, which is involving only two words—they probably can’t be heard. One is “support” and one is “contractors”, as if stating two words is in itself an argument. The problem we have, fundamentally, is that this bill is increasing union rights, which is going to be a detriment to the industry and, I would argue, to the very workers that the union is supposed to represent, and we’ll tease that out a bit.

But first and foremost—well, it’s not first and foremost. I’m already two minutes in; I’ve already done twice as long as any Labour MP. Jo Luxton pointed out concerns around sexual harassment and other conditions that this bill touches on. The National Party has absolutely no problem with that, but, like any legislation, this bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill, goes much, much wider. So I stress that, for anybody who’s watching this, the National Party supports a good amount of what’s in this legislation. As I say, increased protections around harassment, bullying, and so forth makes absolute and perfect sense. However, that’s not simply what the bill is about; it gives enormous powers to the union to negotiate contracts.

Now, the counterargument from the other side is that what’s known as the “Hobbit law”, passed by the John Key Government, went too far in the other direction, basically stripping—well, there was no union power. Contracts were negotiated between individuals, and if you’re a good left-wing Marxist, like most of them are on the other side, you’ll talk about hierarchies, and power imbalances, and so forth. Tāmati Coffey laughs because he doesn’t quite understand what the word “Marxist” means, but they would argue that it went far too far. The only corollary, of course, is that this bill, like any good pendulum, has flipped completely out the other side. And so the left is here today, patting itself on the back. They’re absolutely delighted. They think it’s going to be marvellous—all these new union conditions that are going to be imposed.

So, first and foremost, it’s certain payback. We definitely know—we can see though the legislative changes being pushed through this House, including around fair pay agreements—that the unions are absolutely delighted. The Labour Party has taken a great leap backwards to take us into the 1950s and 1960s—the cloth cap makers across the country will be delighted. The payback is being given. But the other element that’s going to be kicking forward—or kicking backwards, strictly—is that there will not be the contracts for the union to negotiate. So the unions probably think this is a win. The Labour Party certainly thinks it’s a win. The Greens probably think it’s a win. Some in the industry, yes, think it’s a win and that it’s just great, except they’re going to find there is no industry, actually, and let’s just elucidate on that in two particular ways.

Barbara Edmonds actually gave a very thoughtful contribution, mentioning two people from New Zealand who are doing work overseas, which I think is absolutely fantastic and very much an expression of our modern environment. I would be relatively confident—I’d better be clear: I don’t know, but I’d be relatively confident—that this law will not impact those people, because if they’re working in New Zealand for a company overseas, those are external international contracts and this law has no impact. In fact, it’s symbolic of what is going to happen more. New Zealanders will be doing screen production work for overseas companies. Yes, they can still be in New Zealand, which is tremendous—probably thanks to the ultra-fast broadband that National rolled out—but, actually, they’re going to be governed by international contracts.

The second point—and I raised this; I can’t remember whether it was in the second reading or maybe the first reading speech—is that we are already seeing an industry that’s under pressure, and I used Amazon as a really good example. I will admit I have downloaded Prime. I’m paying a subscription to watch The Lord of the Rings. It’s not quite in the spirit of Tolkien, but, you know, it’s still entertaining and it’s a distraction from occasional life in Parliament. But Amazon has already left New Zealand. Things were already getting difficult enough for them. It was a major screen industry, and, as I pointed out before, they’re leaving because of the Labour Government. In effect, the ridiculous COVID rules, mandates, and proscriptions, that the Government pushed, basically saw them leave. Paul Goldsmith is completely correct. New Zealand is not the only country that has mountains and rivers and so forth. They can go to Slovakia and the UK and a whole lot of other places, and they are—they have.

And so already we are seeing an exodus, and this bill is going to make it even worse, I would argue. I could be wrong. I’m more than happy for the left to come back at me in years to come and say, “Look, the movie industry in New Zealand, the screen—

Hon Member: It’s a deal.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —industry, is thriving.” Jo Luxton or someone on the other side has said, “It’s a deal.”—they’ll come back and tell me I’m wrong, and I’d be happy to be wrong, but I don’t think I’m going to be. I think the screen industry in New Zealand is already struggling. It’s already under major pressure, and this law change is going to make things much, much more difficult.

So it’s pyrrhic victory—once again, to offend the principles of plain language that the Labour Government is keen on. It’s a pyrrhic victory. Today, the Labour Party, the Green Party, various union officials, and others will delight in what has happened, but they’re going to find, and those contractors are going to find, that there just isn’t the work here in New Zealand. It’s as simple as that. And related to it as well is that in recent days the screen industry, not only on the international side but also the domestic side, will lose funding. Now, under Willie Jackson, most of the money from New Zealand On Air that used to go to the likes of SPADA—the Screen Production and Development Association—and others, to do screen industry work in New Zealand, is going to go to Willie Jackson’s new multimedia TVNZ/RNZ. In other words, we’re also seeing pressure on the screen industry where domestic funding’s been removed

So we have a bill here that is changing the conditions, which is going to make it even harder for anyone to actually do any film production, and simultaneously we have a Government now looking to strip the funding which some of our screen production associations are using. As I say, the funding from New Zealand On Air is going to be diverted—not all of it, and most of those on the left are looking confused, because Willie Jackson probably hasn’t explained it to them, or, if he did, they couldn’t understand a word he was saying, which is pretty normal. They are taking money that the screen industry and, if you will, the workers use and it’s to be pumped into this new—I’ve forgotten what they call it—New Zealand media company, the fusion of Radio New Zealand and TVNZ. So I would suggest to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, that this piece of legislation is not going to help the industry at all; in fact, I think we’re seeing, unfortunately, an industry going backwards. You can see the great benefits we’ve had of a screen industry that has been thriving up until recent years. Again, I want to acknowledge that COVID had an impact—rather, not COVID but the rules the Labour Government held to.

Hon Members: Oh!

SIMON O’CONNOR: They sigh, of course, but these guys have probably never talked to an Amazon or all the companies in New Zealand that had work through them. It’s now gone. Again, we want to stress that—gone. That’s thousands of jobs, thousands and thousands of jobs, and if the left think that this bill is going to make things better, they are sorely wrong.

So I want to conclude where I started. To bookend this little story—well, it will be 10 minutes—even if those on the left think that the previous law and what is currently the existing law is wrong, they are welcome to think that. And you can make a relatively coherent and rational argument of why it was not a good law. I personally think it was fine, but I can understand the rational argument against it. This bill is like a pendulum which is swinging far too far in this case to the left.

Once again, they say, “Oh, the industry wants”—yeah, fine. It’s great that they want it. It’s going to be really interesting in the coming months and years when they find there is no industry and they’re all wringing their hands and saying, “Oh, I wish the Government would give us more money. Oh, we need bailouts because there’s just no one coming here. Oh, we’ve lost all our best talent overseas.” I look forward to the left and those people opining. Anyway, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is an absolute privilege to be the last speaker to take a call on this significant little bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill. I just want to start by acknowledging the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, who has joined us and who, of course, brought this bill to the House. There have been many who have been mentioned since who have worked on it.

I’ve taught many creative, bright, intelligent, committed, and hard-working students, young people, in school and community theatre, and they wanted to join and become a part of the screen industry. The other side are always talking about, you know, being happy to bask in the glory of our international success, but they’re also clear that the workers in that industry should be grateful to be a part of it. And that’s right—they are grateful to be a part of it. But therein lies the power imbalance and therein lies the injustice: that has led to poor conditions and poor pay for some of our “contractors” in the industry.

I can remember many hundreds of years ago when I was a student myself and was considering going into theatre, and my mother very wisely said to me there is nothing romantic about starving in a garret. I’m really pleased that, if I was in the classroom, I would no longer have to give that advice to my students—that I know that they are going to be safe, they’re going to have their mana intact, in being a part of this.

The industry wants this. The Film Industry Working Group developed the solution. They understand that this is our place and that it is our people that make us internationally competitive. It ain’t the price we pay for our people; it’s our people that make us internationally competitive and successful. Thank goodness the creatives got together to find the solution. They are, absolutely, fundamentally collaborative and innovative, and they came up with things—oh my goodness, it was different and new. Apparently, according to the other side, that is not something to be cherished. They wanted something meaningful and modern. Well, actually, that’s exactly what this bill has delivered—that is exactly what this bill delivered.

This bill is for our young people, our young creatives, who are going to continue to build on our international success and be creative internationally. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill to the House.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move a motion that the select committee report back on the bill to the House by 16 February 2023.

Fire and Emergency and our career and voluntary firefighters are a critical part of our communities. They respond to a broad range of incidents to keep us, our whānau, and other loved ones safe. This includes fires, motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, and forming a key part of our emergency management response during natural disasters, among many other things. When these events do occur, Fire and Emergency are there to help protect people and prevent damage to property, land, and the environment. They also play a key role in helping us to reduce the chance of devastating fires in our homes, businesses, and other private and public property in the first place.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 saw the amalgamation of more than 14,000 people from 40 separate organisations into Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). This included the New Zealand Fire Service, the National Rural Fire Authority, 12 enlarged rural fire districts, and 26 rural fire authorities into one organisation. The legislative framework has mostly been fit for purpose since then.

However, based on feedback from the sector, this Government established a review of the funding model in 2019 to make sure the collection of funding through insurance levies had fair and reasonable settings. This bill establishes the findings of that review and makes important changes to the functions of the levy framework.

