Wednesday, 28 September 2022

WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

SPEAKER: Members, in celebration of Tuvaluan Language Week, I’ve asked the Hon Jenny Salesa to say the prayer in the Tuvaluan language.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Te Atua, tafasili i te maluga, e fakafetai atu matou mo au fakamanuiaga ki luga ia matou. Ko fakatafa ne matou a omotou manakoga totino katoa, manatua ne matou te motou Tupu kae talo atu matou ke takitaki ne koe a omotou titiga manatu, ko te mea ke fai ne matou a tiute o te fale tenei i te atamai, fai mea tonu, alofa, kae atafai mo te ‘lei kae filemu o Niu Sila. Amene.

Visitors

Australia—New South Wales, Legislative Assembly

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Phil Donato, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, who is present in the gallery.

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 The Hashtags requesting that the House restrict the sale of vaping products to licensed R18 specialist vape retailers, and develop proximity and density limits.

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

CLERK:

International Labour Organization, Report of the New Zealand Government Delegates to the 110th session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, 27 May to 11 June 2022

Television New Zealand, annual report for the financial year 2022, and statement of performance expectations for the year ending 30 June 2023.

SPEAKER: I present the following reports of the Ombudsman Ready or not? A report on the public sector, the OIA, and the pandemic; and OIA compliance and practice in:

Te Mana Ārai o Aotearoa New Zealand Customs Service

Ara Poutama Aotearoa, Department of Corrections

Te Kaporeihana Āwhina Hunga Whara, Accident Compensation Corporation

Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora Ministry of Social Development

Te Manatū Waka Ministry of Transport

Te Ope Kātua o Aotearoa New Zealand Defence Force

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga, Ministry of Education

Te Tāhū o te Ture, Ministry of Justice

Manatū Aorere Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Manatū Hauora Ministry of Health.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The jobs market is continuing to show the resilience of the New Zealand economy. This morning, Stats NZ reported that the number of filled jobs in August rose by 10,312, or 0.4 percent, compared to the previous month’s, going to a record high of 2.32 million. The New Zealand economy is in a strong position despite a challenging global environment. Unemployment is near record lows, and wages are rising above inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures. We’re striking a balance by investing heavily in skills and training while making it easier for businesses to attract overseas workers to get the skills and expertise they need. There is every reason to be optimistic about the road ahead.

Helen White: What does the report say about which industries are creating jobs in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The gains are broad-based. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in construction, professional services, manufacturing, retail, and public administration and safety.

Helen White: What does the Stats NZ report say about which age groups are benefiting from the jobs created in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The jobs market is continuing to support young New Zealanders. Fifteen- to 19-year-olds made the largest contribution to the increase in filled jobs, making up 17.2 percent of the increase. There have been strong gains in this age group in recent months.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on confidence in the New Zealand jobs market?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Westpac’s employment confidence index rose to 115.2 in the September quarter, its highest level since June 2019. Kiwis remain very upbeat and positive about the range of job opportunities, particularly among young New Zealanders. By region, there were strong gains in Auckland, Waikato, and Wellington, while Otago did ease a little after a sustained rise in confidence over the previous two quarters.

Helen White: How is the global situation affecting New Zealand’s economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global environment does remain volatile and uncertain. Financial markets, for example, have reacted negatively to the United Kingdom’s fiscal package of tax cuts, with a sharp decline in the value of the sterling and a spike in British borrowing costs. The reaction on the financial markets to the announcement has affected other countries as well, with a rise in bond yields globally, and downward pressure on most currencies relative to the US dollar, including the New Zealand dollar.

Helen White: What are the implications of the current financial markets’ movement for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It offers a cautionary tale about proposing untargeted tax cuts in an inflationary environment. The International Monetary Fund has expressed its concern in this regard. As we have seen, the reaction on financial markets may result in outcomes that are harmful to an economy’s future recovery following a one-in-100-year economic shock. That would include the ability of Governments to make commitments on spending on health or education or housing or other important investments in areas such as climate change.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. 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): Talofa, Mr Speaker. Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to increase Pharmac funding by an additional $191 million in Budget 2022. We’re seeing the benefits of that investment. I welcome today’s announcement from Pharmac that they’ll be able to fund two new medicines: SPINRAZA for spinal muscular atrophy and adrenaline auto-injectors, often known as EpiPens, for people at risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening allergic reactions. These medicines are the direct result of funding committed by this Government. Our Government takes funding medicines seriously. As a result of our funding increases since 2017, Pharmac has made 189 additional funding decisions, including 59 new listings and the widening of access to 130 treatments. But we know there is always more to do. That’s why this Government remains committed to funding our essential public services, including Pharmac, and not funding to borrow tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government planning a $3.5 billion jobs tax to fund its income insurance scheme when it’s already raking in $40 billion more in tax each year compared to when it took office?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I said yesterday, the member’s characterisation of social income insurance, I reject. The second point I made yesterday is, of course, we continue to do work on the detail of the regime, but it is being worked through alongside Business New Zealand and trade unions in response to the environment where we will continue to see New Zealanders having to transition through a future where we’re working to make sure that our economy is more sustainable. There was a time when that member was part of a business advisory council that was quite focused on transitioning a just transition for workers. In fact, he joined a study mission to Switzerland, where this proposal is one of the outcomes that Business New Zealand then pursued.

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain to supermarket workers why she’s pushing a scheme the owners of Countdown say will “take much-needed earnings from our team members’ take-home pay, to fund a scheme that they will most likely never need, or ever see the benefit of.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Every year, 100,000 New Zealanders—in average times—face job loss; 200,000 through a period of disruption like a global financial crisis. Unfortunately, in a short period of time, we’ve seen everything from the Christchurch earthquakes, to the global financial crisis, to a pandemic. I wish it was possible to say that workers will not experience such severe disruption; they have. In those times, Government has stepped in. We are looking for a more sustainable long-term way, as most OECD nations have, to ensure that New Zealanders are well looked after.

Hon Michael Wood: Has she seen the statement from FIRST Union which represents supermarket workers saying, “The tripartite agreement between business, government, and unions regarding the creation of a social income insurance scheme is crucial to support people when they need security most.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. Of course, that sits alongside the work we’ve done with the Council of Trade Unions in developing this scheme. But I also note that Business New Zealand has been part of the development as well. I take this quote, for instance, from Business New Zealand: “When these businesses shut down, workers have little money to spend, which means other businesses suffer and the community … go into a long-term economic decline lasting for generations. An income insurance scheme could cushion workers and communities from such abrupt income losses, allowing more time for regions and businesses to adapt.”

Christopher Luxon: Why is she proposing to reduce Kiwis’ take-home pay when their real incomes have already fallen by 3.7 percent over the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said yesterday, whilst we continue to work through the details of this scheme, implementation would not be anticipated to be any earlier than 2024 or 2025. The reason that we highlight that is, of course, we’re very aware of the economic times that we are in, the disruption that many New Zealand families have experienced and, of course, that is why we have our strong cost of living package to support them. I would then make a wider point here: it has always been Labour Governments that have introduced those things that support families and workers in tough times. Whether or not it’s KiwiSaver or the Super Fund, Labour introduces it, National opposes it, and then they do nothing about it in the future; they keep it because they eventually recognise the support that it provides New Zealanders.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that if the Government tries to tax both workers and employers, most of that tax will end up being paid by workers through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices, and, if not, who does she think will pay it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject much of the premise of that question. I again point to the fact that, in some form or another, there are schemes like this in Denmark, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, the UK, and Germany. Many of the countries that we would liken ourselves to—and, in fact, that the member himself went across to study—have a scheme such as this.

Christopher Luxon: Is the Government still committed to passing the income insurance scheme legislation before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member had listened to my answers repeatedly in this House yesterday and today, we do not foresee it being implemented any earlier than 2024 or 2025.

Christopher Luxon: Is the Government still committed to passing a first reading of this legislation before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, but the time at which it would be fully implemented, we would not anticipate being before 2024 or 2025.

Christopher Luxon: Has the Government ruled out reducing income tax or company tax to offset the $3.5 billion cost to the jobs tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is making assumptions, when we continue to work through the final details of the levy. Again, I would also point out that the way the member frames this scheme makes an assumption that at times of crisis, when we have implemented this scheme, that that does not come at a cost to taxpayers; it does. We have had to, through times of crisis—and the National Party has been in Government when that has occurred—implement schemes to cushion the blow and stop the large scarring that we see in our economy. We are looking to build a sustainable way of ensuring we have those schemes through future times of crisis.

Christopher Luxon: When she said that final decisions have not yet been made about the income insurance scheme, does that include the decision to tax workers and employers, or just the decision about the size of the tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ve never heard the member talk about the ACC tax. These are schemes that are designed to go directly into providing support. It is not about increasing Government revenue; it is about directly funding a scheme that benefits wage and income earners directly. It goes entirely into supporting workers and active labour market schemes—something that when the member was a CEO, he used to support.

David Seymour: If the Government’s proposed income insurance levy is not a tax, will people be able to opt out of it voluntarily?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I likened it to ACC for a reason.

Question No. 3—ACC

3. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What changes has she announced to ACC?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Yesterday, we passed the maternal birth injury and other matters bill. This means that from 1 October 2022, approximately 28,000 mothers, non-binary, transgender, and other gender-diverse people will be able to benefit from ACC cover if they experience injuries during childbirth. I’d like to thank the select committee members from all political parties, officials, stakeholders, providers, health professionals, parents, and everyone who submitted on the bill and who have been part of the process. You have all made a difference.

Angela Roberts: What does this change to ACC mean for birthing parents?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Prior to this change, childbirth was not covered in legislation because it did not meet the Act’s definition of an “accident”. That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure birth injuries are covered, making changes to the legislation, and including a list of covered injuries. Including cover for these injuries will mean birthing parents can access existing support and treatment available through the accident compensation scheme, including support for mental injuries that are caused by physical injuries.

Angela Roberts: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is an incredibly important change and represents a significant step towards improving gender balance, fairness, and equity in the ACC scheme. Research I commissioned provided a clear evidence base, highlighting disparities within the scheme. 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. When reconciling the evidence with the rationale for covering birth injuries, it became clear that these injuries—some of which can be incredibly severe—should be covered by ACC. More than 70 percent of people giving birth in Aotearoa New Zealand may experience an injury during labour or birth, and, from 1 October 2022, this new ACC cover will benefit an estimated 28,000 birthing parents.

Angela Roberts: What steps did she take to ensure this change became law?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In March last year, I read an RNZ article about the growing number of women experiencing injuries when giving birth and their struggle for treatment. It was a distressing read. The policy work began in June 2021, Cabinet signed off on it in August 2021, and on this day one year ago, I announced that we would introduce legislation.

Hon Member: Well done.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The passing of this bill last night marks a significant milestone in ACC history—

Chris Bishop: Oh, announcing something—“Oh, well done.”, she says.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and signals positive progress and change for ACC’s future, and I’m unsure why Chris Bishop is interjecting in that way when they supported this bill.

Angela Roberts: What other changes were announced?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The bill also includes 12 other policy and technical changes which provide more support to injured New Zealanders, more clarity of what ACC covers, and equitable cover for claimants. Some of these changes respond to our commitment to roll back Nick Smith’s 2010 ACC changes. One of these changes includes bringing back the claimant-friendly version of the three-step test which is used to assess claims for work-related gradual process injuries. This would shift the burden of proof from workers such as firefighters and sawmill staff, who might suffer from those injuries, back to ACC, which will be required to prove their injuries are not work-related. I’m really pleased with what this bill will achieve. There is always more work to do, but we are certainly on the right track.

Question No. 4—Children

4. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in Oranga Tamariki’s relationships with staff and contractors?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Talofa, Mr Speaker. As I have said before, Oranga Tamariki (OT) is improving and there is room to do better. This path to improvement also extends to how Oranga Tamariki works with and engages with staff and contractors.

Karen Chhour: What specific actions, if any, has the Minister taken in relation to threats of Oranga Tamariki staff striking, and can the Minister guarantee to vulnerable children and whānau that Oranga Tamariki staff will not strike in the next month?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Oranga Tamariki leadership team has been engaging in good-faith negotiations with the Public Service Association (PSA) to date. I understand that Oranga Tamariki PSA members are voting on industrial action today, and it would be wrong of me to comment on that at this time.

Karen Chhour: What advice has the Minister received in regards to the potential strike, and how many children and families will be affected if the strike does go ahead?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So Oranga Tamariki has a plan in place to ensure it can still provide the necessary care and support for children, and similar measures have been used successfully throughout COVID as well.

Karen Chhour: For how much money was the contract recently signed between OT and John Tamihere’s charity, and is the Minister reconsidering this contract in light of today’s revelation that his charities are under investigation for bankrolling John Tamihere and the Māori Party’s political campaigns for nearly half a million dollars?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject the premise of that question, but let me say that on Friday I was pleased to witness the signing of a partnership agreement between Oranga Tamariki and Waipareira Trust. This agreement supports wraparound, holistic services for whānau under a by Māori, for Māori approach. This agreement recognises the Treaty-based relationship between the trust and Oranga Tamariki under section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, an equity-focused section of the legislation I’m sure the member is familiar with. I’d also just like to thank her for allowing me to raise the issue of how much funding Oranga Tamariki has received since 2017. By the way, the relationship has been in place since 2008, so through the previous National-ACT Government as well. But Oranga Tamariki have received, since 2017, a measly $2.8 million when other providers have received tens of millions of dollars a year.

Karen Chhour: So does the Minister agree with John Tamihere when he says his charity and Oranga Tamariki are in a partnership and not a contract, and, if Te Whānau o Waipareira is struck off the Charities Register, will the Minister guarantee that this partnership will end?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What the member needs to do is cross the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from her Pākehā world into the Māori world and understand exactly how the Māori world operates. It’s no good looking at the world from a vanilla lens.

David Seymour: Point of order. The question is how the Government would respond if an event happened that, I think, would bring the contract into question. Now, unless, somehow, it’s addressing the question to attack the member and her world view, then the question has not been addressed at all.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The question actually contained a number of parts, including some assertions. The member has addressed the question; he does not have to answer to the satisfaction of the member.

SPEAKER: Yeah, thanks. The question was hypothetical and it did contain an assertion. If members ask such questions, I’ve tended to allow them on the basis that members know full well the type of answer that they might get.

Question No. 5—Health

5. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Health: What has the Government recently done to improve the availability of emergency mental health respite care in Dunedin?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I am pleased to confirm that Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand has now contracted to increase crisis respite capacity in Dunedin, from a one-bed service to a five-bed service. Having adequate crisis respite care is a much-needed part of the mental health and addiction system that’s been missing in Dunedin for some time. This expanded crisis respite care—as part of this Government’s commitment to mental health, and delivered under the Time for Change - Te Hurihanga programme—will be another tool to help support people to avoid going to hospital and will provide urgent support in a home-like setting for people experiencing mental distress.

Ingrid Leary: Who will be able to use these beds?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The beds will primarily be for people experiencing mental distress, but it’s anticipated this may include some people with addiction issues too. The beds are for people who present, for example, to the emergency department or their GP, and are distressed, expressing suicidal thoughts, who are manic—or whatever—and who can be supported outside of a hospital setting. It’s expected that the average stay will range between one and four nights, where they can be assessed and transferred to hospital, or, where they recover from the episode.

Ingrid Leary: Will the increase in bed nights cater for current and expected future demand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. Our Government has remained committed to not only addressing the deficit we inherited in mental health care from the previous Government but planning for our growing population’s future needs. Historically in this region, the region of Ōtepoti Dunedin, there has been only one bed contracted by the former district health board or Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, with no NGO clinical oversight. Demand and usage will be monitored and, if needed, it could be increased in the future to deliver addiction beds.

Ingrid Leary: How has Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand worked to ensure this service can operate at capacity?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Previously, the local provider Pact was only contracted to deliver one crisis respite bed from a small facility that wasn’t fit for purpose. As a result of feedback from the community, Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand identified the need for more capacity as soon as possible and worked with the provider to now increase its capacity to five.

Ingrid Leary: How many hospital beds at Dunedin Hospital does the Minister expect will be freed up by the increased capacity?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: An important focus over winter has been to support reducing pressure on our hospital system so that it has the capacity to care for those who need hospital-level care. If this respite service is used at capacity by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, mental health crisis response services, and primary care, then up to 1,825 bed nights each year will be freed up from being used in in-patient settings. This is important, as the system considers every possible step that can be taken to ease pressure on the front line at our hospitals should be taken.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Otago University economist Dennis Wesselbaum that the Government’s income insurance scheme will “increase unemployment, increase the duration of unemployment, reduce income, increase inequality, and lead to higher inflation”; if so, how can he justify asking Kiwis to pay for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, no, I do not agree with those comments made in December 2021. As I noted yesterday, we’re one of the few countries in the OECD that doesn’t have a scheme like this. Many countries have decades-long experience with social insurance schemes, and they generally believe that they are a fundamental part of a social security framework.

Nicola Willis: How does he reconcile his statement yesterday that details of this scheme are yet to be worked out with the commitment made in this year’s Budget forecast for jobs tax levies to be collecting $4.7 billion by 2026?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The characterisation the member makes is, once again, incorrect for what is a social insurance scheme. The member would also note that all of that money then recycles back out; that’s why it’s called a levy.

Nicola Willis: Does he think a New Zealander earning $60,000 a year, facing the fastest-rising prices in 32 years, can afford to pay $834 more tax each year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been indicated both yesterday and today, the scheme is not designed to come into force until at least 2024 or 2025. A person earning $60,000 a year would be paying $16 into the scheme per week and would receive, should they need to draw down on it, $780 a week. This is a scheme designed to support people who earn around $60,000 a year, who don’t have redundancy agreements, who don’t have health insurance, and who don’t have income insurance. This is a scheme common around the world as part of a social security framework.

Nicola Willis: Will he listen to New Zealanders who have spoken out against the jobs tax, including 15,000 Kiwis who have already signed the petition National launched yesterday, or is he determined to force through this tax, no matter what?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Here’s a deal for the member: if the member wants to debate the question of whether or not New Zealand should have an income insurance scheme, like most other countries in the OECD, then let’s debate that on the facts. This is a scheme common around the world. It’s a scheme to fill a gap that the National Party felt the need to fill the gap of after the Christchurch earthquakes. And when Mr Luxon went on his Go Swiss adventure in 2017, he and his colleagues in the business community supported this. The scheme has been designed with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions; it is an important part of a future social security framework.

Nicola Willis: Does he understand that asking families to give up more of their pay for his pet project will make it harder for them to pay their bills and build their own savings, and why is he prioritising his scheme over their needs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this scheme is about is making sure that hard-working people who lose their job through no fault of their own, like a redundancy or an illness like cancer, actually get some support to be able to get a new job, to be able to retrain. The member can continue to mischaracterise the scheme, but this is a scheme designed to help working New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: How has fast-track consenting supported the development of infrastructure in New Zealand, and what reports, if any, has he seen on infrastructure consenting costs outside of the fast-track process?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): A recent Infrastructure Commission report on consenting infrastructure projects found the costs of consents for medium-sized infrastructure projects have increased 150 percent over the last 10 years. Costs are 250 percent of what they were a decade ago and infrastructure developers are collectively spending $1.29 billion annually on resource consent processes, representing 5.5 percent of project costs. New Zealand is at the extreme end of approval costs with equivalent costs in the UK or the European Union being between 0.1 percent and 5 percent of project costs. The time taken to make decisions on consent applications has also increased in New Zealand by as much as 150 percent over 10 years. Fast-track consenting has cut the average time for consenting by 15 months and for larger infrastructure projects by 18 to 24 months.

Tāmati Coffey: How many projects have gone through the fast-track consenting process and how many jobs will they create?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Fifty-four projects have been referred for fast-track consenting and 30 projects have so far been consented. These consented projects are expected to provide up to 7,700 annualised full-time equivalent jobs.

Tāmati Coffey: What transport projects have been consented through the fast-track process?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Major transport projects include the Queenstown bypass, the Drury Central and Paerata stations, the Ngauranga to Pētone shared path, and the Picton ferry terminal redevelopment. These major projects all received consents far more quickly and at a lower cost than would have been the case through standard Resource Management Act (RMA) processes.

Tāmati Coffey: How many houses have been consented through the fast-track process?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A total of 10,193 housing consents have so far been referred for fast tracking and 4,142 have, so far, been consented. This has made a significant difference to increasing housing supply.

Tāmati Coffey: And will fast-track consenting be included in the replacement for the RMA?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Infrastructure Commission has confirmed, consents for infrastructure projects in New Zealand generally take too long and cost too much. Therefore, a form of fast-track consenting will continue in the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act. This will work in concert with other crucial changes which will flow from Strategic Planning Act plans into NBA plans via improved designations. These changes collectively will save the country many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the response he gave to the House last week that 29,189 people have been waiting more than four months on the surgical waiting list is the highest number recorded since October 2017, and how many of the 5,513 waiting more than 12 months on that list have presented to an emergency department for that condition while they waited for surgery?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, the figure given last week of 29,189 people waiting more than four months for surgical and other treatment was as at 31 July 2022, which is the most current data we have. As I also said last week, the number of people waiting longer than four months changes daily because of procedures being completed and people falling into that waiting period. While that number is the highest number of people waiting for surgical procedures since October 2017, the member should note, firstly, that our health system, like all others around the world, has suffered significant disruption because of the COVID pandemic. Secondly, disruption to planned care happened in order for hospitals to meet the demands created by COVID and, more recently, the winter flu season. Thirdly, waiting times in excess of four months have fluctuated throughout the pandemic as hospitals picked up the delivery of planned care when infections were low, such as going from 15,461 in May 2020 to 7,738 in September 2020, and 13,018 in March 2021 to 12,566 in June 2021. Fourthly, the health system is prioritising planned care right now, since the planned care task force started its work and since Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand’s chief executive directive in July. In response to the second part of the question, officials advise me that the relevant data is not collected at the time of presentation to an emergency department to know whether the condition a patient has presented with is related to a condition for which they may be awaiting treatment

Dr Shane Reti: Will every person who has been waiting more than 12 months be booked for surgery by this Friday, as directed by Health New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I’ve had from Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand is that good progress is being made in clearing the waiting list for those waiting more than 12 months. The latest data I saw suggested that that waiting list has fallen by 50 percent as at roughly the end of August, and I expect good progress to continue to be made.

Dr Shane Reti: In what time frame, then, can most of the 5,513 people who have already waited 12 months expect to have their surgery?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I think those who are waiting for their procedures can know is that, with the system we have now and the leadership it is under now, every effort is being made to make sure that those waiting the longest will get their treatment in a system that has also had to balance the need to continue to respond to COVID-19 and also deal with one of the worst flu outbreaks we have had in the history of this country.

Dr Shane Reti: Did the surgical wait-list go up by more than a thousand people over the three months since he formed his high-performance task workforce?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since the task force was established in May, this country has experienced the worst flu outbreak in its history—since 1918. I know that on “Planet National” you can have a global pandemic and a massive flu outbreak and the health system doesn’t bat an eyelid. In the real world, we have a health system that has to respond to every challenge before it and sometimes has to make difficult decisions when it makes priorities.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen reports that DHBs previously managed hospital waiting lists by declining people’s first specialist assessment on the basis that there was no space available on the waiting list?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that, as of a few years ago—certainly under the previous Government—the way that hospitals managed waiting lists was that if people could not be seen within a four-month period they were simply told, “You cannot come here; go back to your GP.”, and that data was never recorded.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that Waikato DHB created a second list where they moved people off the surgical list to send them back to their GPs?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that that member’s track record of getting his dates wrong and mischaracterising things continues apace. That did not happen.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (MP—Hamilton West) to the Prime Minister: Talofa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: Who does the Prime Minister think deserves to get diplomatic protection and police security: politicians who are being threatened by disruptive crowds, as mentioned by Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson last week, or should it be everyday New Zealanders who are seeing, on average, 10 ram raids a week in front of their eyes in broad daylight?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Decisions around security for politicians are operational.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: What does the Prime Minister say to Hamilton-based small and medium businesses who have been ram-raided and are having to pay for repairs out of pocket or face increased insurance premiums due to the inability of the Government to bring crime under control, and will the Prime Minister and her Government pay for the damages occurring on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by the funding that’s been provided to ensure that up to 500 businesses will be supported to protect and prevent the actions of those involved in ram raids. I welcome news overnight—as the police continue to ensure that those who are engaged are held to account—that there have been, just for example, 14 arrests just overnight relating to recent activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Waikato.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That doesn’t answer the question about—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, Dr Gaurav Sharma

Dr Gaurav Sharma: —thank you, sorry—that the arrest doesn’t actually answer the question: will the Government be paying for businesses who have been affected by ram raids?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been addressed.

Question No. 10—Broadcasting and Media

10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Yes. I stand by all the statements in the context that they were made.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm the $370 million merger of RNZ and TVNZ has no regulatory impact statement or cost-benefit analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm, as of yesterday, that there is $109 million per annum in new funding in terms of this new entity, and that the member has got her funding all out of sync. This is an investment in terms of New Zealand culture that the member seems to completely misunderstand. The $320 million that she keeps talking about in terms of creating a new merger is not true. In fact, the cost of the new merger is going to cost this Government, in terms of establishment, a mere $40 million over four years.

SPEAKER: The main part of that has not been addressed. You can ask an extra question.

Melissa Lee: Asking again, can the Minister confirm the $370 million merger of RNZ and TVNZ has no regulatory impact statement or cost-benefit analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll come back to the member on that.

SPEAKER: I think that deserves even another extra question.

Melissa Lee: Why does the Minister not know if, in fact, this huge move by the Government to merge the two biggest public media entities has, in fact, had a regulatory impact statement or even a cost-benefit analysis when they’re spending $370 million of taxpayer money?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve had a clear cost-benefit analysis in terms of this project.

Hon Members: Where?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Come to my office and we’ll show you.

Melissa Lee: Is it a good use of $370 million of taxpayers’ money in a cost of living crisis to merge RNZ and TVNZ when submitters to the select committee have said there is, and I quote, “no vision or substantial rationale for the merger, and it is rightly viewed as a doomsday machine if improperly handled.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve said this before that the problem of the National Party is that it’s never a good time to invest in anything. That was the same with the health system. That was the same with the housing set-up. It’s the same with the education system. The reality is, we see this entity as being incredibly important in terms of the New Zealand national identity, and I want to say to the member in this House—Maurice Williamson said the same thing when we set up Māori Television: how can you invest in Māori television when Māori health is so bad, when Māori education is so bad—

SPEAKER: Nō reira. E noho.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm he will continue to direct the merged RNZ and TVNZ entity, to quote his words, “change its attitude and culture”, and is it not an attempt to assert political control before the merger has even taken place?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Not at all. Not at all. No—not at all. We’re going to have a charter that the merger will be working by, but it’s better to get the rules straight from the start. The reality is, we want TVNZ to work in tandem with us, and they’re doing that because New Zealand has changed. We no longer have trust in national media. No longer is there trust in what’s happening at a national media level. We need a trusted public broadcaster, because national identity is incredibly important, and no longer do people trust New Zealand television or New Zealand radio. Our last survey told us that New Zealand radio is the second-most listened-to medium; New Zealand television is fourth—second and fourth. So we need a national broadcaster for a great public identity.

Melissa Lee: What does the Minister think “editorial independence” means?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It means the decision to be able to make your own decisions without Government influence. That is the intention of this entity. That is the way we will progress. That is the way we will proceed. There’s no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news. We will be clear that we require a change of culture. It’s not just about making money; it’s about New Zealanders feeling proud knowing who they are. We need a different New Zealand voice recognising Māori, Pasifika, Asian, and other ethnic minorities. It’s not just about one group any more.

Naisi Chen: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary, Naisi Chen. [Interruption] Order!

Naisi Chen: Talofa, Mr Speaker. So why is it important to invest in public media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: For the Opposition again, every democracy in the world invests in public media to support their democracies and culture. That’s the case of the BBC. That’s the case in Ireland, Australia, and Canada. We absolutely believe New Zealanders deserve that too. They should be able to see themselves and hear themselves. It’s not just about one group of people. There are currently pressures on our public media. They’re fighting for audiences at the moment with the multinational giants. Audiences, especially young people, have switched to online platforms. It can’t be about them just—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! That’s enough.

Melissa Lee: In his answer to questions yesterday, why did he say—and I quote—“we encourage people and agencies to give feedback. We don’t mind criticism.”, only to contradict himself by saying that the submitters who criticised the bill were wrong?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m allowed to have an opinion. I’m allowed to have a view. They have every right to put a submission; I have every right to give my opinion. That’s how it works. We encourage submitters to keep giving their views. If you want to ask me questions on their views, keep asking questions.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe that anyone who criticised him or the bill are, in fact, wrong?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sometimes, people will be right, and sometimes they will be wrong. That’s how it works sometimes with submissions. But we encourage the submissions and we’ve had some excellent submissions. But we don’t get all sensitive when there’s a bit of criticism. We encourage it; we support it. That’s why we’re going so well in the polls at the moment, and you’re not.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Immigration: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What changes has he announced to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Yesterday, I announced that the next steps in the Government’s response to global workforce shortages include providing 3,000 additional places for the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme for the coming year. The new RSE cap will allow access to 19,000 workers annually from participating Pacific countries, providing critical support to our horticulture and wine sectors. We’ve listened to feedback from workers and industries about the scheme, and have worked closely with them to ensure that we strike the right balance of incentivising local employment, bringing in additional workers, and requiring improvements to working conditions.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What has been different in the approach taken to setting the RSE cap this year?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This year, for the very first time, the RSE cap was sent through a robust tripartite process involving unions representing RSE workers, and employers from the horticulture and viticulture sectors. By working together to agree on key areas for improvements to the RSE scheme, this approach has added assurance to our decision to increase the cap and helped us to chart a way forward for ongoing tripartite engagement and improvement to working conditions. I want to thank the unions involved, including the Council of Trade Unions, FIRST, and AWUNZ, and members of the industry, including Horticulture New Zealand, Wine New Zealand, and Apples & Pears for engaging so constructively.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will RSE workers’ rights be improved under the scheme as a result of the cap increase?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the rights of RSE workers are a priority for our Government, and we’ve worked closely with the industry and unions to get their support to make improvements across five key areas as part of the cap increase. This includes improved benefits for RSE workers, particularly relating to sick leave and deduction for things like travel and wet weather gear; accommodation standards in housing; transparent information in their own languages for RSE workers about what support is available; improved management and oversight of poor RSE employers; and independent support for RSE workers, to assist them.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What reactions has he seen to his announcement about the RSE scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve seen a range of very positive reactions welcoming the announcement. Business New Zealand “welcome the Government’s announcement of another 3,000 places for seasonal workers to help ease workforce pressure”. FIRST Union’s general secretary Dennis Maga said, “The sick leave entitlement was long overdue.” And, finally, Horticulture New Zealand chief executive Nadine Tunley said, “This decision gives growers confidence to continue to invest as they go into the 2022-23 harvest season.”

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What are the next steps to progress improvements to the RSE scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the coming weeks, the Government will continue to consult and work with the industry and unions on further short-term improvements and employee safeguards to provide greater protection to workers. This will build on our wider first-principles view of the RSE scheme which, as I previously signalled, will commence in early 2023.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “the welfare system should not be used as a tool for the justice system”; if so, does she still support the use of the warrant to arrest sanction policy?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do stand by my statement. I also stand by our record of an 87 percent drop in sanctions that impact children since June 2017; 95,000 sole parents better off by $166 per week on average than they were in 2017; and a drop in the number of children in poverty by 66,500, because this Government is focused on making progress to improve the wellbeing of New Zealand families. In regards to the second part of the question, I do not support the use of the warrant-to-arrest sanction, but the work has paused. There is so much work under way in the welfare and employment areas. As Minister, I have to prioritise the work we have on the work programme. The accomplishments I listed off indicate we are getting the mahi done.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further work beyond advice that she has already received in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report does she need to do to end the warrant-to-arrest benefit sanctions she doesn’t agree with?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Cross-agency work would be required in order to develop the legislation and operationalise the removal. The extensive amount of work already under way by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) means that that is not possible at the moment. The work under way at the moment includes implementing child support pass-on; rolling out the increase in dental grants; leading the Working for Families review; working with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on the emergency housing review; rolling out the expansion of Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, and Māori trades training; working across Government on addressing youth crime and improving youth engagement; reducing and preventing debt; and continuing our social sector commissioning work. This is on top of our business as usual, which is supporting thousands of New Zealanders every day.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that record numbers of families have been sanctioned by the warrant-to-arrest sanction under her watch, leaving children without sufficient income to live with, when she doesn’t even agree with this harmful sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The number of people receiving a sanction for warrant to arrest has grown slowly since 2017 but can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. This is because the total notifications from the Ministry of Justice have increased. MSD does not control this. But if we look at the impacts that the two sanctions we have repealed have had compared to the warrants to arrest—one for children—I think we see some stark difference in numbers. The removal of section 192 was estimated to benefit 24,000 children, and the removal of the subsequent child policy was estimated to benefit over 40,000 children, based on 2021 data. That compares to around 975 children through warrant to arrest over the period of a year. We do have to prioritise. We can’t do everything at once. As I’ve said to that member, the work has paused on that particular sanction.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many more families with children is she comfortable sanctioning for things like outstanding parking fines before she starts prioritising ending a sanction that she doesn’t even agree with?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve given a really clear rationale for why that work needed to pause. I’m very much focused as well on ensuring that, where children’s parents are able to work, we have a welfare system with employment support that supports them to get the upskilling and training that they need to get into the employment that they’re able to get into. That is also good for those children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agreed with Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, who, when debating and voting against the introduction of the warrant-to-arrest sanction by National, said, “People who are on benefits are either criminals, drug takers or abusing their children in some way—this is the message these welfare reforms send.”; if so, why is she upholding a policy that treats people receiving a benefit as criminals, drug takers, or abusing their children in some way?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve said, I do not support the particular sanction, and I do agree with the comments that the Prime Minister has made in the past on this particular sanction, but for the reasons that I’ve already outlined—and it is around prioritising what’s on our work programme—it is a piece of work that I’ve had to pause.

Ricardo Menéndez March: When can she commit to begin prioritising the work to end the warrant-to-arrest sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m not going to commit to a time for that at the moment. As I’ve already outlined, we have a heavy work programme that is part of our Government’s welfare overhaul programme. Those reforms will take some time, but we have already accomplished a lot. There’s just much more to do, and we recognise that.

General Debate

General Debate

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I love this country, New Zealand. All of us are either people or descendants of people who have sailed and flown from every corner of the Earth for a better life. We live together, mostly in harmony, and work to give our children a better tomorrow than we had ourselves. And this is made possible by the only political system that’s ever worked: liberal democracy. Those words mean universal human rights and free and fair elections with universal franchise.

We should never forget that our country is the original liberal democracy—the first in human history to give every adult the right to vote. Thousands of New Zealanders went on to make the ultimate sacrifice defending it. They lost their lives in barbaric conditions because the opposite of liberal democracy—totalitarian racial supremacy—had to be stopped. Today, we’re fortunate to live with that inheritance. Today, our Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to “promote racial equality and cultural diversity.” Perhaps that’s what the commission had in mind when they said, “Give nothing to racism.” And we’re fortunate in this House that we do not have political parties that are overtly racist—or at least that’s what I thought.

I thought we’d never have a political party elected to our Parliament that openly and casually preached racial supremacy. I thought we all believed in being born free and equal, as Prime Minister Fraser signed up to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but unfortunately there is a party in this Parliament that openly and casually declares racial supremacy, and I’m calling today on their leaders to stop it. Here it is for all to see on the website of Te Paati Māori: “It is a known fact that the Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.” Let me say that again: “It is a known fact that the Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.”

This is not some nut-bar party from the backblocks of Europe. It is not some dark website in the corner of the dark web. This Te Paati Māori, who have two seats in our Parliament and claim to oppose racism. When this was brought to my attention, I wondered what the diplomatic way to deal with it might be. I thought of approaching their MPs, but given some of the things they’ve said about me and ACT, I wasn’t so sure if that would be effective. So I wrote to Meng Foon, the Race Relations Commissioner, five weeks ago, on 23 August, and I pointed out that Mr Foon regularly wades into public debates and perhaps he should call this out. Two weeks later, on 7 September, he wrote back and said, “I understand your concern and the sentence you highlight should have been constructed better.” Really?

So we’ve got a Race Relations Commissioner who thinks racial supremacy is OK, just maybe fix up the wording. I wrote back on 9 September and noted, within days of that statement, he’d made public statements calling out racially charged statements in local body elections. I called on him again to take action. He wrote back and said, “I’ve notified Te Paati Māori of my concerns and intention to meet and/or speak with them. I would like to have the ability to discuss those matters with them.” Maybe his stealthy methods are effective? They’re not. Two weeks later, it remains there for all to see on their website: “It is a known fact that the Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.”

A more realistic conclusion is that the Human Rights Commission is a pointless organisation that spends taxpayer money saying they’ll give nothing to racism but runs for the hills when real racism appears. That’s why the Human Rights Commission should go. But, with them having failed, ACT appeals to Te Paati Māori: take this racist statement off your website. It is not us; it does not belong in New Zealand’s democracy. And failing them acting, then it’s up to the people of New Zealand to see their true character and motivation, and make sure that they are never allowed anywhere near power.

That is not the best New Zealand can do. This country at its best is a modern, multi-ethnic liberal democracy with inclusion for all, and I watch with interest to see if all the usual suspects pile on and call out the Māori Party for this outrageous statement, as they should. If they don’t, ACT will because our country deserves freedom and equality.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the 2020 election campaign, the then National Party finance spokesperson had a bit of a nightmare: his alternative budget didn’t add up. And I mean that literally: it did not add up. It was about $4 billion short of what it should have been, and it scuttled the credibility that Mr Goldsmith might have had as spokesperson.

But the reality was that there was a deeper problem: the National Party’s fiscal Bermuda Triangle. Now, being the modest man that I am, I won’t dwell on the unnamed National MP who said that that was the most devastating lie of the election campaign—I won’t dwell on that—because the most important fact is that it was accurate, because the National Party tried to claim that it was possible to cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce debt all at the same time. It doesn’t add up, the triangle doesn’t work, and the public understood that at the 2020 election.

Well, guess what! Today, we have proof that the National Party is still stuck in the fiscal Bermuda Triangle. They still can’t make their plans add up. And what’s worse: their plans are so out of touch, they are even worse than when they last proposed them.

This was proved today by Christopher Luxon in Morning Report. In the space of 46 seconds, Mr Luxon entered, exited, and sank in the Bermuda fiscal Triangle. Now, he started out OK, because he said that our economy was in better shape than the United Kingdom—thank you very much, Mr Luxon, for that. But then he was asked, “Would you rule out further borrowing for tax cuts?” First he said “yes”, then he said “no”, and then when confronted with this question for a third time, Corin Dann said, “So, borrowing for tax cuts, that’s off the agenda?” Christopher Luxon? [Impersonating Mr Luxon] “Well, that’s a separate issue.”

No, it’s not. It is the issue. The issue is, how will the National Party pay for their tax plan? Let’s be really clear: this is a tax plan that the National Party leader and deputy leader have reiterated time and time again: tax cuts for the highest-earning New Zealanders, restoring tax breaks for landlords and speculators, indexation, and removing the bright-line test. Now, conservatively, that’s $6 billion that the National Party need to find somewhere for their tax cuts.

But there’s more. Chris Bishop this week said—and leaving aside the astounding gall of this statement—that he wants to get rid of the State house waiting list. That’s another $13 billion, conservatively, that the National Party need to find. But apparently there’s no borrowing for that, which means the only other answer to that is massive cuts to health, to education, to housing, to all of the social services—or it just means that, once again, the National Party’s plan does not add up.

And we are seeing today, in the United Kingdom, just what can happen when ideology buys into the reality of a constrained COVID world. The National Party’s recipes never change: trickle-down economics and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders at the very time where we need to be investing in social services. So come on, Mr Bayly, you were there—what’s happening in the fiscal Bermuda Triangle now? What’s happening in the fiscal Bermuda Triangle? Is it more debt? Is it cutting taxes? What is it, Mr Bayly? That’s the problem with the National Party. They’re stuck in the fiscal Bermuda Triangle.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we take the balanced approach that got us through COVID. We’ve got through COVID in as good a shape as any other country in the world—from a health outcome and from an economic outcome. Mr Bayly was a great finance spokesperson; he’s left out in the cold now. I still want you back, Mr Bayly. I miss you! But Mr Bayly, here’s the record: 3.3 percent unemployment, one of the lowest levels of public debt in the OECD, a 5 percent bigger economy than what we had before COVID, and massive reason to be optimistic. The tourists are back, immigration’s coming back, and international students are coming back.

As New Zealanders look to this summer, they know they have a Government that got New Zealand through COVID and has an economic plan for the future. On the other side of the House, they are stuck in their fiscal Bermuda Triangle with an economic plan that does not add up.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It’s a privilege and an honour to follow my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Normally, at this point in the debate, I would offer some witty riposte—I daren’t do that with Mr Robertson. But I do want to say what a privilege it is to work alongside a finance Minister who works in the truest and finest traditions of Labour Party finance Ministers, who takes grip of the economy and makes it serves the interests, not only in the short term but in the long term as well; not only in the interests of today but in the interests of working people in the long term, and I’m going to come back to that.

This Labour Government has operated in a world climate that is facing some major challenges: not only the aftermath of the pandemic—and we’re still working our way through that—but now with the war in Ukraine that is putting major pressure on economies around the world. But we have reason to be optimistic in New Zealand. We have reason to be positive about the outlook in New Zealand, because, as the Minister of Finance has just said, you look at what we have achieved in New Zealand—even though people have had a tough winter and had a tough year this year—and look at the record. We have low unemployment. We’ve had one of the highest levels of GDP growth in the last quarter of any country that we choose to compare ourselves with. And all the while, we have maintained, as well, vital public services, we’ve looked after them, and we’ve kept focused on both the short and the long term.

This Labour Government is doing what Labour Governments do, and is doing it well. We tackle the hard problems, and we tackle the problems of today as well. And we don’t just deal with the easy stuff; we deal with the problems that our predecessors left in the bottom drawer, left in the too-hard basket—which is what the previous Government did.

This Government has laid good foundations in the five years we’ve been in place. I look at our Minister of Education and the work that he’s done in our education system to improve its performance. I look at our track record—as the Minister of Finance just did—on our COVID pandemic performance where we saved lives and kept pressure off our public system, and we’ve now invested more in our public system than we ever have before.

As I said, the results speak for themselves: GDP growth; inflation tracking better than many other countries. We’ve got low unemployment—that doesn’t mean to say we don’t have the challenges of labour shortages, we do. They are challenges that the world is experiencing, and we’ve got them here. But that’s why I look to our Minister of Immigration, who’s doing an outstanding job of repositioning our immigration policies, our immigration platform, getting more people across the border, and focusing on the skills we need, along with our Minister of Education and others, who are focusing on investing in New Zealanders to play their part in our economy and their part in the future as well. So we’ll continue to work with the hospitality sector. We’ll continue to recruit the nurses that we’re recruiting offshore now—400 applications, I think, since July, more than 300 approved, three quarters of them for our public health system, a quarter of them for the private sector—things are going well in that respect.

But I want to deal with one very important policy initiative that the National Party, in their typical fashion, has decided they’re allergic to, but is actually very important, and that is a social income insurance scheme. It’s very important, and I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Grant Robertson has been doing on that. That is a programme that deals with the unfortunate incidence of redundancy that happens. And it is there to support the thousands of New Zealander workers who face the prospect of redundancy but without any redundancy benefits, because they don’t have it in their employment agreement, collective or otherwise—well, some do, but many don’t.

But it also deals with those who fall sick during their working life, get cancer, or get some other sickness and need time out and who don’t otherwise qualify for support. Without this sort of scheme, those are the people who are plunged into poverty and uncertainty. And, of course, it’s not just good for workers either. This is a scheme that’s good for business. For those who do have a redundancy scheme, it alleviates pressure off their balance sheet, for one thing; they don’t have to carry the contingent liability of redundancy. They don’t know when it’s going to be triggered, but they know that they have to have the means for it if they sign up to employment agreements with it. But it’s actually good for them too, because it gives them certainty about their workforce when something untoward happens and a worker has to take extended time out. But it means that worker is supported and then is available to come back if that’s what they and the employer choose to do. Or it means that worker—if that’s the situation they’re in—can get other training to be an active member in the labour market when they recover from their sickness or otherwise are ready to go back to work.

That’s what that scheme does; that’s why it’s so important. It’s a good, progressive Labour scheme, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s putting it in place.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Here we have another Minister double-counting the nurse numbers. Andrew Little is fudging the numbers because he knows that the numbers of nurses applying from offshore for a visa to come to New Zealand are so abysmally bad that they’re worse than when the borders were closed. Only 75 nurses from offshore in 12 weeks have applied. He’s double-counting the numbers like Michael Wood did yesterday, claiming there were 300 nurses applying for an Accredited Employer Work Visa. Most of those workers are onshore and are already here, and are applying for a different type of visa. The numbers don’t lie, Minister Little—75 nurses. That’s 26 a month, compared to 57 a month when the borders were closed. These guys can’t organise themselves out of a paper bag.

It’s been a rough few weeks for the Minister of Immigration, our latest immigration Minister. Things are so bad under his watch that an incident management team have been set up to go into Immigration New Zealand, which is the first time that we can find out that this has ever happened. A team of 27 senior managers from across the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment were sent in to sort out the problems caused by a trio of hapless immigration Ministers.

Things are so bad that Michael Wood had to scrape the bottom of the good-news barrel last week by arranging a patsy question to himself about the 2021 Resident Visa (RV21) processing. “We’re on track”, he proudly proclaimed, “to meet the deadline of 80 percent completed by June 2023.” Only a Labour Minister in a Government that has got such a woeful track record of delivery could pat himself on the back for a delayed deadline that his Government had pushed out by six months. The truth is that we were never on track at any stage—not even for a single week—to meet the 12 months that they’d originally promised. They pushed it out to what they thought it would be, which was mid - next year. The reality is that Immigration New Zealand are already making noises about the fact that that’s going to have to be delayed again because they keep shifting people out of RV21 to fight other fires. So now Michael Wood is having to celebrate by patting himself on the back for a delayed deadline which is, in fact, an actual broken promise.

Then poor Michael Wood had to watch his Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, this week, during the Mood of the Boardroom survey launch speeches, under pressure from top CEOs from around the country who were lamenting the skills shortages in New Zealand. Grant Robertson said—and I quote—“It will take some time for New Zealand’s immigration settings to kick in.”, and then he said, “I do believe that in summer, we will get workers here.” Mate! Someone tell him he’s dreaming.

You can’t trust a Government that promised us 20,000 workers back in February, when 1,000 showed up. So while Grant Robertson makes these empty promises to the CEOs in the Mood of the Boardroom, the skilled migrant pathway to residence—the skilled migrant category (SMC)—remains closed, and it has been since March 2020. The message has been sent loud and clear to skilled migrants around the world that “You are not welcome.”, and skilled workers are choosing Australia and Canada.

We are 12 months too late to open the SMC. We had two years with borders closed to sort this out, but they never did it, and the leaks coming out of Immigration New Zealand are that they’re going to reopen the SMC next month. Well, too little, too late. The workers have already moved to Australia, and if we want to wait for immigration settings to kick in, as Grant Robertson says, things are just going to get worse, because the immigration settings that are yet to kick in are the fact that the right of partners of skilled workers to an open work visa is extinguished from December. It’s hard enough to attract skilled workers in the current settings we’ve got now, and this is just another roadblock that will make workers choose Australia over New Zealand. Top companies like Rocket Lab will tell the Minister this, but the question is whether he will do something about it.

Then, yesterday, poor Michael Wood had to double-count the nurses, like Andrew Little did today, and if things hadn’t already gone from bad to worse for the poor immigration Minister, in the Estimates debate a couple of weeks ago, Michael Woodhouse asked him a very simple question: what is the current balance of the memorandum account? The memorandum account, for those who are watching, is the day-to-day operational account of Immigration New Zealand that usually tracks towards zero. The costs of Immigration New Zealand are offset by the visa fees, and when he was asked what the current balance of this was, the Minister answered, ‘Well, it’s about negative $14.7 million, tracking down from $18.1 million.” Well, he was only about $130 million out, and he still hasn’t come down to the House to correct his answer.

The fact is that the taxpayer has had to put in almost $300 million worth of funds to prop up a department that is failing New Zealanders. In fact, next year the memorandum account is due to be negative $220 million, so the poor, hapless immigration Minister has had a rough few weeks, and I can’t see anything getting any better soon.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The saying “Think global, act local” is certainly true for me. Foreign affairs and local government urges one to focus the mind on issues ranging from rural water supplies for our most isolated communities, to harnessing the potential of our young people, growing the Māori economy, while addressing the most pressing concerns beyond our borders—from climate change, to the war in Ukraine, to the impacts of a global pandemic. So much of what we experience is driven by global factors.

Europe is entering unchartered waters this winter with energy prices 10 times higher than before Russia’s war on Ukraine. Globally, diesel prices increased 74 percent in the last year. Some expect inflation in the UK to reach 18 percent in the first quarter of 2023, the highest level for the UK since 1976. US inflation is at its highest in a generation and there are fears of entrenchment. The Chinese economy is slowing, with growth below 4 percent, and they’re still focused on a COVID elimination strategy that sees more than 40 cities in lockdown. Declining orders from China and Hong Kong are causing concern across the rest of Asia. Over in Australia, the global downturn could have a significant impact on the economy of our closest partner.

Here, at home, we’re not immune to global impacts on our economy. Our inflation, though below the OECD average, has caused a significant cost of living crisis for New Zealanders, and hardship for many. It has required high levels of Government support, and we’ve stepped up with the cost of living payment for low and middle income earners, fuel excise cuts of 25 cents per litre to help people fill up the petrol tank and get to work and school, and we’re working with the supermarket sector so that Kiwis can pay a fair price at the checkout. In addition to that, we’ve increased Working for Families, superannuation, the student allowance, and main benefits from April of this year. In infrastructure, we’re moving after decades of neglect—exposed by councils, the Auditor-General, health authorities, and others—that has resulted in toxic brown water spilling out of household taps. We’re strengthening the foundations our economy is built on, especially in infrastructure, through our waters reform.

The one thing we cannot afford to lose sight of is the infrastructure deficit that we face. We’re confronting challenges because we have an economic advantage and a Government philosophy that is, in many cases, unique to New Zealand. The economy is nearly 5 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic—similar to Australia, and ahead of the US, the EU, the UK, and Canada. Since July 2020, more than 200,000 New Zealanders have taken up free apprenticeships or trades training. We’re backing Māori and Pacific aspirations. Our Māori and Pacific economies contain massive, massive potential. By realising the potential of Māori-owned land and training our rangatahi through initiatives like Mana in Mahi and the cadetship programme, we’re ensuring all parts of the New Zealand economy have the same opportunities to grow.

The state of the world is not cause for despair in totality. We need to remain optimistic as we come through one of the most difficult winters in memory. These are challenges, but we can get through it. And it’s important to ensure that we’re investing where it matters: better health, education, mental health, and housing. We’re also preparing for what the world might throw at us at this very uncertain time. We’re keeping a lid on debt and making important investments to deliver a high-wage, low-emissions economy that provides greater security in the good times and the bad. New Zealand is well positioned to respond to the challenges ahead, whether it be health and safety of our drinking water, war, or pandemics.

Under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, our Government has responded to a global pandemic where there was no rule book; responded to our climate change challenge and is focusing on the needs of the Pacific; and responded to conflict and crisis around the world to buffer the negative impacts—all the time, balancing responsible economic management while caring for people. That’s why there’s cause for optimism. That’s why we need to continue to move forward.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Housing, under this Government, is a social and economic disaster. In no area more than housing has this Government failed to deliver. They are simply incompetent and incapable of fixing issues in New Zealand society. Big talk in Opposition; utter failure to deliver in Government.

First we had the KiwiBuild promise: 100,000 houses in 10 years. Where are we up to? Fourteen hundred built, so far, in five years. I’ve done the numbers. We’ve just ticked over the fifth-year anniversary of KiwiBuild. We’ll complete the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses in the year 2308.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, fantastic!

Harete Hipango: Appalling.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll be long gone. Judith Collins will be long. Harete Hipango will be long gone. Barbara Edmonds will be long gone. Mr Speaker, you, sir, I’m sad to say, will be long gone, because KiwiBuild is not going to be completed.

Members might remember the now Prime Minister in the 2017 election debate, waxing lyrically about kids living in cars. She said, “I refuse to stand by while children sleep in cars.” Back then, around a hundred New Zealand kids, shamefully, lived in cars. The number now is nearly five hundred—480. It should be to the enduring shame of this incompetent and useless Government that practises kindness—or at least preaches kindness but can’t put it into practice—that tomorrow morning, hundreds of New Zealand children and hundreds of New Zealand families will wake up in a car. The Prime Minister has broken her promise.

Phil Twyford said, five years ago, rents will fall under Labour. Phil Twyford said that. I’ve got the quote. He said that under Labour’s policies, rents will fall. Yet today, we see TradeMe reporting that tenants continue to feel the pinch as median average rents remain at an all-time high. Rents are up—in the last five years—$140 per week on average. In Lower Hutt, they’re up $225 a week on average in the last five years.

Phil Twyford used to say that it’s a disgrace that the Government spends $90,000 per day on emergency housing. Well, guess what! The Government now spends a million dollars a day housing people in motels.

Hon Louise Upston: A day?

CHRIS BISHOP: A day. We’ve just ticked over, two months ago, a billion—not a million; a billion; “B” for Billy, with a capital “B”—dollars spent on housing people in motels. Four-thousand households live in motels. Four-thousand kids will wake up tomorrow morning in a motel.

The Government said they would fix the State house wait-list. The Prime Minister likes to say, wrongly, that the Government’s built 10,000 State houses. I heard Kiri Allan say it on radio this morning—she said, “Oh, no, don’t worry, we’ve built 10,000 public houses.” Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Guess how many Kāinga Ora houses, Housing New Zealand houses, the Government’s actually built in net terms in five years.

Hon Louise Upston: How many?

CHRIS BISHOP: Two thousand six hundred. Pathetic number. They demolished 4,600. They ignore that bit. They don’t count the net number. They’ve demolished or sold 4,600 and built net 2,600. The Government said they’d stop the State house sell-off; they still sell State houses. Another broken promise. So, in net terms, 2,601 new Kāinga Ora houses. So how do you get to the 10,000? Well, 4,000 of the 10,000 are not new builds. It’s not new housing; it’s an existing house that’s being leased by a community housing provider that now accesses the income-related rent subsidy. It’s called a redirect. Four thousand of the 10,000 purported new public houses are just redirects. They’re not new houses whatsoever; it’s a redirect. It’s an existing house. The Government has bought 1,400 houses. Again: not a new house.