FENZ is funded by a 97 percent levy collection, so it’s important that the levy system works well in order for FENZ to deliver critical functions. The levy framework in Part 3 of the FENZ Act sets out the types of insurance contracts that must pay the levy, who is responsible for paying the levy, and the value of the property to be used as the basis for calculating the levy. In other words, it’s a methodology for the levy. The framework does not specify how much money Fire and Emergency will have in the short term; this is done through a separate regulation-making process under the FENZ Act. This means that when we consider the levy framework, we must focus on whether it provides a fit for purpose funding system for the long term, rather than any immediate funding matters of today.

It is also worth noting that the levy framework in the FENZ Act is yet to begin. While most of the FENZ Act came into force in 2017, after the Act had completed its journey through the House, the levy framework in Part 3 has had a delayed starting date. This has given us an opportunity to make certain that the levy framework will work as intended, and ensure that it can be well implemented in practice.

During the 2019 review of the funding model, alternative approaches were considered, such as a property-based model that calculates the levy based on property data, such as value, size, or use. We decided to stick with, and improve, the existing insurance-based model over this alternative. This reflects the fact that the insurance-based model remains fundamentally fit for purpose and the least costly to implement for stakeholders.

However, I would like to acknowledge that there were some concerns among stakeholders about the insurance-based model in the FENZ Act under this approach. That’s why we have this bill here today before us. The Government has heard these concerns and is taking action to address them. I’d like to acknowledge the insurance sector and thank them for the critical role they play in the Fire and Emergency levy under an insurance-based model.

This bill is about enabling the simplest system, making it easier to implement without creating unnecessary cost and complexity. To achieve this, the bill makes four changes to improve the levy framework in the FENZ Act. Firstly, only property insured against physical loss or damage from fire will be levied, instead of property insured against any physical loss or damage.

Secondly, the levy will be calculated using the sum insured in an insurance contract, rather than a term amount insured. These two changes will clarify which insurance arrangements are meant to pay the levy, avoiding potentially complex calculations and stopping some properties being charged twice. The approach in the bill is clearer and it more closely aligns with existing practice and terminology in the insurance sector. It also increases the likelihood that the system will be consistently applied.

Thirdly, the bill clarifies a small technical matter to make sure that motor vehicles insured against third-party risk pay a flat rate of levy, just like motor vehicles with comprehensive insurance will. This was the original intent of the FENZ Act and will mean that all insured motor vehicles pay the levy.

Fourthly, the bill amends the starting date of the new levy system to 1 July 2026, or an earlier date set by Order in Council. This is an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the disruption that COVID-19 has caused to us all. There are several things that must be completed before the new levy system can be complete.

This bill must pass through the House, and the Government needs to set regulations outlining exempt property and what the levy rate will be. It is also critical that the insurance sector has enough time to update their systems to calculate and collect the new levy once the regulations have been finalised. The existing commencement date was set before COVID-19 came to our shores, and it is just not feasible any more.

The effect of these combined changes is to provide a levy framework that is clear to interpret, and simple to apply in practice. This makes the levy framework more predictable and stable for Fire and Emergency and levy payers—two key principles of the funding system. It also ensures that the work of insurance companies and insurance brokers for the levy is much simpler. This will significantly reduce the implementation and ongoing administrative costs they face. This, in turn, ensures that these costs are not passed on to New Zealanders taking out insurance.

Before I conclude, I’d like to extend my thanks to the Insurance Council of New Zealand, the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand, the Property Council New Zealand, and to Fire and Emergency New Zealand, who all provided feedback on the exposure draft—your constructive and thoughtful feedback has helped to improve the legislation and ensure it is workable for everyone. Your patience and input is greatly appreciated. I pass that on on behalf of the Minister herself, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, if ever there is an illustration of this Government’s inherent lethargy and lack of urgency, it is the speech that we’ve just heard by the Minister Damien O’Connor, on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs relating to this bill in front of us today, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. What, essentially, he is saying is that after the 2017 Act was enabled—included in that Act was a Part 3 which talked about the levy methodologies that would come into effect in 2024. Post the election, there was feedback from a number of stakeholders, particularly the property owners, the commercial property owners of New Zealand, and the insurance brokers, that they felt that there were elements of that Part 3 that were not fit for purpose.

On the basis of that feedback, 18 months later, the Government starts a consultative round with a wider group of stakeholders to reflect on whether the Part 3 levy framework as proposed in the 2017 Act was fit for purpose, whether there should be a broader reset on how the levies and how Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is funded—should it be through an insurance levy on property and motor vehicles? Are there too many free-riders? Should it be a much wider application of risk and activity, bearing in mind that FENZ increasingly are the first responders to “code purple” heart attacks, which bear very little to the original brief of Fire and Emergency New Zealand to look after fire in our community. After that consultation process, which took two years, the Government then said in 2021 in Cabinet that, ultimately, they will not go down the path of resetting the revenue for FENZ in a more broad context but would focus instead on the particular issues with respect to the levy process which is captured by the insurance companies.

Here we are, 18 months further on, with a relatively small and simple bill which tweaks and confirms for the Insurance Council the figure which they will use, being the sum insured, for their calculations with respect to the fire proportion of insurance on buildings, reconfirms the current rate with respect to motor vehicle and residential insurance fire levies that are paid to FENZ, says that all the exceptions which are in the current Part 3 have yet to be dealt with—“and we will get around to dealing with it as a Government”—and also confirms that the start date is four years away.

I mean, literally, what on earth is this Government doing? What is Minister Tinetti doing? She is the Minister of Internal Affairs, accountable for FENZ, and the sum total of five years’ effort in this space is a bill which is simple in its application and says, “By the way, all the hard issues, all the issues around exemptions and whether the rates need to change, that’s going to be in regulations, and that’s over the next four years.” Frankly, it’s not good enough, but it is illustrative, for people watching on TV now, around the approach that this Government brings to these matters. They are far more comfortable lost in the sea of process than actually doing anything and actually getting stuff done, and this is an example.

Now, as I say, the bill itself, being simple and being focused on clarifying how, from an insurance levy perspective, the fire portion is going to be charged, is fine—makes sense; there’s nothing particularly onerous in it, so, therefore, as you would expect, we’ll support it for what it is. This is it—sum total of five years’ effort. We’ll support it, but, frankly, it’s a lost opportunity.

Also, the issue around what, ultimately, the rate will be set at by 2026—as I said: silent. That’s a subsequent four-year effort. There’s no acknowledgment of the Government that, actually, the levy payers of this country have funded FENZ to the extent of $220 million more than what was expected in this year of operations when FENZ was created in 2017. Who’s paid for that? The Government? No; $10 million a year—motor vehicle owners, residential homeowners, and, in particular, non-residential homeowners, the commercial property owners, who pay 60 percent of that levy by virtue of the amount of commercial property there is and how much their properties have risen in value over the last few years.

So where is the critical assessment by an accountable Minister as to whether $661 million of FENZ revenue is appropriate, is being spent well, is actually delivering for the front-line services? They’re all silent on that. In fact, there’s every chance, knowing this Government, that the actual rates finally decided will go up, because, from their perspective, tax, revenue, costs only go one way. They don’t know how to wrestle back efficiencies. They don’t know how to look at FENZ and say, “Actually, we expect more for the money, not just keep spending, keep spending, and don’t bother telling us what you spend it on. We’re not really that interested. If it doesn’t get to the front line, we don’t really care. We only contribute $10 million a year. This is really a levy payer problem, not ours.” Not acceptable—nowhere near acceptable.

When you overlay that spend—$200 million more than expected—and put on top of it $460 million in five years for capital, and you go to any fire station in this country—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And we have.

TODD MULLER: —and we have—and say, “Well, have you seen the benefit of it?” Not at all—all lost in the wash. No accountability from the Minister. She just says, “Oh, that’s FENZ’s problem.” You appoint the board, Minister. They report to you. They say, “Here’s our budget, this is what we’re going to spend it on, here are our statements of performance indicators. Here are our KPIs.” Where is the accountability and drive and urgency to get value for money on behalf of the insurance payers of this country? You can tell there’s no urgency because this bill—five years in gestation and four years subsequent to the day to fulfil the detail that sits behind it. That lack of urgency, that lethargy, if that was applied in the private sector, you wouldn’t last five minutes. You’d be out the door before you even sat down.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Some of them will be next year.

TODD MULLER: They certainly will be, Michael Woodhouse—they certainly will be. But they just simply don’t get it, that, actually, there are people out there trying to do the job, put out our fires, be the first responders, under intense pressure. Their parent organisation spends more money than was expected by a factor of $200 million. They are not feeling it. A funding review that became too hard, so let’s just tweak the current model—two more years to get that legislation up, and four more years to finally implement it. It’s illustrative of a tired, lethargic Government who simply doesn’t have the urgency to grasp the opportunity that we need in this country; 12 more months, and that’ll change. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, we welcome this bill to our select committee. This is a great bill. We’re looking at increasing efficiency, making sure that the way that we collect levies for our fire services is improved, so that we can actually save money and produce efficiencies. I think there was a bit of a contradiction from the last member who has just resumed his seat, Todd Muller, in terms of whether he wants efficiency through this bill or not.

This is a bill where I think we have to look at how we collect the levy and not what we’re collecting, so this is just one of the things where we have to tweak the process of it. In this process, we’ve worked really closely with the insurance sector as well. So that’s why we’re about to propose that this is a four-month report back as well, just to make sure that everything is on time and everything is efficient. So to the spirit of this bill, I commend it to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Well, sorry, Madam Speaker, I was a bit slow to follow on. I was a bit surprised after such a rousing speech from that Government member, Naisi Chen, on what is such an important bill this was, in her mind—she took all of about 45 seconds. That very much sums it up, because, with that last speaker using words like “save money” and “increasing efficiency”, I would go as far to say I doubt there is one firefighter in New Zealand, whether they be volunteer or paid, who would use the words “save money” and “increasing efficiency” and “Fire and Emergency New Zealand” (FENZ) in the same sentence at the moment. I mean, what a shambles. And it is no surprise that we haven’t heard from the responsible Minister, Jan Tinetti, who’s the Minister from the Department of Internal Affairs, today, because that is symbolic that she has been silent on this whole debate around FENZ. What FENZ is looking for is some leadership from this Government. That is exactly what we are missing in New Zealand today: leadership from this Government.