So when the Prime Minister and Kiri Allan and all the other Labour MPs, probably most of whom are sitting on the backbench, are rampaging around the country, saying, “Oh, don’t worry, we’ve built 10,000 public houses.”, you sitting over there need to know: that is wrong. The Government has not built 10,000 new public houses; instead, every metric is worse. The wait-list is up by 20,000. Emergency housing is up by a matter of thousands. And people in the most severe and urgent need of State housing—820 on the wait-list—now wait 421 days for a State house. This is a Government that came to power promising a lot, but they refuse to practise what they preach in Opposition. They’re incompetent.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must start by saying that the contributions from the Opposition today and in general over the last wee while remind me somewhat of Winston Churchill, and not in a good way—not in the statesmanlike way, not in the profound way, but in the way that they just ooze pessimism, and I’m sorry for that visual. The contributions were delivered by an Opposition with an unfortunate, pessimistic disposition, and when I see that unfortunate, pessimistic disposition and hear it in this House, I’m reminded that it was Winston Churchill who once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” We know on this side of the House that the Opposition are simply on the wrong track when they have to resort to that sort of pessimism and talk down our economy, talk down our future, simply to make their point.

The reality is that there is a really strong cause for optimism in New Zealand. New Zealanders are hard-wired to be more optimistic than not. It’s how we work. It’s how people work. It’s functional, it’s adaptive, and it’s the way things go. New Zealand has cause for optimism because we share three main advantages, and they are our people-first COVID response, our strong economic position, and our proven team. Let’s just go back through those three things in a little bit more detail.

Let’s go firstly with our people-first COVID response, which we know saved lives and protected our economy. But, more important, it also demonstrated the values of this Government—the fact that if you put people first always, good things happen. People are the heart of our economy, and that is always the right way to conceive of these issues.

The second thing is our strong economic position. It was by design; it certainly was not by accident, as is often insinuated, and it sees us starting the next phase of our economic recovery in a much stronger position than many others that we might compare ourselves to, despite facing the very same global issues and the very same global cost of living pressures that we all find ourselves facing at the moment. But what we do know is that people’s incomes are growing at the highest rate since records began.

More homes have been built in the past year than since records began. The size of our economy is larger than what it was pre-COVID, and our Kiwi exports are in demand. We’re in demand. It doesn’t seem that long ago that I remember New Zealand Prime Ministers having to pay to get on American talkback shows. Now we have world looking at us. We are in demand, we are on that stage, and that stage means something.

The third thing is our proven team—the same team that got us through COVID-19 is now using those same smarts to get us through the tough times we’re now facing, and we are facing tough times. No one denies that. There’s no easy fix but at least we’re taking some action to ease those pressures, and the National Opposition can guffaw but their record is to simply vote to not support Kiwis. They’ve voted against the wage increases. They’ve voted against the cost of living assistance. They’ve voted against the winter energy payment and increasing benefits. They’ve got no answers unless you conceive of ill-focused tax cuts to the wealthiest with a $6 billion price tag that either means that we’re borrowing more money or, presumably, given recent announcements in that direction, that they’re simply slashing more services. That’s their answer.

New Zealanders, as I said, are hard-wired to be more optimistic than not. It’s adaptive, it’s functional, and it’s how we work. It means that when hard times come, and they do—hard times come and go—we understand, as people who are destined to be optimistic, that these things are temporary. They don’t last forever. They’re not permanent. We get up, we get on with it, and we look to the future with that optimism that our Minister of Finance has so ably couched his opening contribution in today.

We are a country that is in demand, as I said, and that’s no small feat. We’re ready with, I think, one of the best Governments in our history in place to tackle whatever the world throws at us next. We’re full of optimism, full of pride, and full of all the thankful and prideful things that we should remember from the last five years. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. If I may ask a question to members in the House, and to those who may be listening along at home today, it’s a question about whether any of us in here have ever had a drink when we haven’t necessarily felt like we really wanted to, if we’ve ever had more of a drink than we wanted to, if we’ve ever drunk alcohol just for the sake of fitting in.

It’s Mental Health Awareness Week, and five years ago I had the privilege of delivering my maiden speech in this place with my colleague Golriz Ghahraman. In that speech, I said, “Too many of those we serve and represent are navigating insecure housing and insecure work. When you don’t know your neighbours or your co-workers to any depth, and you have a problem, you’re not inclined to talk about it. You internalise it and individualise it. It’s your problem. It’s therefore a problem with you. Without strong communities, without mainstream recognition of the power of collective action, we don’t hear each other’s voices and we don’t put our finger on [the] systemic issues that … we need each [other to resolve].”

Around two years after that speech, the Government released its commissioned mental health and addiction inquiry, He Ara Oranga. The central premise of that inquiry reflects all of the contemporary research about mental health and addiction. It shows us that, much like our physical health, all of us are born with the genetic makeup that we have inherited from our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and so on. Basically, we are born into this world with brains that may have inherited a greater or lesser potential for development of mental ill health, like physical ill health. But, fundamentally, what that report found is that it is our environments, the opportunities that we have access to, our circumstances, the communities that we live in, the systems and structures, and the rules and the regulations that we live within that either can enable or disable.

The question for this House is whether we want to go about creating those enabling environments, or continue to perpetuate those disabling environments. The good news in He Ara Oranga, like, actually, the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group review Turuki! Turuki!, is that our Parliament has some pretty clear recommendations about how we can go about making those enabling environments.

Here, I really want to drill down into some specific recommendations where they were very straight-up on what it is that we can do about drugs. All substances, all drugs, can cause harm. The question is whether we want to go about recognising the reality that those substances exist regardless of whether we want them to or not, to create rules, regulations, environments, circumstances, situations, systems, and structures to reduce that harm. Criminal prohibition doesn’t go about getting rid of those substances; it pushes them underground, as was reflected in He Ara Oranga, and what this report said is that the best thing that we could possibly do to go about reducing the harm that these substances create is to create sensible regulation, grappling with the reality that these substances exist.

They didn’t limit these recommendations to illicit drugs or illicit substances; they also included the most harmful drug that we have in our society, legal or illegal—that is, of course, alcohol. So the question then becomes: what can we do about it? Well, there were two really clear recommendations when you drill down through both the mental health and addiction inquiry and the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group review, as commissioned by the Labour Government in the last term, one of which is to implement the recommendation of the former Health Promotion Agency to remove the special appeals processes so that communities can go about putting in place local alcohol policies that work for them, putting people over profit.

One of the other things that we can go about doing is to finally do something with the ministerial forum commissioned back in 2014 by the former National Government, chaired by Sir Graham Lowe, that said that we need to go about getting rid of the glamorisation and normalisation of alcohol from our sports in this country, like we did with tobacco decades ago. Members in this House can do something with these recommendations, and, in fact, they have an opportunity to do so with a bill that’ll be in front of them in about a month’s time. That bill, of course, is my alcohol harm minimisation bill. I want to this afternoon acknowledge Hāpai te Hauora, Alcohol Healthwatch, and dozens—dozens—of other organisations and public health experts who put their names on the line to support the petition that was tabled today and accepted by one Arena Williams. And I want to thank my Labour colleagues, those who have indicated their support, and encourage National to do the same.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): 谢谢, e te Mana Whakawā, and talofa. Our economy is fit for today’s environment because we have the right leadership to lead this country: the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson. May I remind the House of the three goals that the Government had set out at the beginning of this term. One was to continue to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. It was to continue accelerating the recovery and rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19. And, lastly, it was to continue to lay the foundations for the future, including addressing key issues such as climate change, housing affordability, and child poverty.

It’s the first time I’ve spoken since the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and I want to make a contribution to acknowledge her leadership. The late Queen Salote III of Tonga was the only monarch who was a female in 1918. The world didn’t know that until 1953 at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. The monarch of Tonga—the Queen of Tonga—declined on a rainy day in London to cover her carriage because she had stated that it was her respect for Queen Elizabeth. The people of London actually acknowledged the Queen of Tonga by writing songs about her, such as “Linger Longer, Queen of Tonga”. Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Tonga later that year, in 1953. On 30 June 1965, Queen Elizabeth II bestowed upon her—the first woman ever in the world—the title of Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. This was in respect of the relationship that the two Queens had at the time.

The same year, in December, here in Auckland, Queen Salote of Tonga passed away. Queen Elizabeth had sent a plane from England to take the Queen of Tonga home to Tonga. That is leadership and that is a demonstration—as bestowed upon these two Queens, the late Queen of Tonga and the late Queen Elizabeth II—of respect. If it wasn’t for Queen Elizabeth II, most people wouldn’t know where Tonga is, and I want to say toka ā Kuini ‘ofeina ‘o Pilitānia.

I come back to the House. Our economy is today the best ever it can be because of the leadership of our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister. From the flax roots of Papakura, I want to bring two issues that are actually working well in Papakura. Auckland Transport (AT) Local at the moment, on-demand rideshares have been trialled last year and up until later on this year, in October. The rideshares mean that for the last 12 months locals have been able to—there was a bus route that was redundant and most people didn’t use that bus route—they didn’t use it because it wasn’t working for the community. AT had brought this rideshare in, and because of the half-price public transport, locals are using this rideshare, with over 18,000 trips since it began.

What the community are saying is that the half-price public transport from Flax Bush, in Papakura, is working from the community. Ramona Durie is a budget adviser for Christian Care Budget Services in Papakura. She tells me every day when I see her that the winter energy payment and the cost of living payment are making a difference to everyday New Zealanders, to everyday Papakura people. She sees people who are in hardship. That’s why they come to budgeting services.

Last week we had the Onehunga High School whakatau for their Tongan leadership group. All 15 students were here in Parliament. Mr Speaker, they told me that they had loved what you had shared with them about faith and your family as being important to being here. They also said to the Acting Prime Minister at the time, the Hon Grant Robertson, what a difference the funds made that we provided as the Government to build classrooms at the school—the head girl, Christina Elone, was in tears when she thanked the Acting Prime Minister at the time—what a difference it made for students at Onehunga High School.

I just want to say that we are in this environment because we have the right leadership that provides for New Zealand to continue keeping us safe from COVID-19, accelerate our recovery from COVID-19, and continuing laying the foundations for the future.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over two months ago, I put it to this House that the Prime Minister cannot even bring law and order into her own electorate of Mount Albert, that she cannot keep the streets of Mount Albert safe. It is now true that she cannot keep the malls safe, the businesses safe, and our families safe. It is definitely true, and you can ask anyone. The terrified store owners, shop workers, and staff at St Lukes mall don’t feel safe anymore. We know. The Hon Mark Mitchell and I actually visited the mall and talked to the people there and some of them are permanently choosing to move to a safer place. They’re quitting their jobs because they do not want to work in an environment where they feel vulnerable.

That is a terrible indictment on a Government who apparently cares about people. Oh no; they don’t, actually. They prefer to look after themselves. The MPs who might need lamingtons actually need security detail, but people who have guns pointed at them, who have batons beating down their doors and things stolen from their stores—work they have put heart and soul into—are not being protected by this Government. Last month, I spoke to shopkeepers who are actually sleeping on the floor of their shops because they don’t feel they’re protected. That is just one issue that this Government is failing at.

Today at question time, I put some questions to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media, who is spending $370 million of taxpayer money—$370 million of taxpayer money—to create a new public media entity replacing RNZ and TVNZ, both of which, put together, are worth less than the money they are spending on this new venture. I asked the Minister whether it, in fact, had a regulatory impact statement (RIS). He couldn’t actually answer that.

I asked him if it had had a cost-benefit analysis done. After several questions, he told me I could come to his office and get them from him. So guess what I did! I turned up. I didn’t actually have the swipe card to go up to his office, so I had to wait downstairs and get reception to ring his office. His office was rung. I had to wait about 15 minutes—I guess that’s what it took his senior private secretary or the senior staff to print the material for me.

Guess what! [Holds up document] The bit in pink is the regulatory impact statement—that is the regulatory impact statement. Members of Parliament normally require a little bit more than that. Literally what it says is that it is exempt from it, because it has done a strong public media business case. Guess what the Minister’s office printed for me! Not the cost-benefit analysis, but the strong media business case. But guess what! This is what comes: the redacted version that is available publicly, and it has no costs, no money that we can track.

There is absolutely no transparency—so typical of this Government. There is no RIS, no cost-benefit analysis—which members of this House should have—to decide whether this is a good idea. There is no transparency. How can members genuinely say that the $370 million that the Government will be wasting on an entity replacing RNZ and TVNZ is good money being spent for a good purpose? With this document? I’m sorry, members; I certainly can’t tell if it’s good. I know it’s bad, because there is a cost of living crisis in New Zealand and $370 million could wipe out the waiting list of people waiting for cancer medication, and there would be money left over to deal with tens of thousands of patients waiting for surgery. This is a failure. This is a Government that is not delivering to New Zealanders. I say we need to end this Government.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I have been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for Godot because there’s no plan coming from the other side of the House. I was hoping they were going to talk about their fantastic tax cuts for the rich, the ones that would give Christopher Luxon $18,000, should he become the Prime Minister, and yet give a cafe worker $2 a week difference in their tax. But no, they didn’t even go there. All they did was nit-pick, complain, grumble, and be sad sacks about what this Government has been doing to make things better for New Zealand. The reason I wanted to hear a plan was because I want to know what they plan to do for women. What does the National Party plan to do for women? I haven’t heard a single idea. And I’m not expecting much, either, because when I look at the opposite side of the House I don’t see much diversity.

Fifty-four percent of our members are women. So we have an opportunity to make a difference, and, boy, have we been using it. We have got the record number of women in Cabinet positions. We’ve made huge differences to women—to mothers and to working mothers. We’ve got the Best Start payment, providing an extra $65 a week for the parents of newborns. We’ve recorded the lowest gender pay gap in recent history. We’ve introduced a $5.5 billion package for families. We brought free and healthy lunches into schools. That is the stuff that women care about.

We have expanded school-based health services and are making doctors visits free for children under 14. We’ve reduced the compulsory school fees—oftentimes, that is coming out of the budget that women use to run the house. We have delivered the largest ever funding boost for primary maternity services. We’ve extended paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks. We have increased abatement thresholds. We’ve strengthened equal pay legislation and delivered record pay settlements in the feminised sectors. We’ve ensured free period products for all primary, intermediate, and secondary schools, and for kura.

We’ve increased leadership in the public sector. We’re reducing the gender pay gap, as I said. We’ve passed world-leading legislation that is giving women leave if they have a miscarriage—that is a world-leading piece of legislation, led by friend and colleague Ginny Andersen. We have more women on public boards than ever. We have employment action programmes tailored specifically for Māori, Pacific, and Asian women, who experience the largest pay gaps. We have women who’ve been targeted with COVID funding. We’ve removed abortion from the Crimes Act—it is now being treated as a health issue. I still don’t know what the Leader of the Opposition’s position really is on that. One minute he votes one way, another minute he’s not ruling out which way he’s going to vote—we don’t know, as women, what National is going to do in the space of women’s reproductive health, should they ever get into Government.

Now, last night we passed the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. That is going to make a difference for 28,000 women who have never been able to access ACC in one of the very critical areas around maternal health, and I am so pleased that our Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, has seen that through. Now, what have we had from National? Well, nothing—not even tax cuts. They haven’t even mentioned tax cuts today. I don’t feel comfortable and confident as a woman that they will be there to look after me, to look after my sisters, to look after my mother, to look after my daughters. They don’t have a plan. They’ve been miserable. They’ve been pessimistic. They’ve made us all feel quite depressed.

You can bet your bottom dollar that, with the lack of diversity that we see and their lack of interest in these issues, when they make all the cuts that they say they’re going to—when they stop spending—it is the women who will suffer first. That is always what happens. And so I invite people listening to this debate, I invite people sitting at home thinking about how their world is looking at the moment—don’t get sucked in to the pessimism from the other side. If you’re a woman, think very carefully about who is going to be looking after you going into the future—this Government that has delivered for women, that has delivered for children, that has delivered for minority groups, for people who don’t sit squarely in the mainstream; or are you going to go with an Opposition who normally advocate tax cuts for the rich but, perhaps because it’s Wednesday, perhaps because they’re tired, haven’t even come up with a single plan for economic recovery.

This side of the House is doing well by the economy. I want to thank all New Zealanders for their part in it, and there is good cause to be optimistic.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with much pleasure that I’m talking in this debate. Of course, we all heard Mr Robertson earlier, struggling with this concept about how you balance the books in New Zealand. He likes to term it “Bermuda Triangle”. But, of course, I think what’s happening now is they’re starting to see the shonky economics that Mr Robertson has been perpetuating for the last five years. This is a Minister that has just overseen one of the worst cost of living crisis, and the member who has just resumed her seat, Ingrid Leary, she talks about making it harder for women when the cost of living crisis is exactly what is going to make it harder for women and their families. That is really where it is hurting at home—the money; trying to make ends meet—and we’ve got thousands of people now vulnerable because of the cost of living crisis.

I think the issue around what Mr Robertson was talking about—he has trouble with the concept of how to balance the books. I think the Mood of the Boardroom survey just very recently is showing that people are now understanding the shonky economics that he has perpetuated. I am reminded of the great saying by Lincoln: “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.” That is coming home to roost for this Government, and for this finance Minister. This is a man, this finance Minister, who has overseen the doubling of New Zealand’s debt. It’s increased by over $60 billion—

Todd Muller: That’s outrageous.

ANDREW BAYLY: —and it’s going to continue Mr Muller, because for this Minister of Finance, even though he’s taking an extra $41 billion of new additional tax every year, that is not enough. He is going to continue to run a deficit this year and the next year, and that is why this Government is in such trouble—because it spends like mad.

Of course, what that means is that New Zealand has had the second-highest response to COVID, of which some of it, I’ve got to say, has been OK. We’ve had $60 billion spent, of which $25 billion went to help people to pay workers in their businesses, and of course that was a good thing, because, as some of us know—unfortunately, not enough in the Labour Government understand—it is the small businesses that drive this economy, that create the taxes that ultimately leads to us as a Government being able to fund new schools, new hospitals, all the things that we need to do in this country. So apart from the $25 billion of spend that’s happened over the last 2½ years, you’ve got to ask: where has the other money gone? All right, let’s be generous; there was probably another $10 billion that he spent that was OK. That leaves another $25 billion that has been spent by this Government over the last 2½ years, and not one person in this House would be able to identify any big strategic change that has occurred as a result of it. It has just disappeared into the wind, never to be seen, and, of course, that’s $25 billion of additional debt that future generations have to pay down.

So I have to ask: what has that $25 billion that’s been spent—that no one knows—resulted in? I’ll give you some examples. If we’d taken that $25 billion and said, “Let’s do the cross-Auckland harbour tunnel.”, that’s roughly about $10 billion. We could have done that; we could have committed to that 2½ years ago. We could have funded all of the infrastructure transport needs for Wellington—roughly $6.5 billion; the total programme. We could have ticked that off. We could have funded the new Dunedin Hospital. I know it’s under way, but it’s about $1.5 billion. We could have said, “Let’s do it, and let’s do it in a hurry.” We could have funded—and I’ve got Mr Muller here down in Tauranga—the new motorway, State Highway 29, from the Kaimais down to the port. And, of course, that would have driven some economic gains, but don’t worry about that. That’s probably another billion bucks. And, on my reckoning, I’m at $20 billion. I’ve still got $5 billion to spend. And that is the scale of undisciplined spending.

SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I present a legislative statement on the Charities Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Charities are vital to our social infrastructure and our nation’s wellbeing, stability, and health as a democracy. The charitable sector is broad and diverse. It’s made up of large national charities, regional community entities, and local groups such, as whānau, hapū, and iwi bodies, Pacific, and ethnic community organisations, churches, sports clubs, and so many more. They provide services that keep people safe, help them in times of need, and support them to live with dignity and to thrive. Charities make an important contribution to our society.

I also want to acknowledge that it’s been a particularly challenging few years, and our community and voluntary sector has acted swiftly and often adapted the way that they work to support those who needed that additional support. I want to acknowledge that and the fact that there are lessons in their response for Government.

It is also a large sector. There are over 28,000 registered charities. Last year, it was reported that the equivalent of more than 145,000 people worked full time in the charitable sector. On top of that, close to 50 percent of New Zealanders volunteer either with an organisation or directly into their community. Charities also contribute to the strength of our economy, having spent almost $20 billion last year.

This is also the sector where I spent most of my working life prior to entering Parliament. So it’s an absolute privilege to read the Charities Amendment Bill for the first time.

The bill amends the Charities Act 2005, which is a key piece of legislation for the charitable sector, and it will make a meaningful difference to over 28,000 registered charities across Aotearoa New Zealand. Before I speak a little bit more about that and explain the changes in the bill, I’d like to extend some thanks and outline the history of this bill.

In May 2018, Cabinet agreed to a review to modernise the Charities Act. I want to acknowledge my predecessors who started this work. Firstly, the Hon Peeni Henare in 2018 and then the Hon Poto Williams. I thank them both for building the foundations of this mahi.

Public consultation on a range of issues then occurred in 2019. However, work was put on pause because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I picked it back up when I became the Minister in late-2020. This piece of legislation has been a long time coming.

I’d also like to mihi to the sector for their input and passionate engagement with this work. To everyone who attended consultation meetings, made submissions, and engaged with my officials, I extend my heartfelt thanks, and also to officials who have worked on this for many years. Views from the sector have been fundamental to the development of this bill and I thank them for the time and effort that they’ve taken to share their experience and their expertise.

As I mentioned, the Charities Act is a key piece of legislation for the sector. It was established back in 2005 to provide a voluntary registration, reporting, and monitoring regime to ensure that entities receiving tax benefits continue to carry out charitable purpose. The Act has been in place for almost 20 years, and there have been some pretty important changes over that period of time. In 2012, the Charities Commission was disestablished and an independent charities registration board was given the responsibility for registering and deregistering charities. The chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs was also empowered with certain functions, mainly around education and support for charities and monitoring compliance with the Act. In 2015, new requirements were introduced for financial reporting for not-for-profit organisations, which meant that registered charities had to report to accounting standards when filing their annual return.

Now is a good time to make sure that legislative settings are still fit for purpose. An Act that is working well for charities, the regulator, and the public will help ensure that the charitable sector is effective and enjoys the trust and confidence of the public. Charities do important work and they should be able to focus on this work, but, equally, they receive benefits from being registered, and with that comes an obligation to be transparent. Transparency builds trust, and the public need to be able to trust that charities are responsible with their tax-free income.

The bill keeps the current registration, reporting, and monitoring framework of the Act intact because these fundamental aspects are sound. Instead, the bill makes practical improvements to reporting requirements for small charities, the appeals framework, governance requirements, and the regulatory decision-making and compliance tools. It will ensure that legal settings are up to date, fit for purpose, and will support charities to get on with their important work, while also safeguarding public trust and confidence in the sector.

One of the most significant changes of this bill is introducing a new appeals body for charities. Currently, if charities want to appeal a decision of the Charities Registration Board, they have to go to the High Court. As you can imagine, this can be costly, time-consuming, and difficult, particularly for small charities that are often run by volunteers and with limited financial resources. It’s important that our system doesn’t just work for those who have the resources to navigate it. We need to ensure that the services that are available, and access to them, is equitable.

We need to remove the barriers to justice for charities, and so the bill empowers the existing Taxation Review Authority to hear Charities Act appeals. The authority will be faster, less formal, and cheaper than the High Court. Charities can represent themselves, which reduces legal costs, and they will have two months to lodge an appeal, rather than the current 20 working days.

Now, you may be wondering: “Why the Taxation Review Authority?” Tax and charities have long been linked. Prior to the enactment of the Charities Act, charitable status was determined by Inland Revenue. The bill gives the authority new jurisdiction, and it will be known as the Taxation and Charities Review Authority, when hearing charities appeals funding has been made available through Budget 2022 to enable that change.

The bill also allows more decisions to be appealed as part of the work to improve access to justice. Rather than just limiting it to Charities Registration Board decisions, some of the more significant decisions of the CE can also be appealed.

But access to justice isn’t just about appealing the final decision; it’s also about the decision-making process. The bill presents an opportunity to promote best-practice decision-making by the board and the chief executive. It requires certain decisions to be published for transparency and allows charities to be heard in person to state their case before a final decision is made.

Of course, charities wouldn’t be much without the people who run them. The bill proposes several practical changes to clarify the roles and responsibilities of officers and promote good governance. Sometimes, charities get off track and need education and assistance to comply with the Act. However, when education and assistance has been exhausted and there is problematic behaviour within the charity, the compliance and enforcement tools in the Act become important. The bill improves compliance tools by making it clear what constitutes problem behaviour, and empowers the Charities Registration Board to disqualify an officer.

Finally, the bill enables very small charities to be exempt from reporting to the current financial accounting standards. The annual reporting obligations are a key feature of the Act and are important for achieving the Act’s purpose. The reports are published on the public register. Complying with the reporting standards can be difficult for our smallest charities. The standards set by the External Reporting Board—or XRB—requires pages of financial statements. Charities often need the help of an accountant to complete them. The XRB is aware of the compliance burden and are finishing up consultation on a reduced standard for small not-for-profit entities, and that should make reporting easier and less burdensome. However, if the intended outcome of this work is not achieved, or the standards change over time, this bill provides a regulatory backstop to reduce the compliance burden for very small charities. To maintain transparency, exempted charities will still need to report basic information about their finances and activities in a simple annual return form.

To sum up, this bill is simply about making things easier for charities and maintaining public support for charities. It’s about making the Charities Act an accessible, transparent, and fit for purpose regulatory framework that avoids unnecessary compliance burden and can effectively target problem behaviour when it needs to. It means freeing up resources so charities can get on with the mahi that they’re passionate about: delivering social services, connecting communities to support and resources, building resilience, and contributing to social cohesion. I urge everyone who has an interest in supporting the sector to get involved in the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

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

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak to the Charities Amendment Bill today on behalf of the National Party. I’d like to begin by acknowledging and valuing the work that our charities and volunteers do. It’s definitely a cornerstone of the National Party to support communities and especially to value the work that’s undertaken across New Zealand. They deserve to work under legislation that is open and transparent and clear, but also workable.

Now, we have heard from the Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, the value of our volunteer and charity sector to this country, and it is substantial. In 2019-20, collectively in their reports, we heard: $19.6 billion in combined income, $18 billion spent in this country, and over $65 billion worth of accumulated assets—so not an insignificant sector at all. But we also want our volunteers to be working in an environment that is supported and that enables them to revitalise, energise, and support their communities by being innovative and nimble. Of the 114,000 non-profit organisations in New Zealand, 28,000 are registered under the Charities Act, and they take several forms. There are legal structures that they choose: incorporated societies, incorporated trusts, unincorporated societies, unincorporated trusts, and limited liability companies, as well. Between them, they employ 160,000 full- or part-time employees—so fantastic employers—but, of course, they also manage hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

The charitable purpose is a major part of the omission in this bill. I’d just like to clarify that it is, in fact, a very, very complex legal concept, and it has evolved over 400 years of case law. The statute of charitable users came into force in England in 1601; so it has quite a lot of established case law. And the definition of “charitable purpose” is “the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community”—so quite broad. The legal definition of a charitable purpose may differ from what is commonly understood by the public. It is, in fact, not just about being worthy or good. So the charitable purpose is quite significant in this ongoing debate.

Back in 2017, the Labour Party manifesto said that they would conduct a proper, first-principles review—and independent review, at that—of this Charities Act, but this bill does not deliver on that manifesto promise. But, then, delivery is not a strong point of this Government. It does tweak a few items, and some aspects are going to make compliance simpler, but they don’t address the key items of concern that have been articulated by the charitable sector. They have been waiting on the post-implementation review for over 17 years now.

The Labour Party policy in 2017 was also to consider the 2012 transfer of functions of the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and whether that transfer, implemented by National, has actually resulted in effectiveness and improved services and openness in information sharing by the sector. But there are limited checks and balances on Charities Services, now within DIA, because it’s now a business unit of Government. Now, that Government department can be subjective in determining the nature and scope of the charitable purpose, but we also know that they can, by virtue of the fact that they can approve or decline a charitable status, make subjective decisions on a charity’s stated charitable purpose. So none of the proposed amendments in this bill actually do address that.