I want to echo the words of my good friend and colleague Todd Muller, who led off for the Opposition in this bill, today, when he spoke of engaging the many brave men and women around New Zealand who, today,—who, this morning—will put their lives at risk responding to emergency calls on behalf of their communities. As Mr Muller quite rightly pointed out, it’s not always responding to fires; it is responding to emergency health incidents as well. They don’t feel backed, at the moment, by this Government, and they don’t feel backed by FENZ.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act was passed in this House in 2017. We had this review of Part 3 five years later, and here we are, debating a levy framework that will be enacted in four years’ time. If you think of all the issues facing our brave firemen and women today—here we are, in this House, and they wonder why New Zealanders feel that, more and more, increasingly, Wellington is being disconnected from the issues of real New Zealand. We’re debating a levy framework that will be enacted in four years’ time. There’s some real serious concerns—how do we have this independent Crown entity with an income of around $661 million, as Mr Muller quite rightly pointed out, an expected increase of $220 million. Yep, there might be some nice fire stations around the country. In my electorate of Waimakariri, in my region of Canterbury, there’s a number of new fire stations, largely, of course, to do with the devastating earthquakes, but it’s actually the equipment and their personnel that this funding needs to flow down to.

If I could tell a story of when I visited the stations in Canterbury, specifically the Redwood fire station in my electorate and the ANZAC fire station in Canterbury. It’s quite heart-breaking to hear the stories, the intensity, and the level of complexity that our firefighters are now going out to and engaging, especially in emergency health incidents. Quite rightly, we need to make sure—and it is Mental Health Awareness Week this week—they get the right services, whether we want to call them employee assistance programme (EAP) services or mental health support services. One fireperson told me that they got given the number for the EAP service, they rung up, they needed some support, and the therapist actually had to stop them and say, “Actually, I’m a relationship counsellor; I’m not a trauma counsellor.” These are the lack of services that our brave firemen and women are not getting at a time when it’s greatly needed. Yet in the House, we are debating a bill that got reviewed five years after the enabling legislation, and now we’re debating a levy framework that will be brought in in four years’ time.

When you look at the changes, yep, they seem quite perfunctory. They seem the right way forward—we’re going to change to looking at a levy based on sum insured, and the insurance around the motor vehicle, and defining and giving more clarity to the insurance sector around insuring a physical loss from fire. But, actually, when we look at the levy and the methodologies, this Parliament needs to know and needs to be comforted that when that levy is taken and it is dispersed through FENZ, that money will get to the front line. That’s a problem we have today. We have a FENZ that doesn’t seem to be backing our front-line fire and emergency workers. What we have is a Minister who is missing in action—a Minister who should be stepping up at this time of crisis.

There wouldn’t be one member of Parliament, across any party in this House, that hasn’t received a heartfelt email from someone who’s working at the front line. I’d be very disappointed to find out if there was member of Parliament in this House who, actually, based on those emails, hasn’t gone out and visited one of those fire stations, because that’s when you’ll hear the real stories of what’s happening on the front line. So it’s all very well for this Government to get up today and say, “Yep, we’re bringing this bill to the House. We’ve had a review based on engagement with the insurance sector and other sectors. We’re moving forward about”—what did that last speaker say?—“saving money and increasing efficiency.” I mean, that really has to be a Tui ad, doesn’t it? A Labour member of Parliament getting up—and the audacity to keep a straight face and to say that under their Government, they’re going to save money and increase efficiency. If there’s one thing that the New Zealand public has learnt under this Labour Government, it’s that there is no saving of money—profligate spending, a Government addicted to spending—and there is no increasing of efficiencies.

In fact, when you listen to some of the stories of our firemen and women at the front line, you’ve really got to scratch your head about equipment that is turning up not fit for purpose, money paying for a number of consultants, where work never goes anywhere. So, I suppose, it’s all very well debating this levy framework today, but, I tell you what: New Zealanders listening today will want to know, “Yep, there is a social contract there. We, quite rightly, agree to levies being taken through our insurance, whether it be in our property or to our motor vehicles, to fund a fire and emergency response.” But they want to know there’s due diligence in FENZ to ensure that that money is getting spent well and wisely, and getting into the front line.

You can’t help but think that what’s happening in FENZ, at the moment, is the permeating culture from this Labour Government that is addicted to spending, and there is actually no fiscal discipline, and there’s actually no outcomes. There’s no evaluation. Are we doing what we want to achieve? You’ve got to wonder why this has been kicked out for four years. I tell you what, when you look at what these guys tried to do—sneak through a retirement tax, they’re trying to sneak through a jobs tax at the moment. What’s up around this four years? What is their plan for the levies? Why is it going to take four years? That’s, I think, the question that hangs over this House today. Maybe we might hear some clarity from the Government members when they take their call. But I’ve got no doubt that there will be some suspicion out there in New Zealand, and quite rightly so, because every time they seem to turn on the TV, costs are going up and this Government’s coming up with another reason to tax hard-working Kiwis.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): What a negative speech we’ve heard for the past 10 minutes. I feel sorry for people who are listening at home or who are up in the gallery, listening to that 10 minutes of negativity. That’s just an example of where the National Party is at, at the moment.

We are a Government that is getting on with doing good work for people in New Zealand, and we hear speeches like that—just negative, going on and on.

Matt Doocey: Have you been to a fire station?

JAMIE STRANGE: I’m sure that if John Key were listening at home, he would be incredibly disappointed with the state of the National Party at the moment, because he was a pretty positive person when he was Prime Minister. And, to answer the member’s question, yes, I have visited a fire station—in the past six weeks—and I acknowledge the work that they all do there.

I’m not going to take too long, because the Minister clearly outlined what’s in this bill. It’s an important piece of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister Jan Tinetti and, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I look forward to welcoming this bill if this passes in the House. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to acknowledge the workers—I acknowledge the firefighters.

Over the past few months, Green MPs have been going out and visiting different fire stations. I myself visited the fire stations in Whanganui, Newtown, my home town of Palmerston North, and Auckland, and the stories I heard were very concerning. It was very concerning to hear about the breadth of the work that our firefighters are doing. They do a whole lot more than just fighting fires. They’re among our first responders. They’re the first to respond at medical events, car crashes, and other traumatic situations, and, increasingly, flood events because of climate change. So I hope that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is listening to their calls for better pay and conditions and that they hire more firefighters, get proper equipment, and offer health insurance to firefighters, and also provide help and psychological wellbeing for firefighters, including those diagnosed with occupational cancers.

When I went and visited the Palmerston North fire station, I was shocked to see the condition of the gear. One of the firefighters took me out and showed me the truck. The gear was falling to pieces, and this was something that had come up at all of the fire stations that I’d visited. He had this compressor hose connected to the fire truck, and he said to me, “Do you know what? We’ve got to keep this thing going 24 hours a day because this truck has got to get out that door and to the fire within minutes, because if we don’t get there, that house could go up in flames.” This is the immense pressure that many of our front-line firefighters are facing. This is the pressure that they’re under, so it’s really important for us to acknowledge that.

We will be supporting this bill to at least the select committee. We do have a number of concerns. I do take the point about the efficiencies and inconsistencies, and making sure that we don’t waste money and making sure that that stuff is streamlined. That will help to give some clarity for the levy, and that’s a good thing. That will give clarity right across as well, so I do want to acknowledge that.

This bill follows two other recent FENZ bills that relate to its levy on insurance policy holders, which presents the primary source of funding for FENZ activities. The 2017 bill revamped the Fire and Emergency structure in Aotearoa, and the 2019 bill delayed the commencement of its new levy regime to allow the insurance industry more time to prepare. The levy rates are prescribed in regulation by the Minister.

This bill makes amendments to the new process for calculating and collecting the levy to reduce administrative complexity, and that’s a good thing. It supports stability—another good thing—and it ensures that the levy complies with its funding principles in the principal Act, and if you go through that, you can read what those are.

This includes narrowing the scope of collection to fire damage insurance previously covered by material damage, physical loss, and technical amendments. Possibly, our primary concern is that in the context of the national fire strike action and the conversations that we have heard as well, we would not support the proposed principles narrowing the levy scope and then being justified to use tighten funding for FENZ as well, because, actually, they need more funding. So I think this is something that needs to be brought up in select committee, or if Government members could give us some clarity about what that implementation will look like, that would be good for front-line workers, and it would be good for insurance companies as well, because it gives us that clearer direction of what’s going to happen here as well.

That detail is good because, as I said earlier, fire stations are underfunded. They are under-resourced. Ends are not being met, which is very, very stressful for the workers. It’s very stressful for the workers and, of course, it’s stressful for their families as well. We’ve got to remember that our firefighters and our first responders are also our parents. Some of them are parents and some of them are grandparents, uncles, aunties, and so on and so forth. So what we do here impacts entire communities.

Part 3 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act set out the levy framework for Fire and Emergency. It is an insurance-based levy, which means that insurance policy holders are charged a levy based on the type and amount of insurance that they have. In most cases, insurance companies and insurance brokers calculate and collect the amount of levy to be paid to Fire and Emergency, and that’s just part of the functions of it. Part 3 of the Act sets out several matters related to the bill. These are the types of insurance contracts that must pay a levy, the value of property to be used as the basis for calculating the levy, and funding principles for the levy system.