One other thing that has been noted by some stakeholders is how Charities Services tends to focus more on the activities of the charity and how they deliver on their charitable purpose rather than on their purpose. So this means that there is almost an expectation that charities will have similar deliverables, and that’s simply not the case in reality, because every charity is different and every community is different, but their common goals or their outcomes may actually be very similar. So, for example, a charity that provides social support through a local non-governmental organisation, where its purpose is to improve the lives of its community, will have many and varied activities that it undertakes in order to deliver on that purpose—anything from holding community picnics through to delivering counselling services.

I’d like to go back to the beginning of the Charities Act here in New Zealand, which was in 2005, as mentioned by the Minister, by the then Labour Government. It was introduced in 2004 with stakeholder involvement, but when it got to select committee it was virtually rewritten, and when it was rewritten it was without any further consultation with the sector, with the public. And then it was rushed through in 2004, implemented in 2005, under urgency, in one day. So, in terms of an open and transparent process, we have been left devoid of the involvement of the charities sector in the original bill. So when the Labour Party’s manifesto in 2017 said a first-principles review, I think the sector was very encouraged by that, because they thought that they were going to get back to where this bill began in 2004-05. But, sadly, that has not happened.

The Minister has already stated, in some of her media, that she intends to have a fuller review after this bill has been implemented, but I would argue: if the Minister already acknowledges that a fuller review is required, why are we wasting Parliament’s time with this piece of legislation? Because it could end up being completely irrelevant after another review. Are we not better to invest Parliament’s time, the work of a select committee, in getting the bill right the first time?

The Minister has mentioned appeals processes, and I’d just like to touch on that. It does extend the time for appeals, and it is going to go to the Taxation and Charities Review Authority, but that is coming at a cost. It’s going to cost the Ministry of Justice $439,000, according to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), for them to deliver that service. It’s going to cost upwards of over $200,000 to appoint two new board members and provide the secretarial support, according to the RIS. So there is no free lunch here; obviously, there are going to be costs. But, also, even though the appeal can go to the taxation and charities review, it can then end up with the same decision being made, which means that it ends up in the High Court anyway. They have 20 days to deliver their second appeal, but at the moment, on current stats, appeals to the High Court are taking at least 12 months. So this could, in fact, end up being worse.

I’d like to end my contribution by quoting Dame Cindy Kiro, Governor-General of New Zealand, who, in her speech at the Queen’s memorial on Monday, said, “In her 70 years of service in her role as Sovereign, the Queen supported over 600 charities whose work provided comfort to the lonely, the sick, and the marginalised, and helped to protect our environment.” The late Queen would expect us as legislators to be supporting charities. This bill will not achieve that goal. National will not be supporting it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on the Charities Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who has brought this piece of legislation to the House, both for her service to this country—working in many charities in the work she’s done prior to coming to Parliament—and also for progressing the bill today.

I am really delighted, having operated and run a charity myself—Tauranga Women’s Refuge—for a number of years. I had the experience of having to go and speak to Admin & Accounting Solutions in Tauranga who were our bookkeepers, the people who cared for us and worked for charities in a really good way. They helped me file for what was a very small amount of money that we were responsible for. It was a large process, and, of course, now this Government has funded Women’s Refuge in a different way and so, of course, they will have a lot more compliance, and they rightly should because this Government has given that money to them.

Anyway, charities are very important, and this bill, very briefly, is going to alter the primary legislation by making practical changes to support charities to continue their vital contributions—and some of us still volunteer our time. It reduces the compliance of small charities. It improves the process for charities to object to decisions. It requires the regulators to publish those decisions and consult with the sector on guidance. There is enhanced transparency, fairness, and accountability of the regulatory decision-making process.

I am hopeful that the sector fully engages. I look forward to working across the House and with many from the community in regards to this piece of legislation. I’m very pleased the bill is coming to the Social Services and Community Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the first reading of the Charities Amendment Bill. This is a new bill put up by the Minister the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan. I’m not sure how many bills she’s put up, but—

Hon Michael Wood: More than you.

ANDREW BAYLY: —no doubt it is good. I’ve had two bills, Mr Wood, go through the House, so I may or may not have had more than the Minister, actually, but thank you for that little snarky comment.

We will be opposing this bill, as my good colleague noted. Of course, this is a really important piece of legislation because it is a really important set of organisations who do fantastic work in our communities. It’s interesting, you know: 114,000 not-for-profit organisations spread across New Zealand, taking in just under $20 billion of income and paying out most of that, just over $18 billion, in terms of supporting vulnerable New Zealanders, and, obviously, quite significant assets that underpin it.

But it’s interesting, looking at the breakdown of charities operating in 2021, by far the biggest component was education, training, and research—just under 6,000 charities, Mr Speaker, and I know that you have a very close association with some of these charities. Religious activities, Mr Speaker, was the next highest component—and, again, I know that you have a very strong interest in some of those. They’re about 5,000. Then you start going down through arts and culture, community development—health, actually, is amazingly low at only 2,000, which I am rather surprised about, especially given the dire and perilous state that we find our health system in today after five years of shocking mismanagement and restructuring by a Government who shouldn’t be restructuring anything in the middle of a COVID crisis—but let’s move on. Social security, sport and recreation, and then it pretty much drops off after that. I think it employs about 160,000 people. They’re hard-working people who freely give their time to their communities, and we should welcome and celebrate them for what they do for our communities.

This bill should’ve been a substantial change, and, unfortunately, we’ve ended up with a tweak. I think that’s wrong, and I suspect many people in this House are disappointed that what was previously set out as a major plank for the 2017 election for the Labour Party turned out to be a whimper. This so-called first-principles review—

Maureen Pugh: Where is it?

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, Ms Pugh, I’m not sure where it is. I don’t even know where to find such a thing. But that’s what should’ve happened in this bill, because it is so important, as I’ve said before. That first-principles review, according to the manifesto, if I’m not mistaken, was going to be undertaken by an independent sector or expert in the charities sector. Well, what we get—ha, ha! We got the Department of Internal Affairs, who, basically, already are overseeing the activities of the charities sector anyway. So that’s sort of like saying, “Let’s go and review ourselves.” I find this amazing. So the first-principles independent review has turned into a bit of a sham. I think if we had a more discerning Minister who knew more and wanted more, she might have said to that sector, “Let’s get this right.” It is a shame that it’s taken five years—half a decade—to get to this point where we can finally talk about this little bill. I think that is a missed opportunity—a huge missed opportunity. As my colleague Maureen Pugh said, we should’ve taken the time to get it right. I don’t know how much more time it should’ve taken to get right, but I’m sure Maureen Pugh, if she’s lucky enough ever to have hands on a portfolio like this, would get through it in a dose of salts.

There are some interesting things: the appeal process going to the Taxation Review Authority instead of the High Court. I think we should acknowledge the Minister. She talked about the appeal process taking up to two months. The big issue about that, of course, is we’ve got a bit of a backlog in the High Court—you know, that’s half a decade of mismanagement in the court system, unfortunately. It all sounds good—extend it to two months, but if you can’t get an appeal; you can lodge it, but if you can’t get an outcome for probably at least 12 months—

Maureen Pugh: Years.

ANDREW BAYLY: —if you’re lucky—years—putting it out to 12 months is probably impractical and probably unreasonable.

So these are the sorts of changes that, you know, look, sound good. Some people will look at it and go, “It’s OK.”, but I’m just not sure it’s going to deliver the quantum leap that this sector’s been crying out for. So it is with some regret that we have to oppose this bill. There’s no doubt we’ll work through the process during the select committee. Hopefully, we can knock it into shape—needs a bit of intellectual grunt, I think, which Maureen Pugh will bring to the part, and our other colleagues on this side. But let’s hope we can get to a better outcome so we don’t end up getting into a place where we are squabbling over it and not doing a good thing for a sector that does so much for so many people in New Zealand, all free of charge, of course. That’s why we need to get this bill right.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): 大家好。 Talofa, Mr Speaker. It’s always a privilege and an honour to speak in the House, not only as a member of the beautiful Ōtaki electorate but also as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who will see this, the Charities Amendment Bill—

Hon Member: Hard-working committee.

TERISA NGOBI: Yes, very hard-working committee, absolutely.

We know that this bill makes practical changes to support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing while also ensuring that contribution is sufficiently transparent to the public as well.

I want to actually talk about some of the experience I have in this space. Having worked as a contract manager for Oranga Tamariki, supporting NGOs and charities through their contracting work, not only through what their contract looks like, not only through getting them more money—because we know that charities are run on the smell of an oily rag and lots of awesome volunteers—but also reporting on their contract obligations. And generally, like I said, they manage to do that, and do such a great job in our communities, supporting our people, with little to nothing in the kitty to do that with.

I also worked on the other side of that. I’ve worked as a volunteer, and in the charities space with NGOs as well, and I know there’s nothing more frustrating than being bogged down with mountains of paperwork—and the cost of that—when you know that you’re already under-resourced and trying to support your community. On top of that, instead of being out there supporting your community, you’re having to write these lengthy reports, often, and also finding the money and time to do that. So, instead of having to do that, the proposed changes in this bill will mean that for very small charities that will change. No longer will they be bogged down with mountains of paperwork and the costs of that; they can go out there, they can support our children, they can support our families, and they can support our elderly and do the work that they’re really good at doing. So, for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a short call in support of the Charities Amendment Bill. And I thank the Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, for bringing this bill to the House.

The Greens value a strong independent tangata whenua community and volunteer sector that contributes to our social, environmental, cultural, physical, spiritual, and economic wellbeing. Like others in this House, I’ve spent much of my life in this broad and wide-ranging sector on many committees, boards, and trusts. My first role was as treasurer of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, as a junior member in Dunedin at 15 years of age, and I’m currently listed on the register as being on the trust board of two charities, one of which is Tīwhanawhana Trust. That is for takatāpui to tell our stories, build our communities, and leave a legacy.

It has been a long road to get to this bill. When the Charities Amendment Bill was introduced in 2017, an earlier iteration, the Greens originally opposed it because it would have reduced appeal rights for charities. The relevant amendment was removed at later stages because of the concerns that were raised by the tangata whenua community and volunteer sector. The expansion of objection and appeal rights in this bill is therefore more aligned with our previous statements.

The submission process for the department’s review closed in May of 2019, and I would just like to do a shout-out to Sue Barker Charities Law, who we met with at the time, who consulted individually with over 200 organisations and key people. I’m sad to say that when that process was actually paused in May of 2020, they were relieved because it seemed like the bill was getting worse instead of better. The 28,000 or so tangata whenua community and volunteer registered entities affected by this bill have waited a long time. So we very much look forward to many of you taking part in this select committee process and making submissions. We want to hear what you have to say about it.

As my colleagues have identified, the bill makes practical changes that include enabling simpler financial reporting, especially from very small charities, to reduce the burden of unnecessary compliance; improving access to justice for charities in the appeal process that is more affordable and at scale—a small charity with hardly any money in the bank should not have to go to a High Court to get a decision—promoting transparency and fairness through enhancing the decision-making requirements for these charities; clarifying the role of officers supporting the governance of charities; and improving all of those regulatory compliance and enforcement tools.

The Greens welcome greater Government trust in recognition of the tangata whenua community and volunteer sector. We support having the Charities Commission, now the Department of Internal Affairs, focused on registration and tax issues, and balancing the encouragement of charitable donations against the risk of scam charities for tax avoidance.

In terms of the age thresholds identified in this bill, the Green Party youth policy acknowledges the mana and the mauri of young people. We accept the 18-year-old age limit proposed for at least one officer on a given charity, because it means 16- and 17-year-olds can still hold another or all of the remaining positions.

Finally, we are pleased that the approximately 60 percent of the estimated number of Māori charities, which are very small, will be affected by this. It will make their lives easier. They’ll have considerably reduced compliance and, hopefully, reporting that is better suited to their needs. We do acknowledge, though, that this is still a very Eurocentric framework that our Māori, our iwi, our hapū, and our whānau organisations are working within. And so we note things like how to deal with kōhā, principles of reciprocal obligation, are not really addressed in this bill. Those are things we will raise through this process. In the meantime, we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to make a very short call on this, just to make some comments. As someone who’s been involved with charities over the past—and the present—I can definitely see the logic and the reasoning for a bit more trust in those smaller charities, and to ease the regulatory burden. Generally, less regulation can be a good thing—although, one thing the select committee is going to have to look at is the potential for unintended consequences with this, with the smaller charities shifting from one side of the fence to the other, so definitely some things there.

I’ll also use this opportunity just to acknowledge the many charities throughout New Zealand who were absolutely hammered by lockdown—and in terms of the fiscal impact, the organisational impact, and the effectiveness, that was a very, very tough time for them.

So, as others have canvassed, for smaller charities, this bill pushes for a simpler reporting framework. It provides a better appeal process, with a separate tribunal. And, I think, unlike our friends in the National Party, our position is that we would like to see this go to select committee, so we will be supporting it, because we’ll be very interested to hear what stakeholders think about this, and then we will assess our position from there.

I acknowledge others’ feedback that this is, based on what the scope could have been—what it could’ve done for charities—probably not quite there, but, in terms of the significance, that is something that we can work out in select committee, I hope. So, with that—as I said, it’ll be short—I commend the bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand to make a contribution to the Charities Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her contribution, and, in doing so, I want to acknowledge where she had said there are over 28,000 registered charities here in Aotearoa. Last year, it was reported that the equivalent of more than 145,000 people were working full time in the charitable sector. On top of that, close to 50 percent of all New Zealanders volunteer either in an organisation or directly in the community. So I want to, along with the Minister, echo acknowledgment of everyone in the sector who is doing really great work.

The bill: this bill keeps the current registration, reporting, and monitoring framework of the Act intact because these fundamental aspects are sound. However, the changes—the bill makes practical improvements in reporting requirements for small charities, the appeals framework, governance requirements, and regulatory decision-making and compliance tools. It will ensure the legal settings are up to date, fit for purpose, and will support charities to get on with their important work while also safeguarding public trust and confidence in the sector.

One of the most significant changes of this bill is introducing a new appeal body for the charities. So this authority will be faster, less formal, and cheaper than the High Court. Charities can represent themselves, which reduces legal costs and they will have two months to launch an appeal rather than the current 20 working days.

Along with the Minister, I urge all the charitable trusts and community organisations to please submit to the select committee, particularly the P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A. Inc. women’s group and all the churches out there. Thank you for your work. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō, Mr Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I think it might be my turn. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Charities Amendment Bill of 2022. I want to go back to 2005—well, actually, earlier than that; to 2004—and I remember the consultation on the initial work done on the 2005 charities bill. There was a lot of consultation with communities on it, and I remember particularly two meetings in my part of the world—one in Ashhurst and one in Fielding. And it shows the significance of this bill and the impression it made on me because I can still remember them, which is quite frightening.

Dr Duncan Webb: You can remember Ashhurst?

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! I can remember the meetings—the very meetings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr McKelvie. I just need to remind you this is a five-minute call, not a 10-minute call, which I’m sure you’ll have no problem filling.

IAN McKELVIE: I hope you’ll give me a couple of minutes as a result of the interruption, Mr Speaker, ha, ha! The point I’m going to make is that there was significant community consultation undertaken on that Act. It came back to the select committee, and the select committee completely changed the Act as a result not, I think, of the consultation, actually, because what was consulted on and what was sold to our communities was what the Act was going to look like. When it came back to Parliament in 2005, it was a totally different beast.

And the point I’m making is that we’ve got 28,000-odd charities in New Zealand, many of whom have well-resourced boards, well-remunerated boards, and well-remunerated staff who can deal with issues that Government put in front of them very easily, but thousands of these charities are very small entities—they’re either offshoots of Lions clubs or rugby clubs or community groups or little entities in our communities—who have no resource and no ability to deal with complex and complicated reporting methods and things like that that we put in place to sort out the charities in the initial reading of that bill. So, again, my point is that there’s a lot of work, I think, to be done, and I guess I’m saying that I think much more work needs doing in this area than has been done in the course of this bill.

The National Party have said they’re opposing it. And one of the reasons we will be opposing it is because of that very reason: the fact that we haven’t got into this deeply enough and we haven’t resolved the challenges—and the significant challenges—that face the vast variety of charities in our communities. I think some of the charities, in places like in our smaller communities particularly, they’re very small entities who do a much, much greater amount of good than you would imagine in those communities. And the onus on them is challenging and, at times, difficult for those people operating those charities to operate—to, I guess, comply with the level of compliance we insist on putting on them. So what I’m saying is I think there’s much more work that needs to be done around the Charities Act, and it will take a significant amount of work to do that—much more work than the select committee will be able to do on this.

We’ll be interested to see what the select committee gets in the way of submissions on this—I think it will be significant and I think a lot of them will be out of scope with what’s proposed in this bill, for the very simple reason that I mentioned a minute ago, and I think there’s much more work needed on this bill. I think the select committee will turn up a whole lot of issues that will be very interesting and will point clearly to the shortcomings that are contained in the current Charities Act 2005.

So I think it’s a very important sector for our communities; I think it’s a very important sector for New Zealand. I think there undoubtedly are some charities that shouldn’t be charities, and there undoubtedly are some charities that are penalised by the Acts we’ve put in place that do great work in our communities. So it’s a very hard balance to get, but I do think that the process will turn up some really interesting information and I think that the select committee will have a battle on its hands getting to a point where it can, I guess, moderate this piece of legislation to be something really useful. So it’s a massive task—a very small bill, really, but a massive task and I wish them all the best.

Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Duncan Webb, I think, got to his feet just a little bit quicker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker, thank you—it’s so competitive on this side of the House. We’re so keen to speak on this legislation to improve charities. I was particularly interested in Mr McKelvie’s view that there are some charities out there that shouldn’t be charities. I found that interesting, but certainly I think I would share the sentiment that there are some organisations of charitable status out there that need to examine their behaviours and make sure they’re acting consistently with their charitable purposes.

Sometimes an organisation can lose sight of those charitable purposes in the hurly-burly of delivering services that may be not-for-profit but, really, we’ve got to make sure that charities have the tools at their disposal and the structures and understanding of how the law’s supposed to work, so that that they can constantly review their behaviours against appropriate standards in the charitable sector. And that’s one of the big changes that this bill makes.

Now, obviously it’s disappointing that the National Party hasn’t chosen to support this bill, but I’m sure they’ll be constructive when they come to the select committee and bring their expertise in this sector from across the country. It is important that we get as much scrutiny of this bill as possible so that we can strengthen this important sector of our community. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. So enthusiastic am I to commend this bill to the House that I was somewhat ahead of myself earlier, and I do apologise.

I first want to thank the Minister for bringing this important piece of work to the House. Charities are a significant feature of our lives and, in particular, in the mental health sector. From my early teens, I grew up in the back room of one such charity—the Miriam Centre, a child and family abuse centre set up in Whangārei by my mum. Over the years, I have watched the complexity of regulatory demands on charities, often taxing and stretching people already stretching to cover the needs of the people they are there to serve. Simplicity and ease of operation is key to ensuring that charities can do their vital work with confidence.

I am looking forward to reviewing and strengthening the bill as part of the Social Services and Community Committee, a committee which has within it already considerable personal and professional experience of charities, as described by Angie Warren-Clark and Terisa Ngobi before me. I would strongly encourage the public and the charity sector to have their say, even if that means personally. Select committee hearings will, for me, turn into “Bring Your Mum to Work Day”. I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. It’s said that charity begins at home, and that means a person’s first responsibility is to meet the needs of their own family and friends. So this Charities Amendment Bill is an amendment to the initial Charities Act 2005, which was, again, amended in 2012. So the Act’s been in place for 16 to 17 years, last amended 10 years ago.

Charity begins at home. I’ll come to speak to the bill, but just on that key point, this is about charitable organisations and the provision of goodwill, and contribution of services to meet the needs of their own within communities. In the general debate today, there were constructive comments and there were reality checks made about how the Government ought to be providing charity by addressing the needs of our community, in the interests of our people at home. My colleague Chris Bishop talked about the homelessness that we have in this country and the reality check, despite the comments from the Government benches, of a pessimistic outlook from the Opposition benches. The reality check is: that is life in the hardship of New Zealanders—charity begins at home.

I turn now to the Charities Amendment Bill. It’s interesting because there has been a 127-page regulatory impact statement, which I’ve endeavoured to read in the last couple of hours, but I do turn to some key critical points about that. The context of this bill is—I’ve talked about 2005 when the Charities Act was passed; it was amended in 2012. Prior to that, there was no register of charities and no consistent information about their activities and funding. Then, further in, the regulatory impact statement, a 127-page document, talks about the engagement of the Department of Internal Affairs with public consultation in 2019 consisting of 27 community meetings held across the country that 1,200 people attended, an online presentation was viewed 650 times, and there were 364 written submissions. There are approximately 28,000 registered charities in New Zealand out of over 114,000 non-profit organisations. This is our community and voluntary sector. Charity begins at home and is in our communities.

So approximately 28,000 are registered under the Charities Act. My point is that the stakeholder engagement commenced in 2019—the department reported back in 2021 that it conducted targeted consultation with representatives from the sector but that there were limitations in relation to that. One of the key findings that came out of the report—and for people who are interested to read that, it’s identified at page 14—is that “First principles issues have been excluded from this work, including some issues that were raised by submitters in 2019.” Those first-principle issues importantly include an examination and redefining of what “charitable purposes” are, under section 5 of the Charity Act 2005. That has been totally deemed out of scope by the Minister, in terms of the review and the consideration of amendments to this bill—there’s the first limitation, the oversight by this Government, factoring in and taking into account the engagement with the public and the community in 2019, by already limiting the scope of the revision of this bill.

So that’s really important, and that’s why the National Party does not support this bill. But, in saying that, by not supporting the reality—reality check is, this is going to select committee, where it will be examined and scrutinised by the Social Services Committee, on which the National Party is represented by my colleagues Maureen Pugh and Louise Upston. So the Minister, in addressing the House earlier on, has talked about the critical elements that will be examined. The most critical element is that the scope of this bill is limited. My colleague Maureen Pugh addressed the House and the importance that the National Party—we value our voluntary sector; we value the work that is done in this important charitable space. However, we also value the commitment and honouring of promises that have been made. The Labour Government included a first-principles review of the Charities Act in their 2017 manifesto. Regrettably, we’re not seeing that evidenced out. Intent and goodwill is all very well and good; we need to address the substance and the substantive issues that are impacting on our communities.

In typical fashion, the Government has failed to deliver on that promise. Here we are, before the House, striving to hold the Government to account. This bill will go to the first level of scrutiny at select committee, then it will get reported back to the House. But how much? Again, because the reality is—reality check, New Zealand public—select committees are weighted in favour of the Labour Government. Despite submissions that are made from the public, despite the representation and advocacy made from the Opposition benches in support of the public’s views, the Labour Government has an intent and an intention on matters that it brings before the House. So, yes, it will be scrutinised—it ought to be, appropriately. But will the Government be accountable and listen to the public with the concerns that have been expressed? The public consultation was in 2019. Thus far, it’s not been evidenced in the scope and with the proposed amendments in this bill before the House.

In concluding, I said that charity does begin at home. I invite members in the House to debate and address the issues in the bill. Charity begins at home. I’ve heard some uncharitable comments in this House as members have spoken to address this bill. So, on that note, the National Party, regrettably—and the reason we do opposite this bill is because the scope isn’t addressing the significant, critical, substantive changes that are required to make better, to improve not only the legislation but how that impacts on our people, our families, our communities. The National Party and I, as I stand as the last speaker for the party and my colleagues, oppose this bill. I do invite the Labour members sitting on select committee to factor in and heed what our public is saying. Although the scope’s been limited, this seems to be a foregone conclusion. The National Party regrettably opposes this bill in its current form because it’s scant, and it’s missing significant, substantive factors.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this first reading of the Charities Amendment Bill, and I’d just like to congratulate Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan for bringing the bill to the House—it’s a wonderful bill.

Before speaking today, I had a look on the web and went through the Charities Register and just looked at the huge number of charities that are operating in New Zealand. It was amazing to see how many of them were bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, but then some only bringing in a few thousand each year. So we’ve got a huge diversity in terms of the scope of charities operating in New Zealand and the financial size of each of those entities. Also, going through the names of a lot of those charities it was interesting to see how many of them we relied on for aspects of our daily lives. So we had academic institutions, we had churches, we had rotary clubs, we had animal rescues, and we even had highland pipe bands. So just a huge diversity of things in terms of the charities, in terms of the work that our communities rely on. We rely on good charities to deliver the services that our communities need, but we also rely, in many cases, on the work of the volunteers. They put in many, many hours to make sure those charities can deliver the benefits that they have been developed to do so.

Looking at the Charities Register, I think what it does is it maintains public trust in these charities. I think that’s really important, because if you’ve got information that’s publicly available, then anybody wanting to sit down and think, “Can I volunteer for this charity? Do my views and my beliefs align with what they’re doing?”—if they’re wanting to volunteer, if they’re wanting to donate, but also if they’re wanting to use the services of the charity, they can actually go online and have a look at all their contact details. You can have a look at what they’re doing in terms of the work, and you can also have a look at their financial position. I think that’s really important. For many of the organisations operating in our community that’s really useful information that we can have on their work.

I also think it’s important to acknowledge—and that’s what this bill does—that charities are often run by volunteers who have limited amounts of time but absolute passion for the work that they do. And in many cases, the financial documents that they need to put in place are actually quite disproportionate to the scrutiny that’s required. I think that’s the thing that we need to weigh up, and I think what this bill does is it looks at that balance. I’m really looking forward to hearing submissions on this during the select committee process, because it’s important to be thinking about what is the basic amount of information that we need to make sure that the transparency and the accountability of the charities is there, but also thinking that what we don’t want to do is unduly take up the time of those volunteers when they should be out there in the community doing the important work that they do.

One of the things the bill does is it enables simpler financial reporting for very small charities so that it can reduce their compliance burden. I think what we’re looking at here is the capacity to have regulations that can provide a lot more detail around who those smaller charities are, and then be thinking about what it is that we need in that respect to be able to provide the information we need. So what that will mean is that those charities, if we get that right, can spend a bit of time on their financial reporting, but they can spend most of their time out there in the community doing the work that they love.

Another issue that we’ve got is, again, coming back to thinking of these charities and the work of volunteers, many of whom, like I said, are busy doing other tasks and also have limited resources. And if you want to get access to justice to have appeals, if the charities want to appeal decisions of the Charities Registration Board, then, at the moment, what they have to do is they actually have to go to the High Court. Anybody that’s been through a court process will know that not only is that incredibly costly, it is incredibly time-consuming; there can be delays in terms of being able to get access to your case being heard. What this will do is it will enable a charities review authority to be able to hear those appeals in the first instance. It won’t mean that people don’t have access to the High Court, and, indeed, you know, the Taxation and Charities Review Authority may well refer the case on. But what that means is that, in a much more simple and a much more affordable way, charities will have access to being able to appeal and have those issues considered.

So I think this is a really, really important bill, and I think it will allow charities to, as I say, get that balance right between what they have to do in their financial reporting and also what they can do in terms of the work that they do. I think the select committee process is incredibly important because what I’m hoping is that many charities will come and they’ll discuss how the bill will relate to their situation. Because, as I said, when I was looking through the register, what we’ve got is some of those very large academic institutions who are doing some amazing research. We’ve got other organisations, churches, rotary clubs. They’re going out there in the community, but their needs are very, very different and their reporting needs are very different. And I think the other thing is that for people wanting to access the services of those charities then, basically, that reporting requirement is very different.

So I think this is a really important bill and it will provide that extra support for charities to be able to get that balance right and think about where they want to go next. There’s a range of other issues that are covered in the bill, some of them are minor and technical; some of them are more substantive. But I think this is a really significant bill, and I’m looking forward to hearing submissions during the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 84

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 27 September.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll take a short call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, because much has already been said over many readings around this and the nature of what has been proposed by the Government in this case.

Some of the earlier speeches really focused on the issue of bobby calves and the nature of what actually will happen to those calves now, because in this case many stock that would have gone for sale will now have to be processed at a very young age. So that is an issue which contrasts, I guess, with the intention of what we hear the Government is wanting to do over time, which is to increase the percentage of calves that are reared. And there does become an issue that if the farmers are expected to rear those stock and they don’t have a source to be able to sell those stock, then it becomes an issue for the New Zealand farming sector in general.

Taking away this opportunity for farmers to sell that stock at a later age really does create some issues down the track if that bobby calf percentage, for example, that would have to be reared was mandated. That then would create some big issues for some of the dynamics in the New Zealand primary sector. Traditionally, the dairy industry has been one of the more profitable land-based sectors, and the ability of that sector then having to rear that many calves actually then compromises your sheep and beef sector, a sector that’s already under attack through forestry in many cases, because the land classes that the sheep and beef farmers are generally on are much more suitable for forestry as they’re generally cheaper to purchase than the dairying land. So there could be some implications down the track from decisions like this that could be complicated or compounded, you could say, by further decisions that a Government may make around young stock.

It may seem like a fairly simple decision for the Government of the day at the moment, but cutting off this option actually does have some implications down the track if further decisions were to be made. So we on this side of the House oppose the bill. We think the Government hasn’t considered the long-term implications for the sector and it’s very much a knee-jerk reaction to probably get some urban votes and hasn’t taken into account what actually needs to happen in the New Zealand primary sector.

In saying that, we all want to make sure that the highest standards of any transport of stock, especially to overseas, are maintained and met. So there’s no doubt and no question from this side that that’s something that could be worked on, and would also be, without question, something that needed to happen if this trade was to continue. There’s also the idea of the scale of the trade: that potentially the Government could’ve taken a much more considered approach. We need to have an open economy where we do trade, and if they felt that the scale of the trade was getting too big, then there may have been an option for the Government to some kind of cap process rather than a complete ban of the trade.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And the Labour members may be laughing, but it’s a trade that’s been going on forever and a day, and you know, there’s also the implications of what the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing around embryos and semen to stop, effectively, a lot of that coming into New Zealand, and so it could actually close the genetic base of New Zealand if we’re not willing to trade. So there are some wider implications than just the, “Oh, yeah, no, we’ve banned the export of livestock and that’s a great idea from the Labour Party members”. There’s actually some real implications around the genetic diversity of the New Zealand herd if we’re having a closed approach in New Zealand to its fullest extent. And there will be some implications, I’m sure, if further decisions are made by Governments around bobby calves in future. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora and thank you, Madam Speaker, or 谢谢, seeing as it’s Chinese Language Week. We all want an absolutely thriving agricultural sector, but the difference is that for the Labour Party, there are some bottom lines, and animal welfare is a bottom line. I know that on the other side of the House, there are a number of people who own farms or operate farms. They understand animal welfare, and they also understand the need to be at the very peak of the quality pyramid when we’re trading from a place like New Zealand and that there is no room whatsoever to have anything other than the highest possible standards.

I’m very happy that New Zealand is leading the world in terms of saying that our trade in animals and in livestock will be subject to the highest and most rigorous animal welfare standards because we know that the developed markets—our most prestigious and profitable markets—take that very, very seriously indeed. I know that those people in the agricultural sector absolutely want to do that and it is the Government’s job to make sure that the brand of New Zealand having the highest-quality produce—food and fibre—is protected, and that’s what we’re doing here.

What’s more, this is not some—I think the words “knee-jerk” were used by the Opposition. It’s not, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s been under contemplation for quite some years, well before the tragedy that’s been debated and discussed in this House already today. Secondly, we heard Minister Meka Whaitiri talk about the expert advice that she’s getting and the fact that, given where New Zealand is and given the destination of livestock, it’s not actually possible to have a live-export trade that is humane.

Now, we can use best efforts and we can have best practice, but the fact of the matter is that if you are going to put hundreds or thousands of beasts, livestock—sheep, cattle, goats, or whatever—on a vessel for 10 to 14 days across the equator, it is going to be unbelievably stressful. It is not going to be consistent with the welfare of those animals. Whilst you can put as many veterinarians on board as you like and you can have as much water and feed available and you can space them out and you can do all the things you like, the fact is that when beasts that come from a temperate climate in New Zealand are put on board a vessel in constrained circumstances and travel across the tropics to Saudi Arabia, it’s not going to be humane.

Tim van de Molen: From the animal welfare expert Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So this bill—and, you know, here’s a prediction for the Opposition. I predict that we will be looked at as a leader in the field and we will see some of our competitors in this market follow us. Why?

Barbara Kuriger: We are looked at as the leaders—who’s in the trail now?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because this is not only good—and Barbara Kuriger is sitting there chipping away, but she’s one of the farmers I admire. She’s a woman who has an interest in organic farming and who takes the welfare of her cattle very seriously, and I suspect that were she the person on board one of these vessels, when the animals are stressed and are absolutely distressed, she would be very, very upset indeed, because I think she values that here.

So I know she has to pretend that she’s onside with her party, but I know that she’s a farmer who knows what quality is, she’s a farmer who knows what animal welfare is, and she is absolutely going to be consistent with the Labour Party approach, which puts New Zealand first, puts the welfare of animals first, and puts our market first, and that’s what this bill does. The world will follow. This is an absolute spearhead in good marketing, good branding, and good animal welfare, and that is why I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—talofa, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I’m a little confused about the understanding from the other side of the House. This bill is clear, it is concise, it was well signalled, and it was well traversed in the select committee. And I just want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. I think Jo Luxton signalled that we work really hard to come to consensus solutions and this was not one of those occasions. But everybody turned up in good faith and made submissions.

I acknowledge the submitters and I acknowledge the communities that are impacted by this legislation. But I’m really curious about the idea that we can look after these animals by establishing some sort of gold standard. It was curious—like I say, submitters turned up in good faith, and we asked them good questions that they tried to answer. But they didn’t know, despite the fact Australia is working on something, what the cost of meeting a gold standard would be because they didn’t know where they are now and they didn’t know where they were planning on going nor how they were going to get there.

I think that’s quite telling, because what that says is—we heard from the other side of the House that this is something that could be worked on. Well, I think, actually, that the animals we care for and our primary exporters deserve more than that. When we support our farmers and our primary industry, it isn’t just “We trust you get on with it.”; it’s “We trust you and we will support you to build a sustainable future for our primary industries, for our exporters, and for our economy and our nation.” So this gold standard that anybody’s had an opportunity to develop before now, because apparently, you know, there’s been a few “concerning” matters for animals that have been transported—nobody’s worked on it till now. Nobody was going to work on it until we made them, and that’s very, very concerning. We’ve got an opportunity here. This is a really great example of how we are progressive, and how we have ambition for this country, for our primary exporters, and for our primary industries. It’s a great example of how we’re supporting them to make a just transition. Because it’s hard. I live in Taranaki and it’s a hard conversation to have about this.

We’ve heard that there are concerns about any role a Government might play in the market: “We should just leave it to the market. The global market will sort it out. If consumers don’t like it, they’ll stop buying our products.” Well, actually, the interesting thing is the Government does have a role to play in global trade. This Government has committed and successfully negotiated free-trade agreements. The really interesting thing about these latest free-trade agreements is they are progressive and they are innovative. And it’s really interesting to see how Governments have seen that this is actually a mechanism that enables a nation to reward and support its own exporters. Because what it does is it says: actually, if we think you guys aren’t stepping up to your Paris accord commitments, then that’s not fair on our farmers. So what we’ve done is we have committed to supporting our wonderful primary sector, who are innovators, as we’ve heard. We’ve got an amazing, innovative primary sector. What we do in those free-trade agreements is we’re supporting them and lifting the bar for everybody. And what we’re seeing is other countries around the world are going, “Crikey, I want a bit of that, so maybe we have to lift our game as well.” So instead of a race to the bottom in how we care for our animals, it is about supporting those in our primary sector who are doing great things. We’re shifting practice, we’re rewarding shifting practice, and we’re working towards an ethical, efficient, and sustainable primary sector globally.

The really interesting thing is—I love a teachable moment, as an economics teacher. I always talk to students about sunrise industries, and it’s interesting when you hear from the other side of the House that we’re going to go backwards if we don’t allow this to continue. The interesting thing is we are going to be left behind. The EU have made a commitment. Now, they have banned exports for anything—this is the first step—more than eight hours, and those animals don’t have to cross the equator. What they’ve done is they’ve made a commitment to a transition, because it is about shifting everybody, to a more efficient and ethical system that favours the transport of semen or embryos over breeding stock, and carcasses and meat over animals being moved for slaughter. Now, we don’t have to worry about that bit because, funnily enough, as usual, we led the world with innovation, with frozen lamb from down in Otago, a very long time ago. So why not lead the world again? We are ambitious for our primary exporters and we believe that by supporting something that is sustainable, it is efficient and it is ethical.

We heard about Winston Peters earlier today—not Winston Peters, bless him. We heard about Winston Churchill looking at opportunity in times of challenge. There is an opportunity here. The EU have made a commitment to invest in more and better solutions to reduce the need to transport live animals. They are raising the bar and so are we. We are ambitious for our primary industries and we know that they’re up for it, and we’re prepared to commit through free-trade agreements to a whole pile of commitments whereby we will be able to show leadership globally.

This is mainly about animal welfare, but the leadership that happens when the world continues to look at us—do they look at us for best practice with dairy farming? Absolutely. This is something else that they can look to us for best practice. How do we get around the challenges that have been presented? We can and we are. And so it is really great to see this bill coming to the House.

I acknowledge the submitters. They did come in good faith. And I need to acknowledge the Minister for having the courage to committing to this. This was well signalled. And the opportunity that was afforded by that was to have the conversations about how we shift away from the—in very recent years—growth of this sector, and how we mitigate the risks and the costs, effectively, of what we do about bobby calves.

So it’s wonderful to see this leadership. I think that when you hear not just—obviously, the EU haven’t got the challenges we have. If you look at Chile, they also have to cross the equator and they’re looking to us for leadership. That helps our global brand and that helps people to trust all over the world when we are selling our products, and it helps us to show the world why we are proud of our primary industries. I have no problem in supporting the work that has gone into making this bill happen and to make sure that our primary sector has an opportunity to really, really step up. So because of that, because of this opportunity for a just transition to be supported, I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I’ve been very interested to hear speeches from the other side of the House talking about a just transition and New Zealand leading the world, an export nation. This bill is about stopping exports. It’s about stopping New Zealand’s incredible dairy farmers from being able to send animals to the world rather than developing a gold standard to make sure we are the best in the world. Just closing the borders—this is Labour’s solution. Stop the borders, just stop trade. Don’t come up with a better idea, don’t improve things, don’t make it better—just stop it. That’s all they’re doing.

Let’s just pause there a moment. Dairy farmers in New Zealand have the world’s lowest carbon footprint, half the emissions of other international producers. Do we hear this from Labour? Almost never. New Zealand has approximately five million people and roughly the same number of cows, producing 21 billion litres of milk every year. We’re the eighth-largest dairy producer in the world, with approximately 11,000 dairy farmers.

Now, let’s look at another example. Brazil, by way of contrast, has four times the number of dairy cows, over 20 million, but produces less than twice the amount of milk: 36 billion litres, with a huge 900,000 dairy farmers. So New Zealand dairy farmers deserve recognition for how effective and efficient they are at producing food for the world.

We also need to produce animals for the world, and if I just point to one example right now that’s top of people’s minds: the Ukraine. There is a war in Europe now—unbelievably, but there is a war in Europe between Russia and Ukraine. Now, Ukraine urgently needs at least 50,000 cows to replace their dairy herd which has been lost. They are estimating they may lose 150,000 cows, a third of their national herd, and for Ukraine to produce enough milk, cheese, and butter for their population, they’re going to need dairy heifers from partner countries to restock the national herd. Can New Zealand help Ukraine? No, it cannot, because the Labour Government is stopping the trade of dairy cows and heifers being sent to the world. We cannot offer Ukraine assistance with their national herd because of this bill.

It’s a crying shame that we are just stopping trade rather than actually thinking about what we can do to make sure we weed out cowboys. None of us want cowboys. None of us want to see animals suffering on trips across the ocean. We want to make sure the cowboys are out of the industry. Australia has shown how to do it. Australia has shown they can actually implement a gold standard, they can get great trade deals—they’ve got a fantastic trade deal with the United Kingdom. They’ve proven they can do it. Has New Zealand followed Australia’s lead in this respect? No. So all this talk that we’re hearing from the other side of the House about leading the world, well, no, we’re not. Australia has led the way, showing how you can have a gold standard that makes sure you can look after animals when they’re being transported across the oceans and have the credibility in the markets, and that you can get good trade deals. They’ve shown how to do it. They’ve shown it can be done. The Labour Government in New Zealand has not followed this, and instead they’ve just shut it down.

Look, it’s going to cost New Zealand farmers about $475 million per annum—$475 million per annum. I should note that this is extra cash profit for farms, not just revenue. For those who may be on the other side of the House who don’t quite get what that means, revenue is just money coming through. It’s not money that you can actually keep in the bank and use for other things. This is talking about cash profit for farmers. So this is enormously valuable money when there’s a cost of living crisis which is impacting the whole country, and certainly impacting regional New Zealand, because, yes, they’re getting good prices for dairy products, for meat, etc. in New Zealand at the moment, but the costs have gone up enormously. The input costs—the cost of fuel, the cost of labour, the cost of vehicles, you name it; everything—have gone up significantly, and that means the profit margins have reduced.

So losing $475 million per annum, to regional New Zealand is a big, big deal, and that is exactly what this bill does. Labour has just shut the borders, shut down this part of the economy, and doesn’t propose another solution, but they create another problem, because it’s estimated that there are going to be some 150,000 bobby calves which are going to have to be slaughtered. What’s going to happen with those 150,000 bobby calves? This is a major, major problem, because the meat processors have a gigantic shortage of skilled workers. They are already struggling to process the animals that they need to at the present time, and have been for some time. They don’t have the skilled workers that they need, and 150,000 additional bobby calves being sent to the meat works is going to create an enormous problem. It’s difficult not to see an animal welfare crisis being created by the so-called Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is creating more problems. It’s seeking a solution and creating a hell of a lot more problems, and it’s incredibly sad to see this.

Look, there’s all this talk about dairy herds, and, you know, some people don’t get that we have the most carbon-efficient dairy farmers in the world. But, look, the dairy herd in New Zealand is actually decreasing by about 20,000 a year and has been doing so for the last five years. So we actually have a reducing dairy herd, but we have a very good dairy industry, with about 11,000 dairy farmers who are showing the world how you can be the most carbon-efficient dairy farmers in the world, creating incredibly good stock. Now we cannot share that with the rest of the world.

Like I said, one example is the Ukraine. Another example that springs to mind is Indonesia. Indonesia also has got foot-and-mouth disease. They’re going to need to replace a whole lot of the dairy herd. They will not be able to get them from New Zealand, and that is another crying shame, because we have a responsibility to assist other countries with the livestock that they need so that they can feed their populations. I note another example: China is rebuilding its dairy herd, and will New Zealand be able to assist with that? No, it will not, again. So we are missing out on significant trading opportunities and showing how we can be the most responsible leader in this space, as we are in so many other spaces, and that is a huge shame.

So, with that, I am hoping I’m making it very clear that we are deeply opposed this bill. It is a major mistake by this Government and something that we are going to have to look at next year. The New Zealand dairy farmers deserve enormous recognition for what they do for our country, and we are very proud to support them on this side of the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): 谢谢 and talofa. As the final speaker on this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill—the third and final reading—it is a privilege to make a short contribution to this bill. I wish to thank you for the opportunity.

The Minister who spoke earlier on the bill and also Minister Meka Whaitiri highlighted a number of concerns and why this bill is at the forefront.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the loss of life of not just the livestock but the members of the community. When the ship sank, it was a real tragedy, and it would have been very traumatic for the members to lose not just the livestock but also members of their family. I want to acknowledge that, because sometimes these things are forgotten in the eyes of risky business.

Whilst I was not a member of the Primary Production Committee, I would like to thank them for this work. I would also like to thank the officials for this work, and the submitters. There were 637 written submissions, which were quite varied, as I understand from the evidence, but also there were 33 oral submitters who raised a number of concerns, and also the mixed feedback that the select committee could not decide on.

In my short contribution, I do want to just speak on a couple of points—namely, the bill is to ban the practice of exporting live cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by ship and the transition period is until 30 April 2023. And that’s actually not too far away. As we’ve heard in the earlier kōrero by both Ministers, it is a real tragedy that New Zealand has to acknowledge that when this practice or this trade goes ahead, we have little control. So there still remain quite risky practices of this trade.

When that ship sank and the livestock was lost, it was, as I understand, the seventh time. And even after that there was another ship that sank during the COVID period, Al Badri, which did lose over 15,000 sheep, and although the crew managed to get off the ship and disembark, it is still a tragedy that we have to acknowledge. We have to review—that is what the bill contains in the practices, namely the reputation of New Zealand in the trade industry. What we want to strengthen with this amendment bill are the practices and the reputation that we have on the world stage to do with livestock.

It’s really important that the only way that we can guarantee animal welfare is to ban the live export, the current practice; hence the amendment bill. So on a world stage in the farming sector—and I’ve been listening to the kōrero from both sides all afternoon—New Zealand has a proud and high regard for animal welfare standards, and we have to take that ethical standard, that ethical point. Because we don’t want to put at risk just the lives of people on the ships but also the livestock we want to maintain, particularly because of our location on the globe.

In 2019, the Government did direct the Ministry for Primary Industries to review this specific procedure, and so when that review takes place in this amendment bill—the Animal Welfare Act 1999—to ban live export of cattle, deer, sheep, and goats, it is the right thing to do. That practice, in the transition period, will carry on until 30 April 2023. This will protect livestock from New Zealand. Whilst there are the farmers who are very concerned at how they are going to do their business, there needs to be a primary concern around the livestock, and this Government supports that the trade is very risky, and this bill will ensure and aspire to the better systems with the regulatory system improvement, with the complete ban on the trade. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare Amendment 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

Fisheries Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House considering the Fisheries Amendment Bill that the committee may not consider Supplementary Order Paper 257.

We have been working on the Fisheries Amendment Bill for the last many months at the Primary Production Committee, and we have done that in good faith—as the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Labour Party; and we have had a very good contribution from Eugenie Sage. As we have worked through that, we have worked on a Government bill that itself has been in many years of gestation, with many stakeholders—be they recreational, custodial, or the sector itself. A core component of that bill was the fact that, for the first time, the industry would have a framework—a new framework—called the pre-set decision rules, which would enable some business surety and certainty and common sense for the sector and all the participants to be able to understand how a particular species will be managed within an agreed pre-set decision framework.

In good faith, we have debated it as a select committee. We have read 500 submissions, and we’ve heard from 50 individual submitters, and each one of them reflected around their perspective on the pre-set decision rules. This is the Primary Production Committee, which is known for its ability to be bipartisan more than partisan and to work through issues when we are having points of difference. We have worked through that diligently and with an appropriate focus—those of the sector, regardless of their perspectives—be they from an iwi-custodial perspective; be they from a recreational perspective; be they from the NGOs, who do not want anything taken from our seas; or from the various voices of the commercial sector.

What we have in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been dropped on us this afternoon is every single reference to the pre-set decision rules framework—which, in good faith, was discussed with the sector prior to the Government bill being introduced; which, in good faith, the select committee reflected on over weeks and weeks and weeks; and which is a core component of the negotiation and the balance that was sought to be struck with respect to fisheries management—being pulled. In this SOP, every single reference to that pre-set decision framework—for us to consider in a committee of the whole House stage—has been pulled from this bill.

I think—and hence my debatable motion this afternoon—that it is a unique set of circumstances that will require the relatively infrequent use of this request by the Opposition. Frankly, it is so substantive to the Government bill that was introduced that for it to be introduced as an SOP in this context fundamentally changes the nature of the bill that we have been deliberating on and reflecting on as parliamentarians, in good faith and in a partisan way, for weeks and weeks. It simply is not acceptable, and that sits at the core of the National Party’s—and my—objection to the fact that this SOP has been dropped, as it has, in this House, and has pulled all reference to something that, in good faith, the sector has been negotiating. It destroys the trust that, within a sector, is challenging to find at the best of times. From our perspective, it is completely unacceptable that we would consider it.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): ACT supports the National Party’s motion to raise the alarm bells over everything to do with this piece of legislation being, basically, struck off the record. The pre-set decision rules, as framed, were tantamount to good outcome. As the member Mr Muller rightly alluded to, we had multiple submissions, hundreds of submissions, dozens and dozens of verbal submissions, and they all spoke to the importance of pre-set decision rules for not only iwi, for especially the coastal fisheries and the deep water fleet. Even the recreational sector had concurred that pre-set decision rules were tantamount to a good outcome. So the ACT Party absolutely supports the National Party in moving this motion.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the instruction to the committee of the whole House, moved by Mr Muller. The reason we have taken this unusual path is because of the particularly unusual nature of what we see before us here, today, proposed by the Minister, the Hon David Parker, before this motion was put in place to debate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 in the name of the Minister.

Now, it’s an SOP that significantly changes the construct of the bill that we would otherwise have been debating. On that basis, we are very much concerned that the intent, the goodwill, and the submitters’ efforts have all been undermined by this very last-minute change. We’ve seen, actually, through the process, firstly, the pre-set decision rules put in place, and then amendments made to take them out, further amendments to put aspects back in or change the wording, and, now, finally, looking to strike that out altogether. Ultimately, it is a significant chunk of the bill that had been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee and had been reported back to the House as the proposed legislation that, until that point, was part of the Minister’s intent, and, indeed, it had its second reading only just last sitting day, which actually concluded this morning. At that point, even still, only just a few hours ago, it was the Minister’s intent, apparently, that this would be part of the bill. And now, here we are, some short time later, seeing an SOP tabled at the very last minute looking to strike out a significant part of the bill.

So we were considering whether or not to move an instruction on this basis and thought that, actually, it warranted it because it is such a fundamental change to the legislation that had been put forward. Under Speaker’s ruling 78/7, “It is competent for a member to move an instruction the subject matter of which is neither ‘irrelevant nor foreign nor contradictory to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and second reading of the bill,’”. That’s the thing here, we’re not looking to change something significantly, because that would be outside the scope of what can be moved by an instruction. What we’re looking to do, actually, is to maintain the integrity of the process we have taken so far with this piece of legislation—through its first reading, through the select committee, and through its second reading, which finished just a couple of hours ago. Now, suddenly, we’re seeing a massive shift in where this legislation is decided best to sit by the Minister.

We believe that is so fundamentally out of line with what was agreed through the previous stages, through the collegial nature of the select committee. It is at such odds with all the efforts of the submitters and is, quite frankly, disrespectful to the time and effort put in by the submitters going through the select committee process on the expectation that their voice would be considered and heard, and would maybe influence some of the outcome. We went through that; we saw some massaging of that—as put forward in the report from the select committee. The Primary Production Committee reported back to the House with some changes to the proposed wording of those pre-set decision rules, such that it was presumably—and presumably at the Minister’s confidence as well—a more appropriate fit for what the legislation should look like. Now, here we are with that totally scratched off the page and we’re rewriting it again.

So, on that basis, we don’t believe that this SOP 257 in the name of the Minister should be considered by the committee because, as I say, it is so fundamentally different to that view. The intent of the bill was to improve the sustainability of our fisheries. It is my claim, and our moving of this instruction, that, actually, as put forward, it is deviating significantly from the previous stages. I think the key part here is that it wasn’t just that someone has moved an amendment, an SOP, in the committee of the whole House stage—of course, every member is entitled—

Mark Cameron: They’ve rewritten the legislation.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —to do that—but, actually, it is a massive rewrite, Mr Cameron, absolutely, of the fundamental intent of the legislation, and, specifically, as reported back from a select committee that, whilst it is generally bipartisan, still, the Government influence is very clear; it has the majority. On that basis, you would expect that it has a very clear mandate, a very clear understanding, of following the Minister’s intent, going through the process, looking to make some improvements from all of those submitters we heard from, and then coming to this House.

So that was the case: it was reported back; there were some amendments to it. We see that in the report back from the select committee: pages of them, numerous strike-outs or add-ins, as the clauses may be under the pre-set aspects—you know, the 11AAAs, the 5s, the 6, the 7s, all those aspects that had some wording tweaked to, apparently, make it more fit for purpose. Yet here we are now, just a short time later, having ratified all of that in the second reading. So it wasn’t like the select committee reported back something that the Minister thought was inappropriate, because it still passed its second reading with no concerns raised at all—even this morning, a couple of hours ago—about any aspects of these pre-set decision rules that may or may not be fit for purpose any longer. This is just blind-siding the committee and the industry.

On that basis, we have moved this instruction and we would ask for the support of members across the House to advise the committee—when it does go into committee of the whole House—to take this instruction and its consideration, and strike out any further consideration of SOP 257 in the name of the Minister.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise this afternoon in support of the instruction moved by my colleague Todd Muller for the primary producers of New Zealand. Now, we’ve just completed the reading of a bill which I thought was one of the biggest shams of the Primary Production Committee process, and that was the animal welfare ban of live exports bill. And this is in no way criticising the chair or the members of that committee, who worked very collegially, but those submitters came in one after the other after the other, actually thinking that they were making submissions that may change the Government’s mind on the ban.

Now we stand up here, just having finished that, having gone through an amazing select committee process. It’s all very confusing, as Dr Duncan Webb was talking before about “my passion for cows”. I’ve been on a real 101 of fishing. This has been a real dilemma for the fishermen, because this is actually about imposing regimes and penalties for fish that they really don’t want to catch in the first place and, unfortunately, it’s caught as part of the process. And day after day after day, those fishermen came in, really concerned about where this was going to end up. This was, actually, one of the main topics of discussion throughout the bill, and this is an even worse process than the last one we went through on the animal welfare ban of live exports, because these submitters also came in and thought they were contributing to, adding to this bill, and then, as my colleagues have said, after the reading we come in here this afternoon and the Minister decides to put up a Supplementary Order Paper and actually change the face of what these good-faith submitters had put in front of them. So it’s clear on this side of the House: support my colleague’s instruction. This is bad practice and bad faith with the primary producers of New Zealand. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just members note that this is a relatively narrow debate, and that members are entitled to speak on it; however, if the debate does become repetitive with the same points, then as Chair I’ll be looking for some closure.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m a bit puzzled. Where have National Party members been? It has always been able for Ministers to introduce Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to change a bill after it has been reported back from a select committee.

National speakers seem to have ignored a lot of the submissions that went into the Primary Production Committee from recreational fishers; organisations like LegaSea, Forest & Bird, the Environmental Law Initiative, and the Environmental Defence Society; and others who had a major problem with the pre-set decision rules and expressed substantial concerns.

What we’ve heard from National members is the assumption that we should only, in a select committee, rely on the submissions from the fishing industry. Certainly, as I said last night, the fishing industry did support pre-set decision rules, but a lot of other people had considerable apprehension and concern about them because of the way in which they reduce the ability of the public to have a say on what happens to a common—I’m not going to use the word “resource”—to fish, which we share in common. The pre-set decision rules—certainly there is consultation on the scope of the rule, but if there is quite a wide range for that rule, the Minister makes a decision when he or she applies it, with no public consultation. It has been New Zealanders getting involved by challenging previous Ministers about the unsustainability of total allowable commercial catch (TACC), the need to reduce the TACC, and the need to provide for recreational fishers and the ecosystem that has led past Ministers to reduce the catch.