One of the key changes made by the bill—and it makes some sense to me; I’m not an insurance policy expert, but it’s clear enough to me—is around calculating the key on the sum insured in an insurance contract for fire damage. This change will require the levy to be calculated from the sum insured in an insurance contract, rather than the existing approach, which is to calculate the levy based on the amount insured. The amount insured has an unclear meaning when applied to insurance contracts in practice, so having that cleared up would be one of those things about getting rid of the inefficiencies within the current system. So I’d support that going ahead.

Another provision is about charting the levy on contracts of insurance for fire damage. This change will ensure that only contracts for insurance covering physical loss or damage from fire will need to pay the levy. So contracts covering physical loss or damage from fire will need to pay the levy, instead of the current approach for any insurance contract covering physical loss or damage from any other source.

Probably the concern I have here is that when we talked to our firefighters in the different fire stations—and Green MPs did that right across the country—what we found was that the actual firefighting aspect of their job is just around about 40 percent. So if the main levy is about trying to get it—I’m tracking the funding here—from fire damage, then into the levy, and then into paying for the services, will that appropriately cover all the different things that they do? We’re talking about them being first responders to car crashes and first responders to medical events, and they are responding more and more to flood damage as well, so I think we need to have more discussion about that particular provision, and whether that stuff will carry through directly or whether that’s being handled and done in a different way.

So we will be supporting this bill to select committee, but there are a large number of concerns, or a number of concerns—I wouldn’t say that they are large. But I think it’s really important for the Government members to give us some clarity about that and a process in which we can have these discussions in the select committee, because that will give clarity both for front-line workers and their families as well, and for all of us. So we will be supporting this bill. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill in its first reading. The straightforward approach to this bill is to support it, but to do so with some reservations.

It delays the provisions that were to come into force on 1 July 2024 back a further two years, to 1 July 2026, specifically on how the levy is calculated and what it applies to. The justification for the delay is a recognition that the provisions were going to be too complicated and potentially costly. Those provisions could end up doing more harm than good. We do question, though, whether this bill is just kicking the can down the road. ACT questions why the Government is delaying these provisions by two years, to 2026, when the original implementation date is still two years away, being 2024. Instead of two years, it’s actually going to become four years before these provisions can be implemented. So that leaves us questioning why the intricacies of implementation cannot be determined over the next two years, and why it requires four years instead; specifically so when our firefighters are literally protesting for help and support.

That being said, on the whole it does make some sense to do this amendment if it means that at some point we have legislation that can be implemented without issue. If we can ensure that our Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) workers are adequately paid and looked after for the work that they do, we can support that. However, four years is a very long, long time. Our firefighters’ pay has increased by less than 5 percent since Labour took office in 2017, but the administration staff at FENZ have seen at least an 11 percent increase in their pay. Prioritise our firefighters, our front-liners over the next four years, please, because with a mere 5 percent increase in pay, our firefighters are doing so much more than extinguishing fires now. Increasingly, they are attending more and more to assist in all types of emergencies. They turn up to medical emergencies, family harm and domestic violence incidents, suicides, and flooding. They just want to be valued and recognised for the work that they do, and they totally deserve this. Firefighters have told us that they are happy to take on these extra responsibilities and attend at incidents not fire-related because they went into this line of work to serve their communities. But they need to be helped, so that they can help others.

The nationwide recruits’ course for 2022 was cancelled. What was the reason behind this? The rumour is that it was cancelled to save on costs, yet FENZ administration staff did get an 11 percent increase in their pay. Operators who are over 60 years old have been asked to delay their retirement plans so that new and future staff members can be trained before they leave. It is hard to train new firefighters when courses are cancelled or there are no appliances to train new recruits with, let alone there being no recruits to be trained. We are aware that there are firefighters who were enrolled in aerial courses over 2½ years ago, and they still haven’t been able to enter training because there aren’t any appliances for them to train on. We are told of firefighters being given basic two-day St John first aid courses and then are expected to attend some serious medical events. The workers at the centre of the FENZ reconstruction were not consulted about this massive expansion in their job description. Some told us they don’t feel that they’ve had adequate training to deal with some of the issues that they are attending. Their response to medical calls, including respiratory, cardiac, and other life-threatening situations, is leaving them wanting—wanting for further training, wanting for support and financing so that they can continue.

This should also include mental health assistance. I know in the short time that I worked for the Rotorua Coroner, some of the situations encountered by our professionals left them in need of help for themselves. They’re now in situations where they themselves have to give help to members of our communities suffering from suicidal tendencies or needing mental health assistance. Many are doing this without adequate training. It is common for firefighters to be working tens of hours of overtime each week due to staffing shortages, attrition, and the sheer lack of recruits. While they dedicate themselves to protecting and helping our communities, the truth is, many of them cannot afford to go by without the money earned from working overtime.

Equipment is failing, mental health assistance is failing, training and recruitment is failing. ACT would like to see provisions in this bill for better fiscal oversight. There are many questions that do need to be asked. If we’re going to keep delaying the difficult questions, should we be investigating alternative avenues such as privatisation? If we want to keep giving firefighters more tasks to do, is the status quo good enough? They’re asking for better wages, less overtime, newer equipment, more staff, more training, better mental health services, among other things. ACT argues that this bill isn’t addressing the hard issues.

We thank our hard-working FENZ front-liners for the work that they do in and for our communities and acknowledge the struggles that they face. We do support the Government getting it right and hence we will support this bill in its first reading. However, we do think addressing some of the issues they are facing now rather than in four years’ time is essential, and we implore this Government to give this the urgency that it deserves. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): 大家好 and talofa, Madam Speaker. As we’ve heard, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill will ensure changes to the levy framework that will ensure the collection of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) levy is simple and easy to administrate. It will reduce the extra costs and disruption to the system, while adhering to the funding principles set out in section 80 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017.

While this bill changes the way the levy is collected, it does not change the amount that is collected. So it will not increase or decrease the funding to FENZ. This is an important piece of legislation. Really happy to support it, but before I finish my contribution, I want to say thank you to the firefighters in the Ōtaki electorate, up and down the coast, many who I know, but a special shout-out to William Watters, a firefighter in Christchurch, who is my brother. We’re very proud of you. Thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, and to all the FENZ workers out there, thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call, Joseph Mooney—five minutes.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland, on behalf of National Party, to speak in respect of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. This bill makes some minor tweaks, which the National Party supports; however, it does bring to mind fiddling while Rome burns, because this is an incredibly challenging time that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) members are facing. There won’t be a member of this House who has not received many, many emails from people who are very concerned about what is happening with FENZ and asking us to get involved and to assist. Although this bill does make some, as I said, minor amendments, which are useful ones, it doesn’t address the fundamental issues.

I was a volunteer firefighter for a number of years, and I know just how great the contribution of firefighters around New Zealand is. These are people who have their heart in the community. Their first and foremost concern is for the community, literally putting their lives on the line. It can be any time of the day or night, at no notice, and their families have to see their loved ones go away to protect and care for other members of the community—and literally, as I say, at times put their lives on the line. So I have a deep empathy for the concerns that are being expressed by these firefighters around New Zealand. I certainly hope every member of this House has been going to their local fire station and talking with people on the ground to find out what’s happening, because firefighters don’t just fight fires; they respond to 96 percent of all ambulance out-of-hospital cardiac arrests around the country. Yet they are poorly trained and receive no recognition for this work and increased exposure to trauma.

The number of career firefighters has barely changed since the 1990s despite the significant growth in population and other risks in the community, but the corporate administrative arm of FENZ has increased by more than 200 employees. Career stations are regularly closed or fire trucks left unstaffed due to the lack of firefighters. The only way to increase career firefighters is to recruit, but FENZ cancelled the April 2022 recruit course. This bill is not addressing these issues. Career firefighters are fatigued, routinely working more than 60 hours a week, with some working up to 100 hours a week to keep the stations open. Almost daily, the 111 emergency call centres are operating below minimum staffing, sometimes leaving one dispatcher to cover the whole of the South Island. This is unsafe and impacts on the quality of service to the public. Again this bill is not addressing that issue.

Auckland has only two heavy aerial appliances, needed for high-rise and large buildings, which regularly break down. In 1984, the 800,000 population, which Auckland then had, had the protection of five heavy aerial appliances. The most recent procurement of hose has been removed from fire trucks due to repeated instances of the hose failing, leaving firefighters in burning buildings without water. I have fought fires, and the idea of fighting a fire and not having water because the hose fails is absolutely horrifying. This is something, again, that the Government should be focusing on, should be addressing. It is not being addressed in this bill.

FENZ automatically provides income protection life insurance to its management and its corporate administration roles; yet, it is refusing to provide an allowance to enable career firefighters to access medical insurance and income protection insurance. FENZ spent $10 million rebranding signage while career stations have closed due to black mould and asbestos. Other career stations have less than 50 percent seismic ratings, and almost half of all career fire stations do not have sprinkler systems. There is a great irony: half of all career fire stations do not have sprinkler systems. This is a public safety issue, as closed stations or insufficient firefighters means a fire truck has to come from further afield. I have been speaking to folks in my region, who are expressing these concerns. They don’t want to speak up. They don’t want to be out there protesting. They want to be out there looking after their communities. Their focus is very much on serving and protecting the communities that they live and work in, but they are deeply concerned that the community’s safety is being put at risk by not having the resources that they need.

FENZ has a revenue of $661 million—$200 million was forecast for when the merger occurred; $460 million in capital has been spent over the last five years; $460 million capital. It’s an eye-watering amount of money. Yet FENZ has not been able to resolve issues with its lack of staff, poor resourcing and procurement, and bullying and mismanagement. We in the National Party want to see these addressed before any policy is implemented. Labour and Minister Tinetti need to make sure that FENZ has its spending priorities straight. With that, like I say, these are some minor amendments, but we cannot fiddle while Rome burns.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to stand in support of this bill, which is really just clarifying and improving the way levies are collected and set in the fire and emergency sector.

Firstly, I was astounded to hear the ACT Party suggest that we should privatise the fire service, of all things. I’m glad that it is the only party, I’m sure, with such an extreme view. One of our most important services, and they would throw it on to the private sector. In fact, that’s where it originally came from, and the fire engines would go along and look to see whether there was an insurance plaque on the house that was burning and they’d only put it out if it had been insured. We soon worked out that that wasn’t a good way to protect cities from huge fires which would ravage—we saw the public interest in a fire service.

But I just actually really wanted to touch on the commencement date, because there’s been some suggestion that this is, you know, in some way dilatory. But, in fact, it’s the insurance sector that’s asked for this. There’s three things; first of all, this bill’s going to come back to this House next year and be passed in the first half of the year; then, of course, regulations will need to be set under the Act in light of the legislation; and then the insurance industry will need to put in place the appropriate computer programmes, and what have you, to collect the levy in accordance with those new rules. So, in fact, 1 July 2026 is not that far away, given that time line, entirely appropriate. That’s why that commencement date’s been put in there.

Good to see that this bill will be supported through this reading.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d just like to add to the comments of my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, because although it’s only ACT that has this extreme view about privatising the fire service, can you imagine what a National-ACT coalition might have to do in their agreements, and what kind of privatisation deals we’ll get: will it be the Police, will it be the prisons, will it be the schools?

Look, many years ago I did a TV series following firefighters around. I’d just like to add my gratitude for the incredible work that they do, not only at the scenes of fires but also car accidents and other harrowing situations. I’d like to acknowledge them today because there are firefighters who have joined the defence conference next door in the Grand Hall, looking at issues of equity and gender. So they really are making some strides in the way that they are managing some of their cultural shifts.

Today, I’m wearing a pin called the huia pin, which is actually a Police pin, which is around Police Remembrance Day, which is tomorrow. I’d like to also acknowledge firefighters as well, because we know that many of them have workplace risks around smoke inhalation and so on. So I’m just thinking about all those who serve on the front line, and add my gratitude.

I can’t believe Todd Muller would think that this Government was lazy and not steaming ahead. MinterEllisonRuddWatts said in 2017 that they acknowledge this Government for listening and not persevering with a regime that wasn’t going to work. I quote from an article they published: “the Government is to be commended for acknowledging the unintended consequences of the change and abandoning it, rather than trying to salvage it with complex carve-outs and other measures, which might have been more politically expedient but would have been risky and inefficient.” That is the reason for the delay. The devil was in the detail, as the article says. I’m not going to go into the complexities, but this piece of work that we have in front of us today has taken all of that thinking and listening into account in a timely way. I support the bill and I’m really pleased that we’ve got to the place we have.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see Ms Leary wearing the huia pin, but, as a former Minister of Police, before she goes into a station, she might want to turn it around. It’s actually worn the other way around. Rather important.

Now, Jamie Strange rebukes Matt Doocey for being negative, so I’m going to put a positive spin on this debate. I am absolutely positive that this Government has made a complete hash of the fire and emergency service when it has been in Government. The fact that we are here five years after the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act was passed, tinkering around the edges of a levy reform process that should be faster and deeper and more comprehensive than it is is another emblematic symbol of this Government’s flaccid, slow, and lazy approach to policy making. The idea that Duncan Webb puts forward that this is necessary and appropriate because the Insurance Council wanted it—well, actually, it’s the Government that makes policy. Lobbyists lobby; Governments listen, then they act.

Let’s look at the time line, because it’s not the four years; it’s the nine years since the Act was passed that Labour now expect us to believe is appropriate. Five years since the Act was passed, five years since they came to office, and then another four years from now before these levy changes are made. And yet, rather inexplicably, the Government wants the select committee to do its job in a shortened report-back period of just a little over four months. So they’ve taken five years to get to the start line, they’re going to take another four years to get to the finish line for that excellent committee, the Governance and Administration Committee—

Todd Muller: Oh, sensational committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —fine committee it is, Mr Muller. I’m proud to be on it; it only gets a little over four months. That’s not an issue for the Governance and Administration Committee. We are efficient, we are collegial, we’ll do a good job, but the submitters are being disrespected once again. Now, the Government could say, “Oh, well, it’s only a small change.”, but, actually, this is going to affect a significant number of people.

Now, I want to add my acknowledgment and thanks to the tremendous and very professional men and women of the New Zealand fire and emergency services—obviously our professional wing—and, as Mr Muller said, just about every single National member of Parliament has been out there providing solidarity. That’s an odd word for a National member to say in the context of an industrial dispute, but on the unprecedented first one-hour strike, Erica Stanford and I—she was in Dunedin with me—called in to the Lookout Point and Dunedin stations. I have to say, there was not trepidation—I thought we would be reasonably well-received—but the warmth and the sense of collegiality and gratitude for our concern of their lot was very, very palpable. I want to pay tribute to them. They are the people that keep my community safe.

I must say, on the wall of the staff room at the Dunedin Central Fire Station, there is a picture of two vehicles, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you’ll be very familiar with one of them. It was a police car from 1987. I think it was a Mitsubishi. It was black in those days. Beside it, was a fire appliance from 1987. The point of the photo was that the fire appliance from 1987 is still in the garage in Cumberland Street at the Dunedin Central Fire Station, having been cobbled together. Now, I don’t think that’s acceptable for police, and indeed, they have a very modern fleet. Why doesn’t the fire service have the same—I was going to say privilege; that’s the wrong word—right to have the tools that they need to do a job well and professionally? They’re being let down. Goodness knows where all of that money has gone, because it has been raised by the levies that we are changing by this bill—a significant investment, apparently, in capital. Well, it hasn’t got to the front line as far as they can see. There was another appliance there, a seven-year-old one where the left rear door had to be opened using a pair of pliers, and the parts weren’t available to be able to replace the interior of the door. That’s just not acceptable.

It’s not just our professional wing; our volunteers actually pay twice. They pay their levies, and then they pay with their time in places like Cromwell, Kurow, Roxburgh, and others up and down this great country. We are tremendously well served by people who put their time and risk their safety for us. Then, of course, the third leg of that treble is our rural fire service. Of course, as someone who spends a lot of time in the outback in Central Otago, we are about to go into what I think is predicted to be one of the hottest summers we’ve had for a while. That dries out the fuel, that raises the risk of bush and forest fires, and the rural fire service will be there for us when we need them. It’s a pity that the Government isn’t there for them when they are needed.

The other very disappointing aspect of this bill is that, as I say, it doesn’t dive deeply enough into the questions of how we levy or what we levy, because, as both Mr Muller and Mr Mooney pointed out, a significant amount of the work that’s done by Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not related to fires and it’s not related to emergencies based on structures. I think this is an opportunity lost. One would have thought that if it was going to be a nine-year journey to get to a new levy framework, the Government could have taken that time to dive a little more deeply into the issues that were being discussed when I was around the Cabinet table in 2016 and 2017, about a fair and efficient levy process that broadens the levy base. You know, we do that in our tax framework. We do it in our ACC framework. We have a broad base. The broader the base, the lower the rate, effectively, and the less it is that people are—not freeloading, that’s an unfortunate use of language, but there are a number of things that are stated exceptions to the fire service levy. Many of them are Government-owned. I don’t think that should necessarily be the case in the long run, but there is also a significant part of the service that’s provided by Fire and Emergency New Zealand that’s not related to fires. Now, motor vehicle accidents is one and indeed, a levy appropriately is paid by motor vehicle owners through their insurance. Actually, that’s one of the good parts of this bill. I think that is a decent tidy-up to include the third-party insurance and so on.

But, certainly down my way, and I think it’s still the case, there is a thing called the Primary Response in Medical Emergencies (PRIME) service, which is primary response in medical emergencies. Very often in remote and rural communities, the PRIME responders are members of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. There’s no levy for that—no levy for that whatsoever. There’s a significant amount of equipment and capital, and for those stations that do have a paid staff, there is a cost that I think it’s appropriate for the levy at least to be adjusted for. Whether that’s the domestic homeowner levy or some other way—I mean, we do this with ACC all the time. We have a levy framework that’s based on risk, based on employers. It’s different in industries and sectors, and whether we’re on the rugby field or in our cars or in our hospitals, it’s a mature levy framework. Actually, I think the Department of Internal Affairs would do worse than pop along to the good people at ACC and ask for some advice about how to broaden and deepen the base, because the broader the base, the lower the cost on individuals.

So, yes, we support this. I look forward to it coming to the Governance and Administration Committee, I hope and trust that the unusual haste that the Government has for the select committee process will not mean that the submitters—because bear in mind that four months and a bit period includes the summer break. So we’re going to be rushing into the middle of December, taking a break, and then working out how on earth we’re going to get the report back in a meaningful way by the middle of February.

Rachel Brooking: Oh, you’re a great committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So that four and a half months is really three months, because, actually, it’s not the MPs that need the break, Ms Brooking; it’s the staff, the Clerk’s Office, and the report writers. But apparently the party of the worker doesn’t care about the worker quite so much. Well, we do, and we’ll be making sure that they do get a decent summer break, and we’ll do our best to report back to the House in a timely manner.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this last call on the first reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. As we all know, the insurance companies and brokers collect the levy from the policyholders and they pay it to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). The levy is the primary way in which FENZ’s activities are funded. Since the principal Act was enacted, further information has become available on the implementation of the levy and how the existing Part 3 levy will likely be applied in practice. Without amendment, the existing Part 3 provisions are likely to create a bit of complexity and uncertainty, and this will lead to implementation and admin costs, as well as making levy calculations less predictable and stable for FENZ, the insurance sector, and also policyholders as well. So it’s worth noting that the changes in the way that the levy is collected will not reduce the amount that is collected.