So others have said, like LegaSea, that these pre-set decision rules—and it was an attempt by the industry to get them smuggled into a bill which is primarily about landing and discards, improving reporting, and enabling the introduction of cameras. So this is within the scope of the Minister to do. I think it allows a lot more measured consideration. As one National member said last night, “The whole bill does create more complexity.” And, taking these pre-set decision rules out, there’s already quite significant changes in the bill which will take the industry a while to get used to. We can do this, and the Minister’s decision, with this SOP 257, is responding to a lot of submissions which were expressing considerable apprehension about these rules. So we won’t be supporting National’s motion.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The Labour Party will be opposing this motion. I would note that the claim that this is the major part of the bill is exaggerated. It is a 48-page bill. These provisions are on pages 3 to 7.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I’m glad the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries spoke and I’m glad the Green Party spoke, because it puts the context around what’s actually happened here today. The Green Party made it very clear that they don’t want this ability to have those kinds of decisions within the bill. They just don’t see it as there.

The Labour Party have confirmed that, in the Minister not explaining why Supplementary Order Paper 257 is being dropped today. As my colleague Tim van de Molen said, we just debated this a mere number of hours ago in this House. There was not one mention from the Labour members that they felt that this was an issue in the Primary Production Committee. There’s not one point where the Minister stood up today, when he had an opportunity just now, to explain why he did this. All he did was try and confuse and conflate people and say, “Oh, it’s a 48-page bill.”

Well, I’ll show you what your 48-page bill looks like now. [Holds up Supplementary Order Paper 257] You’ve taken out clause after clause after clause. It’s typical Labour Party propaganda. They try and say, “We’re only just changing a small part of the bill.”—he’s ripping a big part of the bill out. And it’s not only the part of the bill that he’s ripping out; he’s ripping out the consultation between the industry and Government, and that is the ability for the industry to go forward and Government to go forward. We all want to see the same thing happen in the fishing industry: we all want to see the best result for New Zealand fishing and New Zealand fishers.

The Minister deliberately did not say anything when he spoke. He had the opportunity to explain his decision. He has been sitting there quietly, smugly looking. He knows damn well that he doesn’t want to explain it. He just wants to hide it behind the process. He doesn’t want it in there. He’s shaking his head. Well, maybe he needs to stand up and tell us why he’s taking it out—and not some excuse that “It’s a 48-page bill and it’s not the heart of the bill we’re taking out.” Well, of course there’s more in the bill; everyone knows that. But I actually want an explanation. You just don’t take things out, with one line saying, “This is deleted, this is deleted, this is deleted.”, and stand up and try and excuse yourself. Explain it. Explain it to the industry. Have you got a good reason? Tell us.

Hon David Parker: It’s the committee stage. It’s what we debate at the committee stage.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s what we’re going to debate at the committee stage! Well, this is actually in the Minister’s—so he’s now going to debate it. He’s telling us he’s going to debate it. Well, he had the opportunity then to actually explain what he wants to debate. He won’t debate it. I bet you they’ve all been told not to say a word on this. All the Labour—the whip’s trying to stand up and shut it down. That’s what he’s doing. They’re not going to stand up and debate it and explain it.

Hon David Parker: We’re debating the motion.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. And were you going to explain why you’re against it? [Interruption] Yeah, your reason against it is because—he says the bill is big enough as it is and he doesn’t have to explain it. He is more important than the industry! He himself does not have to bow to this Parliament and explain his decision. He just has to oppose it. The arrogance of that Minister in doing that, and the arrogance of the Labour Party. They’ve got no intention of debating this. He’s trying to shut it down. The whip can’t get up quick enough. And there’s the next call: it will be a Labour Party member trying to shut it down, won’t it? None of them are going to explain it. None of them are going to debate it.

The Labour Party needs to be honest with the fishing industry and say why they’ve done this. They need to get out there and the Minister needs to explain it, and not waffle about the size of the bill and try and hide behind that—actually say what he thinks about the issue. And as our oceans and fisheries spokesperson, Todd Muller, has said, there’s good faith in that select committee. The members of that committee have discussed this time and time again. There’s good faith by the sector. This is something that we don’t do every day in the fishing industry, because it is very complex and difficult. And for a Minister to come in here and be so arrogant as to say, “I don’t have to explain it. It’s just a big bill. I’ve taken out 10 lines. Who cares?” just shows how out of touch he is with the public and how out of touch the Labour Party is.

Now the whip can stand up and do his closure motion. Go for it, mate. Knock your socks off. But it just shows that you’ve got no intention of explaining what you’re doing and the Labour Party are just using this process. They could have done this months ago. The Minister wanted to do this months ago, it was in his mind—it didn’t come up today. He’s been—

Mark Cameron: Lobbied.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, I don’t think he’s been lobbied. I think he’s actually known this for a while; he just didn’t want to have it in front of the debate. He just wanted to put it in at the very last minute, in the committee stage. Don’t shake your head like that. We know it’s the truth. You didn’t want to actually debate it. You didn’t want to actually have it in the public arena. You only wanted to put it in at the last minute so that you had to explain it for the very least amount of time, and you won’t even explain it to this House. It’s a shambles of a Minister, and it just shows the deceitful nature of the Labour Party.

A party vote was called for on the question, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House considering the Fisheries Amendment Bill that the committee may not consider Supplementary Order Paper 257.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Motion not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee on the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, which will commence when the sitting resumes at 7 p.m.

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

Bills

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Main Amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we are in committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. We come now to—

Tim van de Molen: Fisheries.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): A member is trying to tell me something. Would you like to take a point of order?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I believe we are due to consider the Fisheries Amendment Bill in the first instance.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, it’s interesting you should say that. Thank you. We’ve been having that discussion, so let’s just clarify.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I’ll take the first call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. This bill updates the processes under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the HSNO Act, as it’s called—to allow the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to use information that comes from reputable overseas regulators, rather than requiring all of that evidence to be produced in a bespoke basis for the New Zealand regulator.

It’s a very sensible bill, and it will have better environmental outcomes in New Zealand, because the problem that we have with our current system is that because the process requires reconsideration based on a full volume of evidence, quite a few of the owners of the rights to chemicals don’t bring them to New Zealand. As a consequence, we’re still using chemicals in New Zealand that could be replaced with better chemicals that are more effective or have less environmental harm, but they don’t get registered here. One of the impediments to that registration is the cost of the process.

The other effect of this is that it constrains the ability of the EPA to conduct reassessments of chemicals that are already in the system based on information that is from overseas. So what this legislation does, in this globalised world, is allow the EPA to take notice of the information that comes from, for example, a European regulator who may have looked at the same chemical in great detail.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, this is a piece of, frankly, quite pragmatic legislation, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition is supporting it. But there are a couple of questions I have for the Minister in the chair, and notwithstanding the practical aspects of this piece of legislation, I’m interested to know just how the Minister expects the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to distinguish between what is a credible alternative jurisdiction and which aspects of information and data they will take into account and which they might reject.

The whole purpose of this piece of legislation is to, frankly, stop us having to reinvent the wheel in a uniquely Kiwi way with every hazardous substance, particularly if there is another jurisdiction of a kindred like to our own with a robust process and a credible, reliable analysis regime, where we can use that data and that information. So my question really relates to how the Minister thinks that the EPA will actually come to a conclusion about which jurisdictional interests will be acceptable and which won’t.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that question. This matter is addressed at new section 76E, in clause 11 of the bill, which is entitled “Authority may recognise overseas bodies as international regulators”, and then it sets out at subsections (1) to (4) the process that the authority has to go through before it can recognise one or more overseas bodies as international regulators for the purposes of the relevant sections of the Act.

The authority, before it does by notice in the Gazette give that notice of recognition, has to publicly notify its intention to issue the notice, give interested persons a reasonable time to make submissions on the proposal, and consult representative groups within the hazardous substances industry, Government departments, WorkSafe, and Crown entities whom the authority considers appropriate in each case. So it has to go through that process before it can issue its Gazette notice, and then there’s a set of prohibitions that are listed at new section 76E(3) where the authority must not recognise an overseas body unless the authority has considered whether the body operates in a manner comparable to the authority in regulating hazardous substances, the legislative regime in that country is comparable to ours, and the information from that body is readily accessible by the authority.

The amendment that was added at the Environment Committee was the addition of subsection (4), which relates to amendments that can be made by the authority to the notice. Some of those are minor and technical, and others have to go through a process.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I want to just tease it out a little bit more in terms of the definition and element of what is reasonable. Subsection (4) says that applications with “significant cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, health, or international effects; or … significant effects in an area in which the Authority lacks sufficient knowledge or expertise.” This is subsection (5): “The Authority must—(a) do everything reasonably practicable on its part to consult all persons who, in its opinion, are likely to be directly affected by the reassessment; and (b) give those persons a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and comments to the Authority on the reassessment;”.

So it’s this test of reasonableness, because I can imagine that there will be instances where, for instance, the Minister will know, as I do, that we have some very active and participatory environmental NGOs who may have a completely different view as to what is reasonable in these situations, and that might differ significantly from the Environmental Protection Authority’s view as to reasonableness. Does the Minister expect that this test will be judicially tested, or is he happy that previous case law about what is reasonable and not reasonable will apply?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Could I just inquire of the member what clause of the bill he is referring to?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It’s in new section 53AA in clause 7, halfway down page 5 of the bill as reported back from the select committee, particularly subsections (4), (3), and (5).

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, the Hon Mr Simpson. That clause earlier, new section 53AA in clause 7, sets out that in addition to public consultation, departments of the Crown that are likely to have an interest in the application should be consulted. Where it’s an application for the approval of a new organism there is also an obligation to consult with the Department of Conservation, and if the application is for approval of a hazardous substance, WorkSafe must be involved.

One of the more difficult issues that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has dealt with in recent years has been the approval of methyl bromide for its continued use in New Zealand. New Zealand, we now know, is one of the largest users of methyl bromide in the world, and if used unsafely it can cause serious health effects for the people close to it. I know that in that case a lot of the work on both the safe application of it and alternatives to that chemical, the role of WorkSafe has probably been in addition to the EPA’s work themselves. I would have thought that WorkSafe has been the lead agency to provide good input to the EPA as to what is a proper outcome in respect of public notification. In that case, there were concerns about its use around ports, because it’s used as a fumigant before the export of logs to kill the bugs that might be in the bark, in the main. And some of those activities are on the port within close proximity to cities. Mr Muller will be aware of this because this is the case in point in Tauranga. I’m aware that in that case, obviously, those that were consulted were those people who were affected, or potentially affected.

I would expect that in the future, in a similarly difficult application, the EPA decision as to reasonableness would be a decision that they took with care, and that they would be wanting to make sure that people who had a legitimate interest in what are contentious issues had an opportunity to make submissions to them. If they did that in a way that excluded a significant portion of the population who might be adversely affected by the use of that chemical, then I suppose it is possible that those people could take that issue to the court and allege that there was a breach of the statutory duty in terms of their assessment of what is reasonable. In my time as Minister of this organisation, that’s never happened, because I think the EPA does get it right.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to take part in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—it’s quite a mouthful, actually. I thank the Minister David Parker for his full and frank responses.

My question is around methyl bromide, and it’s actually used in the Port of Picton as well—Shakespeare Bay, to be precise. You mentioned, Minister, how important a part WorkSafe plays in chemicals such as methyl bromide. A lot of logs that are exported are actually treated with methyl bromide on the journey away—the logs are loaded and they’re actually treated with methyl bromide at sea. Is that restricted if it occurs within New Zealand waters? How does that work? Is methyl bromide allowed to be carried but not used, and then used at sea? If so, where at sea is it that the laws of the land end, as far as that’s concerned, and WorkSafe’s jurisdiction ends? Is that the 12-mile limit? Is it the exclusive economic zone, or where does that happen?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m aware that methyl bromide is used both in the hold and portside, under tarpaulins. There are different rules that apply to each which reflect the consequences of each methodology. Obviously, if a hold has been pumped full of methyl bromide in concentrations that can kill all the bugs, there would be a danger to people who went into the hold thereafter without it being cleared. I will check with officials, but I’d presume that the jurisdiction of WorkSafe would end at the 12-mile limit, but I will see if officials are aware of that. It’s not directly on point to this bill, so if I can’t get an answer from officials, I apologise and I’m happy to get to the member later.

Indeed, that’s been confirmed by officials: 12 nautical miles.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that answer. While I accept it’s not particularly part of this, it does relate to the—we have these substances that are not desirable to be used but we do use them and we need to know how they’re controlled. My question was, really, around how they’re handled in New Zealand.

So if, for example, we ban methyl bromide and the Environmental Protection Agency say that that’s no longer to be used under this Act, then those logs that are going to be exported, if they’re going to be treated on the sea—not in New Zealand; outside the 12-mile limit—are they able to be carried on board so that those exports can continue but they’re just merely used and treated outside of our 12-mile limit?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I expect it is legal for vessels to carry them if they carry them safely. We wouldn’t assert the ability to control what happens on the high seas. But I’m not sure whether that practice does occur.

I do know that methyl bromide has been recently reassessed. It took a number of years. There was an assessment some years ago that proposed phasing it down to very, very low concentrations of residue, which proved impossible to achieve. There had been a hope that in the meantime there would be substitute chemicals or processes developed. Some substitute processes have been developed for some markets. Some markets are happy for the logs to be stripped of their bark and then just, effectively, steam treated, I think—or it might even just be the removal of the bark. But some markets, I think, including India, refuse to recognise that as sufficient control of the risk that a pest could be carried with the log, and so they still require fumigation.

As a consequence of the reassessment, there are strict controls covering both in-hold and on-the-wharf applications of methyl bromide. It was quite a long process because at one stage there were some wind assessments that were done that indicated that on a certain wind there could be problems caused in the Tauranga area, which the Environmental Protection Agency had to work through.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Under the principal Act, it’s clear that hazardous substances that are approved by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) are approved in perpetuity. However, there can be a reassessment option and programme initiated, and at select committee there was a proposal—which has been, I think, picked up in clause 4—to create a new section 20C relating to reassessment of work plans. Now, at select committee, the committee understood that the intent of the bill was for reassessment work plans only to include reassessments that were initiated by the chief executive and that they would not be able to be initiated on an applicant basis for reassessments.

So that then seems to me—on the face of it, Minister—to provide the chief executive with very significant power to manage and intercede on reassessments at the personal initiative of the chief executive. And again, just referring to a number of very keen and enthusiastic environmental NGOs who may want to have reassessments done, it seems that this legislation will simply not provide for any mechanism for an initiated reassessment option to occur, and that the only trigger for reassessment lies with the chief executive. I’m keen to know from the Minister why he thinks that power should be limited to the chief executive. Does he consider that there could ever be situations where an applicant-initiated reassessment request could be considered or triggered that was contrary to the views and opinions of the chief executive of the day? So I’d be interested in the Minister’s views on that, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. The chief executive of the authority—and I should go back a step. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) takes these decisions independently of the Government. They’re not ministerial decisions, and neither should they be, because it’s a regulator that’s trying to get the best safety outcome for New Zealand as well as within the bounds of safety; good economic outcomes where chemicals are needed in New Zealand’s economy. The Act provides that there are criteria set out at section 62(a) to (d) of the Act; I haven’t got those in front of me, but I can get them for the member if the member is interested.

But in addition to that, the work plan must list the substances and give an indicative time frame for when the work will start. But then the authority comes into play rather than the chief executive, which is provided for in new section 20C(4), in clause 4 of the bill. It says: “The Authority must ensure that the work plan (a) gives the highest priority to … (i) hazardous substances that are prohibited for use under section 64: (ii) hazardous substances that are subject to restriction under section 64A;”. So in the end the authority has control of the list and they’ve got duties to prioritise the things that are most important to prioritise.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for bringing this bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, to the House. ACT New Zealand supports this bill. Anything that reduces the regulatory burden on New Zealand consumers, taxpayers, and businesses is welcomed by ACT. So thank you, Minister, and thank you to the officials for putting in all that effort.

I just want to ask you about new section 20C—in clause 4—“Reassessments work plan”. It’s quite likely that there are a range of hazardous substances for which an evaluation by technical experts would point to the need to either reduce, limit, or stop their use, as better products are available. That’s what we understand the reassessments work plan will be designed to do.

I just want to ask the Minister—and he might need to consult with officials—has there been an appropriation in a Budget to reform or improve the reassessments process? Will the existing resources, staff, and IT systems that the Environmental Protection Agency currently uses be able to be used? And in terms of the reassessments work plan, it requires the plan to be put together within 12 months, I understand, of the legislation passing. Given it’s taken quite a long time for the legislation to move through the House, is it likely that we’ll know the time frame or schedule for reassessment to proceed? Is this something likely to happen in 2023, or is it more likely to be 2024 before the reassessments process starts? And, if so, are there any interim measures that you think should need to be taken?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Budget point, no, there hasn’t been additional budget given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The long-term funding of the EPA is actually being reviewed this year, which is not to say that it will be substantially increased, but it could be.

In respect of the most important feature of this bill, the very fact of the passage of this bill enables the EPA to do more with the budget that it has, because they can now adopt information from overseas regulators that have been approved through the process that I covered in response to an earlier question.

In respect of the date by which the work plan will be set, I’ll ask officials that now, but I don’t know it to be earlier than the 12 months.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the reassessments, the Minister will be aware that many of the hazardous substances that would come up for reassessment are seasonal in nature. So a crop where a family group of chemicals is used is totally reliant on the season. If a chemical comes up for reassessment during that period and they decide to halt the use of it during that reassessment, what processes does that go through so that we have assurance when , for example, kiwifruit or the wine industry or wheat harvest, or whatever it is is reaching a critical stage that requires a chemical to deal with a certain disease threat and then suddenly it’s halted and we can’t use it, and when there’s no time whatsoever to get alternative chemistry to deal with that particular challenge? How do we know that that has been taken into account before that halt is being called? So I guess what I’m saying is: how high is the bar for that halt of use?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those are issues that are determined by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on the facts that are before them. I suppose it would depend a bit on the practicality of alternatives to the danger, relatively, that is posed by the incumbent, if you like, and their assessment of risk. I know that in the case of methyl bromide, again, the prior reassessment, because it’s now been reassessed twice, gave a very long lead-in period. But those, in the end, are for the discretion of the EPA to take in accordance with the advice that they get from the expert panels that provide them technical advice.

In respect of the earlier question from Simon Court, the department’s confident that they will do it within 12 months. They don’t have a specific date earlier than 12 months but they confirm that it won’t be this year, it will be next year.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well just further to that, Minister, is there no reasonableness test or anything other than just the judgment of the person concerned, rather than something prescribed to meet a certain standard of reasonableness?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Sorry, Madam Chair, I should’ve called. I don’t understand that they’re to be stated in that way. There are various factors that have to be taken into account by the EPA. Their primary focus is, obviously, safety but they also have regard to the societal benefit of the chemicals that are used. They balance all of those issues in a way that is wise. So I haven’t heard complaints in my time as Minister as to how they have abused that process. I’ve never had a complaint in that regard, and I’m not expecting any.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential and other amendments, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 30 and the Schedule: consequential and other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to come to new section 62, “Grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism” in clause 21. While we were told that classification of new organisms was out of scope of the bill, could the Minister please clarify if the grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism will be liberalised as a result of replaced section 62? In particular, what grounds will the authority use to reassess conditionally released new organisms and any qualifying organisms released with controls?

The reason I ask that, Minister, is because “New Zealand Inc.” has made a number of commitments to reduce our carbon emissions, our emissions of greenhouse gases, and yet we don’t have the benefit of biotechnology that would allow New Zealand to meet its commitments more quickly, at less cost, and with less disruption. So I’m interested, Minister: will this replaced section 62 provide a more liberal pathway to reassess biotechnology for release? Minister, we’d just appreciate some clarification on that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No, it won’t. It’s not dealing with what rules should be applied to approvals for the release of new organisms, including genetically modified organisms. I think this relates to where the organism has been previously assessed—can there be a reassessment. So it’s not liberalising the release, for example, of a genetically modified organism.

That said, we do have work under way to look at the liberalisation of laboratory research and the medical uses of genetically modified organisms, because there is a general view held by the Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society that some of those rules are too restrictive and that the rest of the world has moved on to a certain extent in respect of those. We’re not going so far as to liberalise the release into the environment of a genetically modified organism that can replicate, for example, or approving the use of genetically modified seeds or animals. That is a debate for another day. The release of those organisms is not prohibited under New Zealand, but those people that wanted to release GMOs of that nature would have to go through the existing provisions in the legislation.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Minister, just to clarify, this legislation actually provides grounds to reassess new organisms, assuming that they’ve been used in some way—most likely in containment or in a laboratory—for some time. I’m assuming the reassessment would be because new hazards and risks have been discovered. So could you just please clarify that this legislation provides to put things that are in the lab or being assessed into the incinerator—destroy them, remove them, reassess them so that they can’t go any further—but it doesn’t allow for any pathway for, say, genetically modified grasses that do self-replicate, because they’re a grass species, to be used which could actually reduce carbon emissions. Could you just clarify that, please, Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I can. This amendment doesn’t change the existing law in that regard. People that wanted to produce a GM ryegrass, for example, and release it into the environment in New Zealand can apply under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for an approval to release that organism—no one has. The member’s quite correct to say that it is hard. It’s not impossible; no one’s tried. It would be controversial in New Zealand because there are people in society who think that would be the wrong thing to do, for reasons of—

Simon Court: Debate for another day, perhaps, yeah.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s debatable, and I’m not expressing a viewpoint in favour of or against that. But there are also other people who would say that irrespective of whether it is wise environmentally or from an environmental point of view, there would be important economic consequences for the country to consider on both sides of that equation. I know that, for example, our most successful apple growers in New Zealand, in the Hawke’s Bay, very large and successful exporters, think that they would suffer a diminution in the price that they obtain for their apples if we were to do that. They might be wrong, but they do argue that, and all of those issues would have to be taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority if an application was to be made under the existing statutory framework.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m quite surprised by the Minister’s comments here, given that I think everyone in this room has had two jabs of a genetically modified organism into their arms. I think it’s extraordinary that he would think it was so reluctant for genetically modified organisms to be used in New Zealand. I think the world has changed and I think that the Environmental Protection Authority and the Minister might want to reconsider their position.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! We’re having a wide-ish ranging debate, but I think coming closer to what is actually in the bill, I think we’re about at that point. Do you want to respond?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I do feel a need to respond to that, because there is actually a significant difference. I wouldn’t want people to think that by being vaccinated they are changing their genetic makeup because they’re not. There is a difference between that and a genetically modified grass that replicates and creates a heritable trait, which a vaccine does not. And I wouldn’t want to leave listeners or observers of this with the impression that being vaccinated means that you are being genetically modified, because you’re not, and that is a very, very important issue to be careful with at the moment in New Zealand.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to focus on section 62, in clause 21—this is “Grounds for reassessment of substance or organism”—and, in particular, section 62(2), which sets out a range of matters that the authority may decide are grounds for reassessment of an organism or substance after taking some factors into account. Now, there are several subjective definitions in paragraphs, (a), (c), and (d). Words like—in (a), “that significant new information relating to the effects”—what is determined as “significant”? In (c), it says “that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects”. Who decides what is “similar”, “improved”, and/or “beneficial”—or, indeed, in paragraph (c), “reduced adverse effects”? In (d), again, there is reference to “significant change of use, or a significant change in the quantity manufactured, imported, or developed, has become available;”.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s view as to the test that the Environmental Protection Authority and then, ultimately, the chief executive, would have to satisfy themselves with in terms of meeting those relatively subjective definitions as to “significant”, “similar”, “improved”, “beneficial”, “reduced”, “adverse”, and those sorts of words that are used in the legislation. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has technical panels that report to it, and those panels would provide them with technical advice as to whether there was significant new information relating to the effects of the organism. That new information could be that it is more harmful than was previously thought, but it has to be significant before they would trigger the grounds to reassess at the request of somebody. So this is where there are requests for reassessment, and if there has been no significant change, then you can understand that the EPA would want to put its resource somewhere else that was an area of significant change.

In respect of clause 21, which inserts new section 62(2)(c), the wording there is “that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects and reduced adverse effects has become available;” So that’s intended to cover the situation where there may have been no decent alternative to the chemical which had been approved for use, albeit on restricted grounds notwithstanding adverse effects. The authority might, on the request of somebody, think, “Well, we’ve got this other chemical that does the job just as well with far fewer environmental effects. We should look again at the original approval for the more dangerous chemical.” In respect to all those issues, it will be a matter of discretion for the authority.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move on to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate, on clauses 1 to 3. This is the title, commencement, and principal Act.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, just a relatively minor point, but given the keenness of the current Government that supports plain language legislation, I’m interested to know whether the Minister and his officials could have come up with something that was a little bit less complicated than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. Could that have been something that officials could have turned their mind to in terms of just saying, “This is something that is going to be a little less cumbersome”, if only for those of us that have to speak to the title in the House?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I actually think officials did well to choose that name, because it actually addressed the issue that Simon Court asked, which is whether the bill actually addresses new organisms or hazardous substances, and it actually addresses the assessments of hazardous substances. That’s clear from the title and therefore I’m not proposing to change it.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): In the spirit of what the Minister’s just suggested, that this is in plain English, what were some of the initial alternatives that officials put forward?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you, Minister. On the title and your reference, Minister, to the fact that this bill exclusively addresses hazardous substances, have you considered or received any advice as to whether in a future review of the operation of this legislation, with respect to new organisms, there could be a separate piece of legislation that addresses our future needs, in terms of biotechnology to solve medical problems, to solve environmental problems, and potentially to solve some of the problems around food production—whether a separate piece of legislation titled maybe “Beneficial Biotechnology” or something would be considered in the future?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m not sure it’s relevant to the title debate but, as I said, we are considering some changes to make more practical the rules around laboratory research for not just medical but non-medical purposes as well. We don’t have a current plan to broadly change the rules relating to the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Substantive provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the Fisheries Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1, this is the debate on clauses 4 to 26, “Substantive provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The background—no; I should start with what the main points of this bill are. This legislation provides a framework for the introduction of new technologies that weren’t available when the quota management system was developed, namely the use of cameras on boats to monitor fishing practice when you don’t have a physical fisheries observer on board. It’s obviously less costly to have automated technologies doing that surveillance, or checking, if you like, than it is to have real people as observers.

But I want to just spend a little bit of time on why this has come about. Back in 2016, there was a furore about some reports that had been held by the fisheries division of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for a number of years and had never been released. Those reports were titled Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp. Those reports had video footage and/or other evidence of some concerning practices as sea, where fishers were discarding significant quantities of fish. Some of that is called high-grading, where the fishers know that the best return they can get on a fish sold is of a particular size, and a fish that might be smaller or a fish that might be bigger is less valuable. Given that they wanted to maximise their returns and minimise their quota costs, there was high-grading going on where quantities of fish were being discarded.

There were also complicated rules for different species of fish, which were complex for fishers to comply with, with different rules relating to whether fish could be legally returned to sea applying to some species, and different rules to others, and different minimum sizes for different fish.

Prior to the time of the release of these two reports which were first released by third parties who had somehow obtained copies of them, there was also a study that had been conducted—led by the University of British Columbia in cooperation with the University of Auckland and academics from elsewhere—which had reconstructed the theoretical population of our fisheries, based on fish returns. That report concluded that the return of fish was irreconcilable with the distribution of a fish population, in terms of size. So there was already a controversy amongst some of the academics in this area that suggested that there was substantial under-reporting of actual fish caught in New Zealand, much of which was being discarded through high-grading or illegal forms of throwing fish back, generally dead, and illegal forms of discard, the quantity of which were not well known.