As this is the final call, I would like to extend our thanks to the Insurance Council of New Zealand, the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand, and the Property Council of New Zealand, as well as FENZ, who provided some fantastic feedback in the exposure draft. So I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 February 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Third Reading

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

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

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

I’d like to reiterate, firstly, at the start of this third reading, my thanks to the Primary Production Committee for their examination of this bill during the select committee stage, and all submitters for their time and contribution to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I move that the bill be now read a third time. It amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to ban the export of livestock by sea and shows our Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards in animal welfare.

It’s vital that we stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under more and more scrutiny. Both National and ACT have expressed different views, in which they believe that a focus should be made on regulatory improvement. However, we already have a world-leading regulatory system for the export of livestock and no improvement would have been enough to protect the welfare of these animals and to protect New Zealand’s reputation. There’s plenty of evidence, as seen at the select committee, to prove that.

The Government started a review of the livestock export trade in 2019 in response to concerns that the trade could be a risk to our reputation. The objective of the review was to provide New Zealanders an opportunity to reflect on how we can improve the welfare of livestock being exported. The review consulted on several options, including both regulatory improvement and a complete ban on the trade. The Cabinet paper and decisions around the future of livestock exports was delayed due to the Government’s response to COVID-19. During this time, we were faced with the tragic sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 in September 2020. This was the seventh livestock ship to have been sunk since 2009, globally. Beyond the devastating loss of life—and I’d like to acknowledge the families of all those people who lost their lives—I want to acknowledge the fact that the sinking highlighted the concerns and the risks the trade posed to animal welfare.

Rather than initiate the decision to ban the trade, the sinking highlighted the concerns and the risks the trade poses to animal welfare. Since the Gulf Livestock 1 sank, an eighth livestock vessel, the Al Badri 1, has also sunk, this time off the coast of Sudan. This sinking resulted in the death of over 15,000 sheep. The regular occurrence of such tragedies has the potential to inflict lasting damage to New Zealand’s reputation in trade, no matter how high we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone’s best efforts. The regulatory impact statement from the Ministry for Primary Industries acknowledges that risks associated with this trade are real and that there are limitations to our control over animals’ welfare once they are loaded on the boat and leave this country.

On 14 April 2021, I announced the Government’s decision to ban the export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship, with a transition period of up to two years. In announcing the proposed ban of livestock exports by sea, Cabinet considered several factors when making their decision, including animal welfare performance, trade, reputational impacts, and economic opportunities and risks. Decisions like this involve a number of technical aspects as well as values-based judgments. At the heart of our decision is upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare.

I continue to acknowledge the economic benefit some get from the trade, but support for it is not universal. There are different opinions on its long-term value among farmers, how it affects New Zealand’s commitment to animal welfare, and our image in the eyes of international consumers. I acknowledge that those involved in the trade have made improvements over recent years, but the long voyage times and the journey through the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere, which is often the case for these markets, will always impose animal welfare challenges. Despite the best efforts of industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries, as well as any regulatory measures that we could put in place, as long as the trade continues, the risk to animal welfare and our reputation will remain. We’ve also seen an increase in consumer focus on perceptions of animal welfare in a number of markets, such as the United States, the EU, and the UK. With these market-led insights in mind, recurrent negative animal welfare incidents and reports could inflict lasting damage on New Zealand’s reputation.

I acknowledge that demand for livestock exports by sea has increased over recent years; however, they still only amount to approximately 0.2 percent of our primary sector export revenues since 2015. The Government has set a two-year transition period for the trade, which will end on 30 April 2023. This allows stakeholders and our trading partners time to adopt alternative options and to give those farmers and others involved in the trade enough time to change their business models. We recognise the importance that our relationships with our international partners have and have discussed the decision to ban livestock exports by sea with them. They are aware of why we’ve come to this decision, and I’m informed that most of the other affected parties—exporters, farmers, trading partners, and importers—are aware of the ban and understand the intent of the transition period.

During the transition period, we are continuing with improvements being made to the trade. Following the loss of Gulf Livestock 1 and the independent Heron review, a series of recommendations were implemented immediately, and longer-term improvements have been made and will continue to be implemented as part of the livestock exports continuous improvement work programme.

New Zealand needs to stay at the forefront to maintain its reputation as an exporter with high standards of animal welfare. Our commitment to these high standards has already shown its value when animal welfare discussions have been brought up in successfully concluded free-trade agreement negotiations with both the United Kingdom and with the European Union. Making this change to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 will prohibit the live export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship from 30 April 2023, reinforcing and building on New Zealand’s reputation as a safe, ethical producer of high-quality products.

I’d just like, in conclusion, to say that this is a significant step forward for New Zealand. We are seeing around the globe other countries considering the same ban. We are at the bottom of the Pacific, where travel times are longer than for most, from pretty much every other country, perhaps other than Chile—again, where a bill has been talked about to ban exports. We are keeping ahead of the curve. The reputation that we have for the finest quality food and fibre nutrition into the world markets, generated by our forebears, must be maintained by us into the future. And, in a world where consumers and supermarkets and everyone are looking at animal welfare standards and animal protein, we have to ensure that we produce the best, for the best, with the best systems, and the best values.

New Zealand can indeed aspire to be, and deliver on being, the best country for the world, supported by the best farmers in the world, with the best systems in the world. I therefore, on that note, commend the bill to the House.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First up, I would like to acknowledge the loss of life that happened with the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1. It’s often something that’s forgotten in this whole debate. Always, often when we speak about this, I think about those families that have lost family members. Now, while at the front end of this, I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of the words that the Minister used when he made the speech preceding mine around the highest standards of animal welfare and the opportunities we have to show that to other countries in the world. However, when we had the select committee during this process, we actually saw some pretty good gold-standard opportunities to do this in this very industry. That, I think, is what is really disappointing. We saw a range, and we actually saw some quite horrific options, which we also believe should never have seen the opportunity to be able to export animals. But what I will say is that the industry came along and they supported in good faith the select committee process. We do have a very good Primary Production Committee under the chairmanship of Jo Luxton, and I have to say that the committee worked well together, but National is very disappointed that nothing that the submitters said during this process was able to change any of the dynamics of the bill as it went forward.

While the Minister says that it’s only 0.2 percent of our exports, and it sounds like a very little matter for New Zealand, this matter is a very big matter for those people who are currently in the live export trade business. It’s not a little matter to them, and it feels a little bit like it’s been diminished because it’s only a small part of our wonderful opportunity to export and show the world what we do. So I’d like to say we were very disappointed on this side of the House with the result of the select committee—not so much the process, because as I say, it’s a very good committee to work in.

I think one of the things that the Minister’s missing in this—well, there’s a few things that the Minister is missing in this, actually, but one of them was the quote from him saying that “it’s putting our international reputation in the hands of a small number of people who are trading livestock, and in my view was not worth the risk, which is why we are proceeding with this legislation.” Now, time and time again, I have asked the Minister what evidence he has brought to bear—and he did mention a couple of conversations that he had throughout the trade deals recently—but I’ve asked what evidence the Minister based this decision on, because what has been shown in the regulatory impact statement was that up to the point of looking at this decision and the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, there was very little evidence and there wasn’t a whole lot of data from the Ministry for Primary Industries to show the variation in this business, to show exactly how good the gold-standard people are, or to show quite how bad the others were. It took a tragedy to bring a lot of that to life.

I believe that the Ministry for Primary Industries have done a lot of work on that since, and that’s where it came down to the recommendation of a couple of options: whether it be a ban on the livestock export or whether it be continuing livestock export but with stronger regulatory and non-regulatory interventions—a consolidation of some of the options that were put up originally. We do notice that the Ministry for Primary Industries initially went one way and said, “Actually, we think that better regulation would be the option that we would be able to take on with this.” But it just seems that they did a turn on the way through. Obviously, Cabinet made a decision that they wanted the ban to happen. Unfortunately, anything that was said about the other option, with stronger regulation, from that point on wasn’t taken into account.

So the Minister hasn’t really given any evidence as to why this couldn’t be improved with a stronger regulatory system. The industry is up for it. They’ve asked for it. I think the biggest disappointment in all of this is particularly around the timing of it, because we’ve got a challenge in our livestock industries that we need to solve, and that is around bobby calves. Bobby calves is one of those—you know, to have milk or to have animals, we need animals to calve, and we have surplus animals and we don’t need them all. Unfortunately, people do not like to see four-day-old calves going to bobby. So a lot of these calves were actually being grown, put on the ships, and actually exported for a better life. That came into the debate quite a lot as we went through the select committee process as well, because there seemed to be a lot of suspicion about some of the places that we were exporting these animals to. But we also got some very good presentations at great lengths from the other end of the supply chain to show that these animals were being well looked after. I have to scratch my head with anyone having the suggestion that they may not be looked after, because these animals were actually worth good money. It might be 0.2 percent of what we trade, but actually, these animals were worth good money and I can’t imagine why anybody at the other end of the supply chain would pay such good money for an animal that they had no intention of looking after.

So I just want to mention a couple of quotes here from people during the select committee process. One of them was Mark Willis, the chairman of Livestock Export New Zealand, who said his organisation had created the so-called gold standard, a leading welfare assurance programme that he wanted to see implemented. It’s a high-level risk mitigation document. We saw a lot of evidence about putting an extra five days’ worth of food supplies on boats in case there was a hold-up. And let’s face it, most of us saw the conditions that Gulf Livestock 1 sank in, and it should never have been in that situation. They’re putting extra food on these boats to make sure that if they do get into a situation where they couldn’t cross a certain area due to rough seas, that they had enough feed for the animals. Mr Willis said that rather than banning exports, he called on the Government to create the appropriate regulatory framework to ensure the standard was adhered to. No one’s arguing with that, because it’s extremely important. What he said at the time, and from what we’ve seen in the regulatory impact statement, the lack of regulation rather than the export trade has actually been the issue.

Another submitter, David Lindsay of Gladvale Farms, said the ban would be pretty significant as the export market has proved to be a very good, important outlet for our unrequired calves, which was actually the issue that I just brought up a moment ago. Not only that, but profits made from exporting animals have been reinvested back into the business. And according to Lindsay, Gladvale’s turnover from the export trade is more than a million dollars a year. So for some businesses, that is very significant. But I also remember a submission from a person from Northland who talked about the effects of jobs in their local communities. That a lot of employment is actually not just the shipowners but the employment of the people in the local communities was expressed during the time that we went through this select committee process.

So we at National see this bill is a kneejerk reaction to a maritime disaster. It was actually a maritime disaster that caused this, not the industry’s inability to hold up and carry out this trade in a fashion which supports our animal welfare. A survey has been done—and I’m probably going to say this word wrong—but the Voconiq survey was done amongst a wide range of New Zealanders, and over 60 percent of the community members preferred to increase the animal welfare standard for live export instead of prohibition.

So on this side of the House, National are always looking about how we can make improvements, and taxing and banning things is not the way to get improvements with either our industries or our country. I think we’re better than that. I think that we can actually sit down and work out processes to make things better without feeling like we have to turn around and ban things because a few people say they don’t like them. You know, there were a lot of form submitters, but the ones who came in the room gave us a very good example around how they could do gold standard. We do not support this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare)): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e nga mema katoa e te Whare nei, tēnā koutou katoa. I’m pleased to talk on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. Can I, too, add my condolences to those that lost their lives tragically with the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1. As a result, the Heron and Tony Parr reports looked into our live exports and the Government has made a decision, weighing up the options, to ban live export.

I just want to raise a couple of issues as the Minister responsible for animal welfare. My own independent advisory group, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, also asked for live exports to be banned, and they are charged with—both scientists and veterinarians on that working committee—giving independent animal welfare advice to the Government of the day. So they asked for it. But, more importantly, in acknowledging the former speaker as a member of the Primary Production Committee, of which I am not a member, I do want to acknowledge all members on the Primary Production Committee, particularly led by Jo Luxton, our chair, in hearing the various views. And they were mixed views, according to the select committee report that has come back to the House. There were definitely those that wanted it to remain, and there was reference around the gold standard.

There were also those submitters that said we should move a lot earlier than the two-year transition period that we’re giving, that this bill would enable. And as the Minister responsible for agriculture and trade, who has been at the forefront of these new free-trade agreements that we have formed, animal welfare is an enormous consideration for those countries that we trade with. So it is a reputational risk that we’re dealing with here and we are putting our primary industries to the forefront because we acknowledge that we are some of the best farmers in the world.

But, more importantly, is the role of our animals here. I want to talk about, to members in this House—and it was a maritime issue, but we can’t lose sight that putting livestock in ships in Aotearoa New Zealand to generally go to the northern hemisphere, of days in pens and whatnot, cannot be good for the animal; it cannot be good. I want to say, despite some of the changes that the exporters could make on ships, by reducing numbers, by putting veterinarians in—I’m well aware of that—ultimately, they are in a stall and they are sentient animals. For members here: look in the Animal Welfare Act. They do actually have feelings. Just imagine putting animals on a 10, 20, 30-hour trip by sea—it cannot be good for their welfare. And so it is very clear that putting animals in a ship and shipping them for long distances is not good for the animal.

But more importantly, what this bill is doing is addressing and protecting our well-regarded reputation as some of the best farmers internationally. Having returned back from both India and also from Singapore—we are well regarded, but we cannot get ahead of ourselves and we’ve got to stay ahead of the expectations that we are not only good producers of food, safe producers of food, but we look after our natural environment, we look after our people, and, more importantly, we look after our animals.

So, with that small contribution, I commend the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House.

Jo Luxton: Mr Speaker.

Tim van de Molen: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tim van de Molen.

Tim van de Molen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The lucky Tim van de Molen.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill is a bit of an overreaction and we’ve heard some of the reasons for it; obviously coming originally from the tragedy of the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, which was a horrific accident and no one wants to see a repeat of that. But ultimately, where we’ve got to with this piece of legislation is far above and beyond what we needed to see. Ultimately, a number of changes could have been made to look at improving the specific animal welfare concerns. I would note that, obviously in that instance—the sinking of that vessel—there was loss of all the livestock on board and, of course, the human loss of life as well, which was terrible. But actually, in most of these situations, the animal welfare standards are good. The loss of animal life on vessels is minimal—very low; about 0.1 percent—and often animal condition improves over the course of the journey. So on that basis it’s a little bit hard to understand exactly what the challenge is that we’re trying to fix.

Of course, I’m very proud to be a part of the food and fibre sector in New Zealand, and we have a fantastic history of continuing to innovate, to evolve, to adapt, to improve our way of operating. I think if we look at how we farm now, it’s certainly a lot better than 10, 20, 50 years ago, because those practices have continued to improve and I’m confident that will be the case going forward as well. On that basis, when we look at the opportunity for improvement, that’s something that we continually test ourselves against: how could we do this better? What might be different if we were to adapt our practices? And part of that, of course, is led by the market expectations, and that’s as well it should be, because if our customers in the many export markets that we have around the world are saying that they do or don’t want a particular practice to occur, then our opportunity is to respond to that, to either capture additional sales into that market or to gain additional revenue by adhering to better practices than other competitors perhaps may do.

These are just some of the natural mechanisms of how markets operate. We don’t actually need the Government to come in with their heavy hand every time and tell us how best to do it. That just seems to be what we’re seeing time and time again in this House, and particularly over the last week or so with some of the bills that I’ve been speaking on: the DIRA bill last week, the Deposit Takers Bill yesterday, the Fisheries Amendment Bill are all examples, as well as this bill now, where the Government is imposing additional impositions in terms of cost, in terms of control that is not necessarily required to actually achieve improved outcomes. They just don’t have confidence that businesses or the market can actually evolve and adapt. I guess that’s a difference that we have on this side of the House, where we do trust those players to do the right thing, to continually look for the opportunity to improve their business practice and to capture additional value off the back of that.

Now, we actually saw that through the regulatory impact statement for this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, suggesting that—from the Ministry for Primary Industries—one of the potential options was to just focus on enhancing those animal welfare standards. And that’s certainly something that we have said we are quite open to. We are very much aware that there are continual areas where things can be improved, and so that would be an avenue that we could do better on. The contrast here is that actually if we stop this altogether—as is being proposed here, as will come into effect now—we’re going to end up with an issue where we have a lot of additional stock in New Zealand, and what happens to those? So the current bobby calf market is the issue that, in my mind, is a bigger one in the global context when you look at the consumer’s expectations around sustainability, around animal welfare, their perception of those things, and also wanting to have a good food experience when they’re making their purchasing decisions. There could rightly be some concerns around what has been a traditional part of our dairy sector for many years but is getting increasing pressure to evolve as well.

This bill exacerbates that issue by stopping the export opportunity. It means that there will be more animals sent on the bobby trucks instead, and that seems counter-productive in terms of the New Zealand brand in the global context. And that is ultimately what we are looking at here as well, is how do we enhance that brand? We are very much an export-oriented nation. We export some 95-odd percent of what we produce, from a food and fibre perspective, here in New Zealand. We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to capture the most value for those products in the markets that we export to, and, indeed, to create additional market opportunities where we can as well.

Now, it’s a little bit like what we’re seeing in the pork industry too, where we already import 60-odd percent of our pork consumed in New Zealand, and here we are with the Government looking to create even harsher restrictions on the pork sector, which will lead to even more imported pork from countries that don’t have the same animal welfare standards as us. And that, again, is just a simply perverse outcome and just shows that we aren’t seeing a Government going to that next step of thinking around what are the unintended or even expected consequences of making some of these changes. It’s not necessarily rocket science; some of these are pretty clear outcomes that we would expect if a change—such as has been put forward here, or in the pork industry—is experienced, then of course you’re going to see some of those aspects coming through.

Sadly, there’s a number of farmers in my Waikato electorate that have experienced significant economic gain from being able to partake in the export of live animals, and often it’s some of those younger farmers, sharemilkers, or farm owners. It’s a little bit of an opportunity to capture some additional revenue when things might be a bit tough, by looking at the export trade. Now, depending on breed—it’s not for every farmer, of course, but there are opportunities there, and we’ve seen estimates of up to half a billion dollars’ worth of contribution to our economy. Now, every dollar we can get at the moment is going to help us. Times are tough for a lot of businesses, and we continue to see these cost impositions; the cost of living crisis, obviously, but on-farm you look at things like fuel prices, fertiliser prices, energy prices, the cost of labour if you can find labour, all of these areas are really putting pressure on the bottom line of farmers. Thankfully, we’ve had a very good pay-out announced by Fonterra last week. The dairy sector has been doing well, but that is a pay-out level that is needed at the moment to sustain businesses with the massive costs that they are experiencing. So taking away the opportunity for another half a billion dollars’ worth of revenue for our dairy sector is a disappointing outcome, and it’s one that we don’t support, unfortunately.