The Government of the day, which was the National Government, were surprised, as we in Opposition were at the time, as to the scale of what was being suggested was occurring. The scale of it is still disputed. The fishing industry say that the study by the University of Auckland and others was exaggerated and that the level of discards was not as high as that asserts. There is a contrary viewpoint where those people say that the science backs their view of what they said was occurring. Notwithstanding that controversy as to the amount, there was a general agreement that something untoward was happening.

As a consequence of controversies—and there was a lot of media coverage about it at the time—the Hon Nathan Guy, as the then Minister of Fisheries, asked for an inquiry by the former Solicitor-General Mike Heron—now KC; then QC. He conducted an inquiry into these events. He found that there had been some mistakes made within the fisheries division of MPI and that they were wrong to have gathered this information but not used it for enforcement reasons. Such was the heat around the issue that the then National Government said, “Look, we’ve got to clean this up. It’s not good for our international reputation. ‘Brand New Zealand’ underpins the value that we get for the goods that we sell across the primary sector.”, and they proposed the adoption of cameras on boats so that we could have some real scrutiny as to what has been happening at sea.

That, essentially, is the reason behind the core of this bill, which is to enable cameras on boats and the companion rule that says that, with some exceptions, you shouldn’t be able to discard fish; you should try to avoid catching the fish that are not valuable, and if you start catching lots of little fish, you should move on to where you’re catching the bigger fish, or you should use a fishing technique that prevents the catching of those little fish. So the rules have been changed to require all fish that are caught to be counted against quota, with some limited exceptions which will be specified in regulation. All fish that are caught are to be landed.

In response to both the better scrutiny that we have through those two measures, we can then move to a more moderate penalties regime—the current penalties regime being designed to heavily discourage illegal practice because it was so hard to find, and when it was found on those rare occasions, the law came down very heavily.

As a consequence of these better techniques that we will now have, we can introduce an infringement regime and also a demerit-points scheme which is much less Draconian and reflects can be used by fisheries officers using their prosecutorial discretion to use an appropriate remedy, rather than having to take people to court for prosecutions that could have disproportionate response.

I know the issue of within-year adjustments to take will come up, and I’m not dodging that issue. I’m sure it will be the focus of the debate, and I’m happy to engage in that debate as to why the pre-set decision rule is not proceeding at this stage and why we’ll put that out again for another round of consultation, if we do proceed with it.

But those are the main reasons for this amendment bill.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister Parker, for the opportunity to discuss this piece of legislation. Clauses 13 and 14, amending section 72 and inserting new section 72A, on the dumping of prohibited fish and landings and discard rules, as asserted in the legislation speak to 50 fewer or more fish, sir?

Hon David Parker: Yeah.

MARK CAMERON: I’m trying to reconcile that. I’ve been fishing as a recreational fisherman for 25 years, and worked alongside those that are commercial fishermen with set nets. They’re telling me this as proposed is nonsensical. Now, just to clarify why I’ve made that statement: mid-water fish. If you want to take the example of yellow-eye mullet and/or kahawai, they both sit in the same pressure zones in the ocean. Quite often, yellow-eye mullet are fished for bait fish by commercial fisherman. Inadvertently, they also catch a lot of kahawai. How can you differentiate between species in mid-water fishing, as an example? This is just one example, and we’ve got several. When the fisheries industry has gone from a six-inch mesh to a five—sorry, a four to a five to a six, changed from a diamond to a square. They have spent decades fine-tuning lead lines, weight lines, cork lines, so that these nets are falling into a certain pressure zone in the water, setting at certain tide heights, to alleviate this.

Now, your officials have said—and I have a lot of respect for the officials; they’ve worked very, very hard and are very collegial. But they couldn’t answer this. When they said that they were putting the squeeze on the industry to innovate, they couldn’t tell us what innovation looked like. Now, that’s one example, Minister, that I’ve given you, where, thus far, there is no technology outside of recording what these people are catching. And this is the question I have for you: how do you reconcile that with a coastal fisherman who is catching multiple coastal reef fish, which is very, very different from oceanic blue water fleets, with limited technology at their disposal? How do you reconcile that, when they’re going to be met with a prosecutorial reality that treats 50 anchovies—gracious me, sprats—like 50 kingfish?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Well, if they are sprats, they probably won’t be caught in a net. In respect of the underlying ethos of this legislation, we want people to land what they catch, because generally what is thrown back is dead. Where fishing techniques enable the bycatch to be released alive, there will be regulations promulgated to allow the release of that bycatch in those situations. And there are new mid-water haul techniques that are bringing up fish in a live state, in a vessel of water, which is expected to have a better chance of the survival of the fish that are released, and so you can see that exceptions are likely to be made for that. But where the fish is dead, the intention is that they be landed, and that’s for the reasons that I’ve previously outlined.

Now, there is, as the member Mark Cameron rightly observes, an unavoidable, small level of bycatch that we are not so concerned about. Where you set that level is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, and the advice from officials was to set that at 50 fish. Obviously, the member is correct that if it was krill or some other tiny species like that, relative to a tuna, it is less significant. We did have discussion about whether we should have different limits for different fish species, but we thought that that would be too confusing for people and hard for them to comply with the law, because they wouldn’t necessarily be able to remember the different rules.

In respect of where people do inadvertently breach something in a very minor way, of course, the authorities always have a discretion as to whether they choose to enforce the law through the prosecutorial discretion that the Fisheries New Zealand prosecutorial arm has, just as the Police or other agencies have a discretion as to whether they strictly enforce the law.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s forthright start. Clearly we have made the point, pre-dinner break, with some force, and now’s the time for perhaps more of a forensic conversation with the Minister around elements of his proposed Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).

The Minister would be very aware, because he kept a very close eye on proceedings of the Primary Production Committee, of the scale of the perspectives that were put in front of the committee. The effort that the committee members, with officials, went to to try and get the balance right—noting, as I did in this morning’s contribution, that at times the sector presented itself as the most fragmented in New Zealand primary industries, frankly; every participant holding a view on the primacy of their view and the inadequacy of others. It made for challenging work as a select committee.

But one of the areas that was a consistent conversation and focus and, I would argue, had very strong committee support, was the pre-set decision rules framework. And it comes with significant surprise to us that the scale of the changes—as was discussed earlier, the Minister ultimately has a right to change whatever he or she wants at an SOP stage, but to turn up at such a late stage, Minister, and remove the entire section with respect to pre-set decision rules seems an extraordinary response.

Minister, your response, pre-dinner, saying, “Well, look, it’s only a small portion in terms of pages to the larger bill”, I don’t think actually reflects in good faith the contribution of the select committee or indeed the various perspectives that have been brought to this issue by stakeholders through the select committee. As he notes in his thorough contributions to date, the genesis of the concern around not only the landing and discards, that we’ll talk to shortly, but also the important part of creating some flexibility and some certainty for sector participants with the pre-set decision rules. So my first question is, can he please outline to the committee—his own side as much as ours, I suspect—why we now have SOP 257 that amends the bill by deleting all the provisions relating to pre-set decision rules?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you for that question. The Fisheries Act runs to 670 pages. This amendment bill runs to, I think it was 48—what did I say before dinner? Yeah, 48 pages. These clauses, 4 to 12—8 clauses that, if the Supplementary Order Paper passes, we’re removing from the amendment bill—are about five or six pages long. The reason why I’ve reached the view that it’s unwise to proceed with this at this stage is not political. It’s because I’m trying to do the right thing, including rebuild trust in the fisheries management system. I think I’ve already outlined to the committee the parlous state of trust in the fisheries management system that led to the changes that we’ve got, to cameras on boats and discard rules. I think it’s fair to say that as a consequence of that—and some other problems that we’ve had with some fish stocks that are very important to New Zealand populations including rock lobster, snapper populations, and tarakihi—there is a level of distrust in society about the decisions that have been made historically in respect of some fisheries issues.

I thought, and I like to think, that through these increased transparency processes and the openness that we try to apply to our approaching of sustainability rounds, that we were making progress in rebuilding the trust that has been undermined in recent years. Because I accept what the member says, that there is a considerable antagonism between recreational and commercial interests, in particular, and there’s also complexity around other interests, including customary interests, that are also important.

I had regular discussions with my select committee members during the passage of this bill, and I was supportive of the amendments that were proposed by the select committee, which tried to deal with the concerns that were expressed by many submitters that the processes that were proposed for the pre-set decision rules to allow a Minister without further public consultation to change an amount of an allowable catch within a fishing season. I hoped that with the amendments that were made by the select committee that the issue would settle down and that the concern that had been expressed by submitters that was recorded by the Hon Eugenie Sage in the Green Party minority view would be assuaged by the changes that were made. But it’s pretty apparent that since that time it hasn’t settled down, and that there is a deep suspicion amongst some people that allowing the Minister, on the advice of the Ministry, to change an allowance for commercial fishing within a season is, from their point of view, a backward step.

Now, I would make the observation that there are already two sustainability rounds a year at which there can be a change to the total allowable commercial catch, and that the finer-grained changes that currently are proposed in the version of the bill that’s in the Chamber at the moment, but that we are proposing to remove, really are at the margins, and I haven’t actually been given an example of where we would have recently used the power. So when I drilled into it with officials after the report back of select committee, I wasn’t satisfied that this was a necessary intervention in a really practical way, and I could see that it was concerning to people who still have a distrust of other sectors, and therefore I thought it was an unwise thing to proceed with. From their point of view, people who are distrustful of the system like the fact that there is public input in decisions that change harvest levels.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of comments in response and questions to the Minister on that. I can’t see how he can possibly see pulling the pre-set decision rules framework in the 11th hour as part of a strategy to rebuild trust.

Secondly, this bill, as you would imagine, was part of the conversations that I participated in last Thursday at the 30th anniversary of the iwi fisheries, and the elements of having a pre-set decision framework were strongly supported. So I am interested to understand what has happened in a week that has meant that the Minister, in his own words, says that he now has limited confidence that this is an intervention that will work. And Minister, in particular, I contrast your comments now with your Cabinet paper that you took to Cabinet to support this bill, paragraph 31, saying that pre-set decision rules “will support more responsive decision-making, improve the speed of decisions, provide greater certainty and result in improvements to setting catch levels and other sustainability measures over time.” And this is in paragraph 34 of your Cabinet paper, Minister: “Amending the Fisheries Act to include pre-set decision rules in addition to these existing mechanisms will provide a tool to strengthen our response to changes in the status of our fisheries and better achieve our sustainability outcomes.”

Minister, this has been something that you have been very aware of, that you have helped facilitate the architecture of for your bill, had comfort to introduce it, it was part of a select committee report-back, it was part of our speech this morning, when we were yesterday, in terms of the second reading, and here you are, saying, “Well, actually, no, I don’t support it, don’t see the need for the intervention, and I’m pulling it in its entirety from the bill.” How can you align what you’ve just said with your advice to your Cabinet colleagues?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I actually didn’t say in my earlier contributions that it couldn’t work, I said that it’s not a significant measure in terms of the overall management of the fisheries resource relative to the other parts of the Act, noting that we already have two sustainability rounds a year. What I said was that rather than—my hope was that we would be carrying people, that this was a non-controversial thing to do that would improve outcomes. We haven’t satisfied people, and I thought the Hon Eugenie Sage minority report captured their concern in a fair, summarised way, which is there are a significant number of people—perhaps on the basis of the experience in yesteryear, which might not be fair to carry that forward now, but that’s how people feel; it’s what they believe. They don’t think that we should be conferring more powers on the Minister or the department to advise the Minister to have a within-season adjustment without public input on the actual change that is being proposed.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I thank the Minister for his, as always, very thoughtful contribution. I just want to put it on record, because I have been a bit concerned by some of the comments made by National members, that the Primary Production Committee did not unanimously support pre-set decision rules. There was not unanimity in the submissions around pre-set decision rules. There was a lot of concern that came through in a number of submissions about how the regime would work. And there were comments made in the submission of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, for example, about avoiding committing to a management regime with insufficient detail and consultation to judge its effectiveness through these pre-set decision rules. There was a real concern about the fact that it would really embed a focus on single stock management, when a lot of the desire in the environmental sector and amongst recreational fishers is to move to ecosystem based management, but pre-set decision rules wouldn’t do that.

There was also a lot of concern that the way they would operate had not been well consulted on with stakeholders. And, as the Minister has noted, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, in her report which Todd Muller talked about as well this morning, this lack of trust across the sector is increased if you don’t have transparency in decision making. So if you have a decision-making tool where the public cannot have a say, where it’s done behind closed doors, then there will be increased distrust. And that distrust of the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fisheries New Zealand is partly a result of things like Operation Hippocamp and Achilles and it’s partly because there is a strong view that the ministry has been captured by the fishing industry. I acknowledge all of the mahi of officials, but that perception exists and, if you move to a less transparent decision-making mode, you’re only going to embed that because things happen that are not in the light of day.

The whole move to put cameras in place is taking a longer time than was initially anticipated when it was first proposed. There is a lot in this bill that can take up the time of officials and the sector to improve fisheries management without doing the pre-set decision rules, and there’s always the opportunity for the Minister or a future Minister to go out, do more consultation, and consider a mechanism in future. But the question I wanted to ask the Minister was that concerns also came through in submissions around the harvest strategy standard 2008, which was overdue for review in 2013. As a result of setting the pre-set decision rules aside in the bill, is there any intention to actually review that and update it and bring it more in line with an ecosystem-based management approach?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is right that the harvest strategy does need a refresh. Apart from anything else, litigation in respect of the terekee or of the terakahi decision—tarakihi decision—

Mark Cameron: “Terekee”!

Hon DAVID PARKER: “Terekee”—ha, ha! Sorry about my pronunciation; I always get that wrong. There was a discovery that there’s actually an error in it and, even after all these years, it’s only just been noticed through the litigation that Forest & Bird took last year in respect of the decision that was overturned. That decision overturning the decision is itself under appeal. So we await the decision of a higher court in that regard. But yes, the harvest strategy will be reviewed. It’s not a matter of prime urgency, but it is the intention of the ministry to do that.

Can I say some things in defence of the ministry? Because I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m distrustful of the ministry. My experiences of the ministry have been very good and I find them open. One of the things that I have asked of the ministry is that we actually own the past in respect of Hippocamp and Achilles, and that we respond to it, as we are now, in order to build trust between the ministry and different aspects of the fishing sectors, including the fishing industry but also the recreational and customary sectors.

I find the ministry responsive to that and I will soon be turning a page myself to say: look, we’ve dealt with those issues, we now have transparency via cameras on boats, and we’ve learnt the lessons of the past; we can move on and build levels of trust. But my judgment was that if we persisted with the pre-set decision rules, we would actually be taking ourselves backwards in that regard. And that’s why, for what I think is a relatively tangential part of the fisheries management system, I’m proposing, through that Supplementary Order Paper, that we pull it from the bill. That doesn’t mean to say, as the member Eugenie Sage has already indicated, that it can’t come back and we can’t work this issue through and try and engender a bit more support for it, maybe have a few more safeguards or some oversights in it, but at the moment we’re not proposing to push it through.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, can I please bring your attention back to new section 72A(2)(c), in clause 14: “require a stock or species to be returned to or abandoned in the sea or other waters from which it was taken if the Minister is satisfied that the return or abandonment is for a biological, a fisheries management, or an ecosystem purpose”.

Well, if I may—going back to my previous remarks about unwanted bycatch with a very low monetised value—just very quickly, we heard from submitters. They were talking about having potentially no licensed fish receivers and that landing unwanted bycatch of such a low monetised value was often as low as 30c in the kilogram, and yet returns, in terms of equalising their income, were $1 per kilo. So they’re going, effectively, backwards.

Can you see that it is almost contradictory language when it’s talking to, essentially, the health of the ecosystem, and yet we’ve got bait fish that are potentially deck wash considered caught and, by virtue, have to be landed and—because there’s no monetised value, there’s no market to be bought back—potentially end up in a landfill. Would the Minister consider giving some consideration to my Supplementary Order Paper 256, which speaks to having bait fish, or very common fish, removed or excluded in this list, given that they have such a low monetised value and they’re caught in numerous quantities quite often as unwanted bycatch. And you see this all the time.

Do you want to speak to that ecological sustainability aspect in that piece please?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I have only been overseas once in the last few years, as a consequence of COVID, but that one occasion was as fisheries Minister. I went to a conference in Portugal that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade recommended that we attend. At the end of it, I popped up to Iceland because Iceland has a reputation that is lauded by some as being so far ahead of New Zealand in respect of fisheries management. I’m pleased I went there, because I discovered that in some areas they do a bit better than us but in other areas they’re pretty much identical to us. In the areas where they use technology a bit more efficiently than us, they have some advantages of fewer fish species to deal with, which therefore enables greater automation than is possible when you have as many species of fish as we catch. I was also pleased to learn that their technology providers are the same technology providers that our major fishing industry participants use to automate their processes.

One of the other things I discovered, though, was that they have a very similar fisheries management system. They run a quota management system, and they have the same challenges in respect of discards. In their case, they didn’t discover it through Operation Hippocamp or Achilles some years ago; they’ve just discovered it in the last year through the use of drones. I saw the drone footage there, and they’ve got the same issue of illegal high grading and discards in the Icelandic system that we’re trying to deal with in New Zealand.

That is the greater ill here: that we have quite substantial quantities, as evidenced by Hippocamp and Achilles, having been discarded to the point that the prior Government and the current Government thought there was a need to address the issue. How do you address it? Well, the advice from officials, which the Government has accepted, is you actually require all fish that are caught to be landed. When you start having too many exceptions to that rule, you undermine the viability of what it is that you’re trying to do.

Now, in respect of fish that the member refers to, these rules don’t come in overnight, and we are expecting that there will be an industry response to maximise the value of that which is returned. Even if it’s going into pet food or fishmeal for use in agriculture, that is not a wasted use. We’re expecting that the private sector response to these rules will be to innovate. They will innovate in a way that minimises the bycatch, and they will develop markets for that which is unavoidable bycatch for which they will need to develop markets. We have provided for regulations to allow—if that wasn’t viable and there was an area where it wasn’t viable to move the bycatch to some of those uses—some of that to go to a landfill. We hope that is not an outcome. If that did prove to be a significant outcome, then I’m sure that, in the future, we or another future Government would revisit the rule.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m interested with some of the conversation that we’ve been having so far on the committee stage here of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I think there are a couple of points that I just want to start on, actually. I just want to touch on the Green member Eugenie Sage’s contribution, because, for me, that just shows a total disregard for the reality of what actually happened and an intent to disguise what actually played out. It says quite clearly that amendments were unanimously recommended. So for her to try to suggest otherwise is totally misrepresenting the situation.

Now, in terms of the Minister’s comment that he is trying to do the right thing by putting in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 to remove those pre-set decision rules, it’s just flabbergasting, quite frankly. Here we are, only a few hours after the second reading of this bill. The Minister is a senior member of this House. He would be quite aware that the second reading is the time to foreshadow any potential SOPs that may come forward at the committee of the whole House stage, and there was absolutely no mention whatsoever of his decision, or his intent, to introduce that SOP at the second reading, which occurred only 24 hours ago, with his first speech of it—the final speech of it being only late this morning.

So, on that basis, how can we now be in a position, less than 24 hours later, where we have such a massive U-turn from the Minister on his position with regard to those pre-set decision rules? Or is it that he actually knew 24 hours ago and simply failed to inform the House of his intention to introduce an SOP? It would be disappointing to think that was the case. I’m not suggesting he would do that, of course. But I’m also really interested to hear from Labour members of the Primary Production Committee, because they also sat through all of those submissions, they heard the different views, they helped to amend this bill and to report it back unanimously to the House, and I am sure they are equally as surprised to note now that we are striking out a massive chunk of this bill around those pre-set decision rules.

Actually, I thought that was an area that was quite good. There was a good opportunity there to demonstrate an ability to be responsive to changing needs within the quota management system, because we have seen over time that we have particularly large fluctuations at times of fish stock assessments, because they may not be done on a particularly frequent basis. And so, once we roll around from one to the next for a particular fish stock, you can see a significant change in the total allowable catch recommended, and subsequently implemented, off the back of those fish stock assessments. And, of course, a drastic change—well over 100 percent in some instances; increase or decrease—can have, of course, a massive impact on the commercial operators trying to go about conducting their business, if they’re suddenly finding that the fish stock they’re allowed to catch has been slashed by half, or by 80 percent in some cases. That’s simply not great practice.

So the ability to have some flexibility through the pre-set decision rules would have enabled, in my mind, anyway, the Minister to make some assessments in between those formal fish stock assessments. And, yes, I accept that those decision points happen twice a year, but not for the same fish stock each time. I think that’s the key aspect here: we can be talking years between fish stock assessments for the same stock. So, on that basis, having the flexibility, through a range of data feedback, anecdotal information from commercial fishers, for example, suggesting that actually a fish stock is more depleted or more abundant than might have been the case when the total allowable catch was last reviewed would be an appropriate time for the Minister to exercise his right and say, “Well, hey, is there some flexibility? Do we need to drop this limit back down to ensure that the biomass remains sustainable, or not?” That’s where I see there was great flexibility in that.

So I’m really interested to understand exactly why—when this change suddenly came about. It’s a piece of legislation that’s been in the pipeline for a long time now, lots of consultation, so why are we just finding ourselves right now at the point where this is suddenly changing? I think I’ll leave it at that and get into my other points after the Minister responds to that question.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you. I just want to put on record for anyone who’s listening that the reason the select committee amendments were unanimous is because the Green Party does not have a permanent member of the Primary Production Committee, but the Standing Orders enable any member of Parliament to attend a committee, and the Green Party saw this bill as really important—it was the first major change to fisheries legislation in some years—so we did attend and we listened to all the submissions. And there was debate and discussion as a result of those submissions.

We were talking about bycatch a little while ago. In clause 6, which the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 would remove—but, at the moment, it is in the bill; clause 6 amends section 11 of the principal Act around sustainability measures—there is a major issue of bycatch, not just of species that are not targeted but of fur seals in the hoki fishery; of thousands of seabirds—I think it was about 14,000 a year or so ago; turtles. The bill at the moment doesn’t make any major changes to the information principles, the sustainability measures, or the environmental principles in the main Act to tackle the bycatch issue.

It is of major concern because the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research did a report recently about turtles, and 273 turtles—primarily leatherback turtles—have been caught by the fishing industry between 2007-08 and 2021. These are vulnerable to critically endangered species. They migrate from the South-west Pacific, which is quite tropical, down to northern New Zealand waters and spend anything like 12 months there. In places like Hawaii, there is much more focus, through their fisheries management system, in preventing bycatch. There’s an upper limit on the number of turtles that can be caught and then the fishery closes. There are areas where fishing isn’t allowed in order to protect breeding populations, which we don’t have here. But there are measures there that are further ahead than here.

Similarly with seabirds, a lot of the longline fisheries have bait on the hook, and then the birds dive to get the bait, get caught, get drowned. One of the most heartbreaking things for me was being fortunate enough go to the Antipodes and see there albatross chicks where one parent had been killed—probably in longline fisheries—and, because the chicks need food from both parents to thrive and survive, they were likely to die. So we do not, in New Zealand, insist on all of the mitigation measures that can be used in order to reduce bycatch of seabirds.

So my question to the Minister is in relation to an SOP in my name which would seek to change the environmental principles and add to section 11 the sustainability principles to require, when decisions are made under the Act, that there is a need to specify effective measures which fishers must implement to reduce the bycatch of protected species. We have a national plan of action for seabirds, which has got a goal of moving towards zero bycatch, but, unless this is flagged in the principal Act, it doesn’t get the attention that it deserves, in the Green Party view.

So, to the Minister, in terms of these changes around bycatch, does he recognise that bycatch is an issue, and are there any plans by him, the Government, and Fisheries New Zealand to actually strengthen the legislation around bycatch? And will he support the Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): In respect of the Supplementary Order Paper, no. In respect of bycatch, the member is correct, and I think all members of this House are concerned with the bycatch of both mammals and seabirds. You know, the prognosis for the Antipodean albatross, for example, is dire. At the moment, I’m advised—in fact, I was recently advised that we have a particular problem with the loss of female birds. They are lighter and they range further in their search for food, and because they rove further, they’re actually roving into the areas of international waters where most of them are caught as bycatch, not by the New Zealand fishing fleets but by overseas fishing fleets.

That’s not to absolve the New Zealand fisheries management system or New Zealand fishers from the need to do better in respect of “interactions”, as they’re euphemistically called, or, you know, the catching of birds as bycatch in the New Zealand waters or our exclusive economic zone. But we’ve got to tackle both of these problems, both at home and in international waters, and we do that through our international outreach, both in the Pacific, where a lot of these fleets are based, but also with our diplomacy to their home countries, as far afield as Spain. There’s great civil society support for this, including some really good advocacy that’s being run by civil society groups. One of the things that they’re advocating for is a change to the rules to require more of the mitigation techniques to be compulsory rather than two out of three, and I’m expecting a report on those issues before the end of the year.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister, Hon David Parker, for feedback on a few Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), including SOP 253, which is in my name. It seeks to replace, in clause 22A(2), new subsection (1A) in section 257, “the court must” with “the court may”, and, essentially, is changing the language to provide for some judicial discretion. The Minister would note that, on page 8 of our committee report, we focused on the policy that sits behind us, saying the penalty’s maximums. Then, as he has noted earlier, you know, aggravating and mitigating factors may well be, or should be, taken into account when determining the applicable penalty for any offence. But then that discretion, which is envisaged in that policy intent, is removed by the bill as it was reported back, saying that “the court must … make an order—”, so we’re suggesting that that would be a flexibility which would make sense.

In terms of SOP 259, the Minister will be aware that the existing provision section 72(5)(c) provides for the returns to the sea under an observer authorisation. Essentially, what we are doing is, you know—obviously we back the Minister’s continuation of cameras on boats. That is a sensible addition. But we’re suggesting, under this SOP, to include a parallel provision which would similarly allow for returns to the sea under camera monitoring—and the footage of any such returns can effectively be reviewed by the Ministry for Primary Industries—as a parallel to the observer monitoring which is in place.

Then, finally, SOP 258 essentially provides a generic defence for the offence of returning fish if they are damaged as a result of unavoidable circumstances. The bill, as the Minister would know, contains a provision in new section 72A(2)(b)(ii), to allow for an instrument to be approved to allow this. Essentially, what this SOP is doing is providing an administratively simple solution that, I would argue, would no longer necessitate the need for a particular instrument because it would have its own clear subsection.

So hopefully that is of some value. I have reflected on these SOPs, not sought to make dramatic political statements but actually see opportunities for improvement on the bill that we have in front of us.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his contribution in respect of his Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). If I could address Supplementary Order Paper 253, which, as the member has carefully outlined, would replace the words “the court must” to “the court may” order forfeiture. That is the effect of the legislation, I am advised by officials—I’ve just checked with them, anyway. How it works is that there is the general presumption of confiscation, or forfeiture, I should say. But, then, section 257(3), which this forms part of that section, says, “Notwithstanding subsection (1),”—which was the subsection that the member seeks to amend—“the court may, in the circumstances of any particular case, and upon application being made to it … direct that any particular license, approval, permission, or fishing permit, shall not be forfeit, or that the person shall not be prohibited”, etc.