Also, I’m really disappointed with the way the process was managed in terms of the time for submitters and the, I guess, value placed on their thoughts and processes as well. We heard a wide range of different views in support, and in opposition, to this bill. Yet we saw Government, again, had an ideological view—didn’t even listen to the Ministry for Primary Industries’ view in the regulatory impact statement, or any of the submitters, and said, “This is just what we’re doing and we’re getting on with it.” On that basis, it just again reiterates the arrogance of a Government that refuses to listen to everyday New Zealanders and to really understand the issues that matter, and to create better outcomes as a result.

So look, on that basis, we don’t support the bill. We would have loved to have seen some practical changes made, to continually evolve, looking for that constant improvement, as we do in most areas of business, and certainly in the food and fibre space we’ve continually strived for excellence. This would have been an opportunity to take that to the next level, to really demonstrate that we are still connecting with our markets around the world, but actually, at the same time, we are very aware of changing perceptions, changing requirements, and constantly looking to make our sector even better than it already is. We are at the cutting edge. We are world leaders in terms of animal welfare, in terms of low emissions, in terms of any number of metrics in our amazing food and fibre sector. This is a missed opportunity, and unfortunately it’s taking revenue out of our economy at a time when we need to be growing our economy, increasing our productivity. When you look at some of the productivity stats, we’re well below the OECD average now for productivity. We used to be right at the top of that. So we’re in a continual trend downwards and we’re not seeing enough support, certainly over the course of this Government, looking at supporting business to get on and make things happen.

So look, we don’t support this bill. It’s unfortunately an overreaction to what was a terrible tragedy, and, on that basis, we would have much rather seen changes. This is where we are now, unfortunately, from a Government that doesn’t listen to the food and fibre sector and New Zealand will be worse off as a result.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this piece of legislation as the chair of the Primary Production Committee who oversaw the submissions to this bill. Can I just acknowledge my fellow select committee members; we work very well together as a select committee. But this is one piece of legislation where, although we worked well together, we did not necessarily agree on the outcome of it. It is true, as the previous speaker, Tim van de Molen, has said, we heard a wide-ranging view of opinions from submitters—some in support, some against. But there is no doubt that some of the things that we saw and heard were absolutely horrific. And whilst many of those involved in the live export business do their best to ensure that the animals are kept in hygienic and good standards, that is not true for all. So there is no denying that some of the things we saw when animals, particularly—whilst there may not have been many deaths, there is certainly a lot of suffering that goes on. Especially as animals cross that equator and the heat, the noise, the lack of fresh air—some of what we heard was pretty, pretty awful.

It is also true, obviously, this afternoon we heard from the Minister who talked about the fact that other countries are now starting to have these conversations and consider whether this is legislation that they should think about bringing in. And so I say to the House today, this is actually also about us as a country with the world’s best farmers here in New Zealand showing leadership. So we’re not fast followers; we are leaders. I think that’s very, very important, particularly when it comes to our trade opportunities. We have consumers around the world who are becoming more and more focused and interested in where their food comes from, how it is grown, how it is kept, the labour that goes in behind rearing food, etc.—growing food. So I have no hesitation in absolutely commending this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Like other speakers, I want to begin by noting the tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in September 2020 and acknowledging the lives that were lost in that event.

I want to also acknowledge our past and present animal welfare spokespeople who have long campaigned on these issues, such as Mojo Mathers, Gareth Hughes, who campaigned last term to end live exports by sea, and Chlöe Swarbrick, who is our current spokesperson on the issue. I hope to do them justice in this speech.

This bill is about putting animal welfare in the spotlight and acknowledging that profit cannot be the only consideration that we take when it comes to how we regulate any industry. We’ve known for years that there are serious issues with the welfare of the animals that are transported on live exports, as well as the welfare of the workers who are part of that industry. That has been made visible by activists, by the use of hidden cameras as they’ve exposed these awful situations.

It’s worth noting that in 2020, we live exported over 2 million day-old chickens and over 100,000 cows. In 2008, the then Government ended live exports for slaughter on the basis that we couldn’t control what happened in terms of animal welfare at the point of slaughter, when animals went overseas, and then we somehow weirdly retained live exports for breeding. So it has been settled for more than a decade that we can’t control what happens to animal welfare when it comes to slaughter in other jurisdictions. That logic extends to how we cannot control animal welfare for breeding in other jurisdictions, which is why this bill is so important.

It’s also worth taking into account that it is basically impossible to actually monitor whether those animals are actually going to be slaughtered or bred after being exported to other jurisdictions. So it is not logically a tenuous distinction, but it is also impossible to enforce.

But this is more than just what happens to those animals when they’re overseas. It’s about the fact that the live export process via sea is traumatic and also dangerous. I also want to note that this bill, in fact, captures only a portion of live exports. Live exports by sea represent only about 0.2 percent of New Zealand’s primary sector export revenue since 2015.

The phase-out period of two years is problematic, something that we have noted in the past, that activists have also noted in the past, and said is way too long. Hundreds of thousands of animals have been and will be exported and therefore suffer in that time. So when this House has acknowledged that live export by sea is an issue, and then we create a long phasing-in period of this policy, we are accepting that people and animals will suffer as a result during this period.

I also want to acknowledge that this bill will only be banning the live exports of cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by sea. It won’t include things like longfin eels, which my colleague Eugenie Sage put a Supplementary Order Paper in to try and include into this legislation, and was unfortunately voted down. It also does not include exports by air.

It is clear that our work continues in this area, and as activists have supported putting this issue on the spotlight into legislation, I also note that they will be also pushing to expand the remit of the considerations we take when it comes to animal welfare and the live export part of our industry. Again, it is critical that the way in which we relate to food production isn’t one just driven by profit. We have to take into account our relationship to the environment in which food is grown and the welfare of the animals which, ultimately, will be exported for consumption. So with that, we’re happy to support this bill and will continue working to strengthen our animal welfare legislation. Kia ora.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Well, here we go again rural New Zealand: ideological meanderings of a Minister at the behest of a Government that has failed to define the problem. This bill is predicated on animal welfare, and yet, the reality is, that was at the back of the tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1. How do we reconcile this in rural New Zealand? It’s bereft of common sense. This earns, for rural communities, somewhere in the vicinity of—in 2021 to 2022—$261 million. Now, just to conceptualise that—I don’t know what the good people in the House may or may not earn—that’s an average of $49,000 to $116,000 per farm, of the up to 2,900 farms that used it. I wager anyone, this is half a billion dollars out of rural communities, and Barbara Kuriger brought it up before local communities. This employs thousands of people.

I met an individual—to the members on the other side of the House—who’d spent a million dollars on a truck just for this trade. Gone. How do you reconcile that when you’re sitting there, when the average farm has lost over a hundred grand? Because I can’t. And I can’t sell it to them. Two hundred and sixty one million dollars—potentially, $475 million north.

Fuel has gone up in rural New Zealand 30 to 40 percent. I’m an owner-operator of a dairy farm, I know I’m paying significantly more for that. And yet, here we go, an ideological piece of legislation. Food’s gone up, but let’s talk about urea—100 percent. She shakes her hands but she’s certainly not a farmer—100 percent in urea. Reconcile that when you’re trying to operate a business with ever more legislation confronting the primary sector. This blurs the lines between the tragic sinking of a ship and animal welfare.

In transit, it was canvassed—these animals were putting on half a condition score. And I know the members over there don’t know what that means; it’s 25 kilos per 50 in transit. In 16 to 18 days—that’s significant. Most New Zealand farms struggle to do that in the best growing months of the year. And yet here we go. Fifteen percent to 20 percent of the shipping capacity was minimised to give these livestock more area, as suggested by the Ministry for Primary Industries—the Minister’s own officials weren’t listened to. Mike Heron wasn’t listened to. Why are we not adopting a gold standard? Common sense prevails. This is half a billion bucks gone. We’re in a cost of living crisis. Every day, that side of the House evangelises all the good things the rural community is doing, but it’s really good at taking a pot shot. This is another one—turning off an industry that this rural community, that I’m part of, uses every year.

As a capsule, if I can just tie off, to reconcile how ideological this is, 150,000-odd—135,000 to 150,000—extra bobby calves, four days old, gone. How do we reconcile that when most of these animals were actually going overseas for breeding stock? So the gentleman—it was on my left—is absolutely wrong. Most of these animals are being sold for breeding animals. They don’t have a sunset or horizon in two years; they’re potentially going to China for 10. Straight away, again, we speak to the ideology that is in this piece of legislation. ACT will absolutely be voting against this bill.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): It is my pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. I want to thank the Minister for his leadership in this space, particularly because what we know from the evidence coming in from overseas that the markets we export to—the markets our farmers and food and fibre sector producers are reliant on—want to see that we are maintaining the highest standards in the world. So that is why this bill is important, because what those markets that our farmers are reliant on have said to us is: “We don’t want to import your food if you cannot, hand on heart, produce evidence showing that you are leading the way in animal welfare.”, and our export markets are saying that this isn’t up to standard any more.

We’ve heard from the Opposition that there’s this gold standard, and yet the submitters who submitted to us couldn’t even agree on what a gold standard looks like. They pointed out that a lot of the boats that are used for exporting overseas are retrofitted. They’re not fit for purpose, they’re not suitable, and they do cause harm to the animals. Even if we didn’t pull out and try and put the pressure on to increase standards, they couldn’t assure us that the other countries wouldn’t come in and undercut us anyway.

So we need to be leaders in this space, set the bar high, and say that we are not prepared to put our animals at risk any more. Our farmers will continue to be supported and they will continue to be world leaders, and I back them and our export markets. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)