So the discretion already sits there in section 257, subsection (3), and the scheme of the Act wouldn’t make sense if we were to amend that. I understand the member’s intention and I respect it. I agree that we don’t want to have no ability for a court to say that forfeiture would be unfair and disproportionate in that situation, but that’s what subsection 257(3) already provides. So I won’t be voting for the SOP.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, clause 20—section 252 amended (Penalties)—(3A) states, “Every person convicted, whether in the same or separate proceedings, of 2 or more offences against section 72”—I’m paraphrasing, of course—“returning, abandoning, or retaining fish or other animals [or] aquatic life in any 24-hour period”. If I may, just to try and help me contextualise that if you’re a blue water fleet, perhaps in the Southern Ocean, and you throw a 2-tonne net overboard and you get a tonne and a half or two tonne of fish off it, and by virtue—I mean, you might smile, sir, but you can soak a net for a couple of hours and you will get tonnes of fish, and you’re talking about 50. And the potential for a prosecutorial reality, if not a fine exceeding $250,000 in respect to a second offence. Well, gracious me, you can chuck a net twice over in 24 hours and you’ve had two offences in that 24-hour period, and this speaks to, in a period of three years, as liable for that potential fine. Now, how do you reconcile that, sir? I mean, this is the practical world, and we all support the cameras, absolutely—it’s a good idea—as does the industry. And the very point of these nets, by design, is to allow for as many fish that are not target species to escape, and yet when you’ve got a tonne and a half of fish in a big net, you get a lot of deck wash. When the fish spill out, they’re considered caught; if they go over the side—and I’m sure there’ll be more than 50—all of a sudden we’ve got this $250,000 potential reality in the space of but a few days, or even potentially 24 hours. How do you reconcile that? Because, again, this is, as proposed, quite impractical.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): At the moment, there is the same existing maximum penalty. The unfortunate thing for fishers at the moment is there’s no alternative, much less draconian, penalty available. So, in addition to the prosecutorial discretion to do nothing—which is always open to a prosecutorial authority if they don’t think it’s necessary or proportionate, nowadays—once this legislation passes, they can also issue infringement notices. So this is carrying forward the same maximum penalty as currently applies, but that would never be imposed by a court in respect of a minor issue. And if it was a truly minor issue, it would be very unlikely that there would be prosecutorial action anyway.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d be very keen to hear from the Minister with regards to my earlier question as well, but—

Todd Muller: And some of the Labour MPs would be good.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Yes—also a good point, Mr Muller. I still haven’t had a response from the other side of the Chamber with regards to my invitation to any member of the Primary Production Committee from the Labour caucus to take a call and share their views on the significant change that was landed on us just hours ago. But I don’t see much interest over there at all—heads are quickly bowing down.

So I did just want to pick up on that last respect raised by Mr Cameron as well, because there is an area that I have some concern about, around the graduated scale of the fines. The intent of that is good and I support that in terms of being able to have more flexibility, but it’s a point that we’d raised in the select committee as well around wanting to get more confidence. I’m interested in the Minister’s view on this around the application of that, particularly in instances where we see a fine of $10,000 being issued for someone that catches up to 50 fish above the limit, but it’s significantly higher—$100,000—for anyone catching 51 fish, for example, with the contrast there being that there’s no consideration whatsoever for the value.

So the example I could give is that you could catch 50 southern bluefin tuna. They’d have a significant value, and, over and above the limit, you’d only be liable for a $10,000 fine, which is much less than the value of those fish. But on the flip side, if you caught 51 pilchards, for example, then you’d be liable for a $100,000 fine, which would be for a much lower-value fish species. It seems to me that that is a totally distorted assessment of the value, and, ultimately, the intent, I think, of the bill, which is to make sure that penalties are appropriate to the level of the offence. In that instance, it wouldn’t be, and I’m interested to know, obviously, how that will play out down the track, and what confidence the Minister has that we’ll be able to get that right and signal that to commercial fishers as well.

The other aspect that I had touched on in my second reading speech was with regards to the discard aspect and how that may impact on research vessels—specifically, the RV Tangaroa, which is the NIWA research vessel, for example. I understand that they have permits, but I’m not entirely confident that that allows for the level of discards that may occur. So I’m interested in the Minister’s views on whether that fits into the main provisions of this bill or not, because, obviously, in some of the fish stock assessments that they’re doing or the research work that they’re doing, they have to catch large volumes of fish, and that will require significant levels of discarding, because, obviously, over time that vessel has been adapted and no longer has the carrying capacity or the holding capacity in terms of processed fish that it had when it was first commissioned as a research vessel. I think two out of the three pounds have been removed from that vessel, so is there an unintended consequence here that might actually capture that vessel in particular, and others like it, or are we confident that it will be OK?

So I’m very interested in the graduated fines aspect and then the research vessel, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of the research vessels, research vessels already get a special permit from the fisheries and they don’t need quota. They don’t need to meet with the general fisheries rules, and the same thing will apply here. They won’t be caught by these discard rules, just like they’re not caught by the quota management system more generally.

In respect of fines, I would make the point that the fines the member asks questions about are court-imposed. They’re the maximum that a court can impose in a prosecution. They’re not an infringement notice; they’re the maximum that a court can impose.

Now, if someone was prosecuted for—and they wouldn’t be. But if they were to be prosecuted for catching 51 shrimp, I don’t think that the courts would be imposing a fine of anything like the maximum of even the smaller of those two fine levels. So that’s an issue—if there was a prosecution—for the courts, as to the fine that they would impose. I don’t think it would take a very clever lawyer to convince a court that if they had caught 50 fish and the maximum was X, they wouldn’t fine them 10 times X for 51.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for clarifying your expectations around that clause. I personally am a huge fan of the pilchard and the sardine. I can understand why a judge who feels as strongly as I do about the value of the sardine—particularly on toast, with some pepper and salt, a squeeze of lemon juice, and maybe a couple of drips of Kaitaia Fire—would potentially be very concerned that 50 or 51 sardines had accidentally been harmed and returned to the sea without making it into the tin. Minister, we would like you to shed some light on how you think judges might treat this in the future. When we just reflect on the sentencing guidelines as they apply to criminals—people who’ve committed offences like assault and robbery and ram raids and theft—what we’ve heard recently from other Ministers of the Government is that the sentencing guidelines haven’t changed but the judges have just interpreted them a bit more liberally, which is why so many people aren’t in jail; they’re at home, or maybe not, with ankle bracelets on. We’d just like to understand from the Minister how it is that he could have such confidence in future judges, because I do want to make sure that if sardines are going to be caught, if pilchards are going to be caught, they’re going to be marinated in tomato sauce and they’re going to be put in the can and not lost overboard, but I also don’t want the fishers who are out there doing the catching to be subject to prosecution or fines. So, Minister, I’d like you to answer that.

I’d also like to offer support for the Green member the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 4A, which proposes that the bycatch of protected species needs to be avoided and the need to implement effective measures by fishers to reduce the bycatch of protected species, in particular the Antipodean albatross and the New Zealand sea lion. Now, I understand that there are already significant controls and restrictions in place to make sure that doesn’t happen, but that there may be occasions where it does happen and there may be methods which haven’t yet been fully implemented to make sure that these species—these wonderful animals that soar for days and weeks out to sea, feeding in places where only the hardiest fisherman would actually go but that are at risk from even the most modern fishing practices—are protected. I would just like to reiterate the ACT Party’s support for this measure—obviously, on the basis that practical measures to avoid bycatch of protected species can be implemented. Thank you. Minister, would you please respond to that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): As I’ve previously said, the issues that are raised by the member I suspect are partly in jest, because he would know that it would be very, very unlikely that the prosecutorial authority would ever exercise their discretion to prosecute in the sort of circumstances that he has described, with his pilchards. If they were to do that, then I would trust the courts to deal with it appropriately.

In respect of the reference to the Green member’s Supplementary Order Paper, section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1996 already contains sufficient powers, so the member—being someone that doesn’t like to have confusing legislation or over-regulation—I think might revisit his opinion on that particular Supplementary Order Paper if he read section 15 of the primary Act.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to build on the Minister’s last couple of conversations around the confidence that he wants us to have around how the judicial system will approach the penalties regime, because what he has done is highlighted one of the real concerns that we had as the Primary Production Committee, that too much of this is left to the interpretation of the regulations and the subsequent conversations, if you like, that are to be had with wider stakeholders over the next four years. At one level, that circle-back for consultation in terms of the secondary legislation impacts makes sense, of course, but it does give us real pause for thought and concern as the select committee, because the theme, Minister, that seemed to keep coming through when we tried to get clarity around the judgments that would be brought to bear on the 50 pilchards versus 50 tuna was, essentially, “trust us”, that once we get into the discussions with the industry and design the needed regulations where that’s applied, those sensible decisions will get made, as opposed to relying on more clearer direction from the primary legislation as to the balance that we were seeking.

You know, one of the concerns that I still have when I reflect on this bill is those various submissions from the smaller, often contract, fishers—for example, a few that talked to us from the Taranaki region. Relatively, in some cases, old or depreciated assets have been in industry for a long time, but the idea of a requirement to have cameras and the costs associated with that, and the reality of having to try to fish in some of those regions and not catch snapper when there’s such a lot of it—as a particular species that is in a healthy state at the moment in that area—and being caught not only in terms of needing to put it against their annual catch entitlement but also just being hammered in terms of potentially letting fish go back to the sea that perhaps don’t meet the criteria that is yet to be negotiated, around survivability and the like.

The concern that we still have, I would say, on this side of the House is too much of this is left to conversations yet to be had and there is not enough direction from the primary legislation. I would ask, Minister, whether you have had pause to reflect. You certainly have in terms of your sense that perhaps the recreational sector’s perspectives weren’t appropriately taken into account with respect to the pre-set decision rules. Have you any concern that perhaps those inshore commercial fishers’ perspectives have not sufficiently been captured in the balance that you have struck with this legislation?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I am convinced that this regulatory regime is better than the old one. It is less draconian, it is better for fishers, it’s better for Fisheries New Zealand, it will result in better outcomes for the fishery, and it doesn’t apply any unusual discretions to either the prosecutors or the courts. This is completely normal in any area of regulation.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, going back to my Supplementary Order Paper 256—you didn’t answer me, sir—would you give it consideration? I think the explanatory note lays it out quite clearly about the nominal value or monetised value of certain species versus others, and having so-called “bait fish” removed in that 50—more-or-less—limit to try and give a little bit more certainty. Especially to coastal commercial fishermen—they’re going to be heavily affected by the potentiality of unwanted bycatch and the attached prosecutorial reality that may follow. Would you give it consideration? Because I think this part of the industry, certainly from the submitters we heard, is deeply aggrieved about the legislation as proposed.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I have previously addressed that issue; we’re not supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. We don’t think it’s draconian; we do think it’s appropriate that fish that are caught are landed, and I’ve covered the reasons for that in a number of contributions.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next call, I do want to warn members that we are beginning to have repetitive questions on Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), so please make it relevant. And if it’s SOPs that have not yet been covered, go ahead.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just start by reiterating my request for a response to my first comments. The Minister, David Parker, still has not addressed those with regards to his Supplementary Order Paper, put forward at the last minute, removing the pre-set decision rules, and why that suddenly came to be only a couple of hours ago, why it was not signalled at all in his second reading contribution just 24 hours ago, and why he thinks that is now appropriate.

But specifically within that, and I think that this speaks to some of the ridiculousness of the process that we’re going through here—this is really shoddy process. Part 1: we’re looking at clause 5, which inserts new section 11AAA, where it is talking about the pre-set decision rules for sustainability measures. So in the first instance, the Minister put forward the following: “The Minister may (a) make rules that specify an approved range or limits within which any sustainability measure for 1 or more stocks or areas may be set or varied (the pre-set decision rules):”. Then during the select committee process that got taken out again because that wasn’t deemed to be appropriate, apparently. I’m interested in why the Minister has gone through this process and where he sees it sitting. Then he put back in, “The Minister may make rules within which any sustainability measure for 1 or more stocks or areas may be set or varied”. Now he’s taken it out again. So we’re seeing something getting put in, getting taken out, then put it back in, getting taken out again. I mean, this is absolutely shonky decision-making—shonky legislation-making—from the Minister, and I’m interested in why he thinks that was appropriate and then wasn’t, and then was and then wasn’t, and if he’s confident now that he has actually made the right decision on that.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. In terms of clause 16 and clause 23 and the fact that there can be an alternative method of disposal—and I’m thinking, I wish we’d been able to change that word, because it does suggest that fish that are landed can end up as waste. The Minister has said it could go to fish meal or it could go to landfill, but nobody wants that. But in terms of clause 23 and the regulations which the chief executive of Fisheries New Zealand or the Ministry for Primary Industries can make, what monitoring will be done by Fisheries New Zealand of fish that have landed, that don’t go to a licensed receiver, and are somehow disposed of in another way? Will there be monitoring of quantities? Will there have to be detailed reporting on that, and will there be a mechanism to respond if a lot of it is going to landfill? We’ve seen a lot of salmon go to the Blenheim landfill because of increased sea temperatures in the Marlborough Sounds—different reason, but what monitoring is going to be done in relation to alternative methods of disposal other than going to a licensed fish receiver?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): As clause 23, which inserts new section 297(1)(a)(xiiv)(D) says, the chief executive will prescribe the requirements relating to the disposal of fish, and those requirements at new section 297(1)(a)(xiiv)(E) can include requirements relating to verification, so that will be prescribed at the time by the chief executive.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.

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

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.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 257 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment inserting new clause 4A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 254 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 254 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Mark Cameron’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Todd Muller’s amendments to Part 1 set out Supplementary Order Paper 258 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Todd Muller’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Todd Muller’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Repeal and consequential amendments, and Schedules 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 27 to 31 and Schedules 1 to 3, “Repeal and consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order 252 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendment inserting new Schedule 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is clauses 1 to 3, which is the title, commencement, and principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Plant Variety Rights Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 31 August.

Part 4 Grant of plant variety rights (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Members, when we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 4, which is the debate on clauses 28 to 51, “Grant of plant variety rights”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192, which deals with clauses 28, 52, and 56, and a number of other clauses relating to this. This is just by way of background, because we’ve sort of jumped in the middle of a debate and everyone homing in on TV will be trying to work it out. There have been certain discussions on the bill, but the SOP that I’ve put up really relates to the issue of who has the jurisdiction to approve plant variety rights.

As the Chair will no doubt know, there is a tribunal that has overall responsibility, but the bill introduces a new committee called the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. It’s noted in the commentary that the committee will consider applications for plant variety rights—PVRs—in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. It would further assess the effect that granting such PVRs could have on kaitiaki relationships and make decisions about whether or not the PVR application should proceed.

So my SOP that has been put forward deals with the issue of this approval process. I’m sort of turning my mind specifically to clause 28, the granting of a PVR. Under the existing way that the bill is constructed, the freedom may apply to the commissioner for a plant variety to be considered—to have the rights—but the commissioner must consider the application in accordance with subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 28. Those bits are that “After considering the application, the Commissioner must—(a) grant the PVR to the applicant”—so must grant it—“(i) if satisfied that the criteria for granting a PVR in section 30 are met; and (ii) in a case where Part 5 applies, if the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has informed the Commissioner under section 65 that the application should proceed;”, and over the page, it talks about the Māori Plant Varieties Committee having the ability to decide.

My SOP suggests and proposes—and it’s important that we have a Māori plant varieties committee to deal with indigenous plants, but it shouldn’t be a decisive body. It shouldn’t be a body that decides; it should be one that advises the commissioner. So it doesn’t take away from the Māori Plant Varieties Committee the ability to have regard and consider plant matter that’s certainly indigenous. Some of the definition around “non-indigenous” probably needs to be discussed further, and I will further it in a further contribution, but what it says is that it should advise the commissioner, because the commissioner is the one that has the ultimate decision-making power. But under the way that the bill is constructed, this means that if the application doesn’t get past the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, it will not proceed to the commissioner.

So I’d like to propose that SOP. It has a ripple effect across a number of the clauses of the bill, but certainly I’d like to hear from the Minister as to his view on whether or not and why this shouldn’t be the case. I look forward to that contribution.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Andrew Bayly.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, we’ll carry right along. So we’re waiting for the Minister to get some advice, which would be great.

So my second point, which I just alluded to—I hadn’t intended to be continuing on, but let’s move right along—is the issue around the jurisdiction of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. As I said before, the committee would consider applications for a PVR—a plant variety right—in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. So the one thing I am very keen to hear from the Minister is what “certain non-indigenous plant species” are. Of course, when you sit and think about it for more than two minutes, it is an issue as to—you know, plants develop over time. You have hybrid species and sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes it’s a matter of nature at its best in terms of bringing hybrid vigour to the different plant varieties. So having an understanding of what “certain non-indigenous plant species” means in relation to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee having jurisdiction over that, again, I would just—thank you, Mr Parker, for being in the chair, and I welcome Minister Dr David Clark. So I’m just letting him have a moment here while he gets up to speed.

So, Minister, I have asked two questions. Certainly, one is around my Supplementary Order Paper 192 about making the Māori Plant Varieties Committee have an advisory capacity, because, ultimately, it should be the commission that decides on applications in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. The second aspect is: what does a “non-indigenous plant species” mean in relation to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee jurisdiction? So, hopefully, you’ve had time to consider those two matters.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Chair, thank you. So, first off, the member asks why the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is not an advisory committee like, for example, the Trademarks Advisory Committee, which would be a parallel example. Other than the decision-making power of the committee, the committee is set up in just the same way as Māori advisory committees in that other regime—so that’s the first point to make. The member is correct in drawing that kind of parallel. Though those other committees are only advisory, it is I think worth the committee noting that the commissioner has never gone against the advice of that committee in those other circumstances—that’s what I’m advised. Some trademark and patent applications have not proceeded as a result of the advice.

In respect of the Wai 262 recommendations, it was important to listen to the views of Māori and engage in good faith on the Treaty provisions in the bill. The Wai 262 recommendations are not binding on the Crown, nor do they set any kind of ceiling on how the Crown may respond. The Crown, basically, has the flexibility and, arguably, the responsibility to determine how best to respond to those recommendations. So this is the response we have made, and I’m just trying to think whether it’s worth—yeah, I suppose—making the other point. In the Wai 262 inquiry, the tribunal found that the approach taken in the bill is consistent with Ko Aotearoa Tēnei’s findings on the balancing required to give effect to the applicable Te Tiriti—Treaty—principles of partnership in active processes.

In respect of the member’s other question around certain non-indigenous plant species, the member Melissa Lee raised this, actually, in an earlier stage of the debate, but let’s cover it here. There’s no list in the bill or regulations of indigenous plant species, but there is a list of non-indigenous species of significance that will be prescribed in the regulations. The list of non-indigenous species of significance was approved by Cabinet when it agreed on the policy decisions on the Plant Variety Rights Regulations, and I’d note for the record that that relevant Cabinet paper and minute had been proactively released. But for the benefit of the House, that list includes: kuru, or breadfruit; hue, or gourd or calabash; aute, or paper-mulberry; karaka/kōpī; paratawhiti/paraa; perei; kūmara; taro; tī pore, which is Pacific cabbage tree, I’m told; and whikaho, or yam. So that is the list of things that are included, and they will be included in those regulations.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. Just dealing with each of those in turn, the first one is the list that Cabinet has approved, and thank you for specifying those. So the question there obviously arises: if that is the list that’s been approved by Cabinet, why wouldn’t that be hardwired into the legislation?

I suppose another way of asking the same question is that if Cabinet has agreed a list and it gets put into regulations, that means that, subsequently, certain non-indigenous species can be added to or subtracted relatively easily, so is the intent of Cabinet that there should be further additions to that list that Cabinet has already agreed, and is that why it’s going into regulations? I think that lack of clarity would be an important issue for the plant growers of New Zealand to know whether, in fact, they’re likely going to be captured too, or possibly going to be captured, under what is deemed certain non-indigenous species. So that’s the first question.

With regard to the more substantive issue—which was the first issue I raised, around the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—what I detected from the Minister’s statement was a very nuanced but significant change, because if I understand what the Minister was saying, up to now there have been many examples of similar advisory committees having an advisory capacity. They do not have the right under previous legislation to be able to make determinations and, if I’m correct, what the Minister has just said is that there is a subtle change that this Plant Variety Rights Bill introduces which means that the Māori advisory committee, in this case, moves from being an advisory committee to a decision-making committee. I take the point that a commissioner hasn’t gone against advice of these types of tribunals or committees, but it is an important fundamental legal change if it means that this is the first committee of this type—the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—where we’ve made that subtle change from an advisory to a decision-making committee.

I think it’s significant, and I’m looking at my good colleague the former lawyer the Hon Judith Collins. I think the issue is really important—this subtle change, if that is the case—and I’d love the Minister to be clear whether, in fact, it is, because if there is that subtle change, that changes the rights and sets a precedent that is really, really important. I think it’s really important at this stage to be absolutely clear and transparent about that change.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. While we’re awaiting the Minister’s reply to my colleague Andrew Bayly’s very important questions, perhaps he could also turn his mind to this. As I’ve read Part 4, it is very clear that there is this Māori Plant Varieties Committee, which has a veto power over the plant variety rights applications.

Now, looking at that too, what is indigenous, and what is covered in this is indigenous—well, no doubt there is a set number of indigenous plants that we can all agree were here without human intervention, or have turned up like that, and then there are the ones that are covered because they came on waka before 1776, and that’s very clear from the bill. So we should have an exact number of those, with their names, and the Minister has read out a list which I understand are the ones he says are going to be in the regulations which will fall under this. So if there’s a set number, then why aren’t they in the Act?

It’s not as though we are really expecting that there’s going to be another plant variety discovered that no one has worked out was there since 1776, so I think Andrew Bayly has got a very good point: if it’s a finite number and a finite list, then why isn’t it in the primary legislation? We know that the regulations normally are where there are things that there are going to be changes to. Are we seriously anticipating there will be changes to this?

Then the other point that I would ask the Minister to give thought to is: are we going to be stuck with the law of unintended consequences? So if we take kūmara, which he has referred to and which we know came on waka with Māori when they came to New Zealand, they came from somewhere else. So there are kūmara elsewhere. They were brought here and are very important to the culture of Māori and, I think, of many New Zealanders who are non-Māori. Having said that, we know that kūmara, or another name for what we would call kūmara, are elsewhere in the world, and there is, from what I can see from this, nothing to stop people in the plant-breeding business in, say, Australia or Peru producing and looking for new ways of making plant varieties of kūmara, while New Zealanders here in this land that values kūmara so much could be perhaps prevented from moving forward and discovering and creating new varieties.

I wonder if it is one of the unintended consequences that New Zealand could be kept in a time warp around products or very important plant varieties to us—what is the term that’s being used—

Andrew Bayly: Non-indigenous species.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —non-indigenous but significant plant varieties—while other jurisdictions who do not consider those plant varieties as so significant that they can’t be changed or can’t have rights granted in them might charge ahead and come up with varieties that are pest-free, that are pest-resistant, that are able to grow with little water, and all these sorts of things, and New Zealand is left sitting there saying, “In this era of climate change and all the effects of that, do we have to import the stock from Australia?”

There’s that situation, and so I’d like to hear from the Minister on that as well. So I back up Andrew Bayly and I’d ask that other question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, speaking to Part 5, and forgive my naivety, but I’m just trying to get some clarity here—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We’re still on Part 4.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, we’re on Part 4—I apologise.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank my colleague the Hon Judith Collins for raising the issue of kūmara. I’d like to enlighten my colleagues across the House about Fay and Joe Gock, who have been growing kūmara for 60 years. I just wanted to bring to the Minister and my colleagues that Fay and her husband Joe are credited with having saved the kūmara when black rot threatened to obliterate the industry in the 1950s—and I’m reading from a news article—“They gifted their disease resistant strain to the nation, refusing to take any money for it.”

What happened was that they developed a disease-free kūmara strain which became known as owairaka red in the late 1950s. When there was this disease that literally threatened all of the kūmara stock in New Zealand, they actually gifted it to the Department of Science and Industrial Research to help re-establish the kūmara stock. So, in effect, how will this reflect in terms of the kaitiaki relationship when, in fact, it was the Gocks who actually saved the kūmara stock from their own black rot - resistant strain that they themselves had in fact developed, while all the other strains would have been decimated as a result of that?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I must admit that I am just stalling, and I don’t intend to stall. I’m really keen for a Minister to respond, because I’ve asked two quite significant questions. I think—

Hon Dr David Clark: Do reiterate—do reiterate, please.

ANDREW BAYLY: OK, I’ll do that at the urging of the Minister. So this issue around non-indigenous plant species is fascinating, and it’s interesting—the view of my colleague the Hon Judith Collins. Plant varieties, as I was saying before, evolve either naturally or through genetic engineering, but whatever the case, what might have been deemed a plant material 600 years ago and where it ends up now, and the use it’s put towards and how it’s applied—because we always assume it’s always for a food crop or whatever. I heard the Minister mention a cabbage tree, and, of course, the uses of that product over time—how do you know it doesn’t turn out to be a wonderful methane inhibitor for cattle? That’s a wild idea.

So that’s why I think it’s really important that we have absolute clarity around what is meant by this non-indigenous plant species, because it’s pretty quick. I think the Minister identified probably about 12 species in his response earlier on, but how do we know it just doesn’t migrate and become not only a wider list but, actually, after a while—you know, all plant species have a lot of value, and it’s been fascinating what’s happened with mānuka. The good old days of mānuka being chopped down because it was a pain on hillsides, but now, with the genetic engineering that’s gone on and the wonderfully high levels of protection that mānuka offers—particularly factoring in the honey—how that has transformed that product. But, of course, mānuka is now used in a wide range of other products such as soaps, which have not only a health benefit but then a perfume benefit—right?

Of course, we’ve seen it with strawberries, we’ve seen it with apples, and the classic is kiwifruit. It was green, now it’s yellow, and now, of course, it’s red. Those are quite deliberate—

Melissa Lee: Chinese gooseberry.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, Chinese gooseberry, as Melissa Lee is quite rightly highlighting. Originally, it was named that.

So there are the uses of plant material as it moves not only in terms of a food source but for other types of purposes, and that’s why it’s very important that for the people who are involved in this propagation of plants and the intellectual property protection around it, it’s an absolute requirement that there be clarity around what are the protected indigenous species. I find the term “non-indigenous” plant species the worrying one, and why that’s being put into regulations and not hard-wired into the bill—because that’s where it should be if it’s a definitive list.

But also, a lot of this can this be challenged, because, going back to the kiwifruit, if that was the original Chinese gooseberry, Zespri would’ve commercialised multiple variants of that plant variety, and so what does that mean? Who owns that? Who controls that?

Under the bill as it’s currently written, that is now at their discretion, and it’s a decision-making discretion rather than an advisory role—as to whether in fact the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will say yes or no. I presume that if they say no, the commissioner must respect that, and it doesn’t even go to the commissioner. Is the commissioner empowered under this bill to say “Well, I’ve heard what the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has said and made a decision on.”, because that’s the way it’s framed? Can the commissioner overturn that and say, “Well, I’m not going to accept that.”? I think the Minister is shaking his head, so this is interesting.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. So the certain non-indigenous plants species that I read out that will be prescribed in regulations comes to a list of 10. The member Andrew Bayly said it was about 12, and he’s about right: it’s 10 in that list, currently. For that list to be expanded, a kaitiaki relationship would have to be established, and the Māori Plant Varieties Committee would be the adjudicator on that.

Andrew Bayly: The Māori Plant Varieties Committee?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, because they would have to establish a kaitiaki relationship, which is not an easy test, but it’s a test. I think this is one of the reasons why the recommendations brought by the committee to have an appeal right are important also for the confidence and certainty of breeders, and that’s why I have welcomed that recommendation from the committee to have an appeal right, which will be surfaced through the Māori Appellate Court, for anybody that wants to take action in that respect.

So I agree with the committee’s finding that an appeal right was important. We wrote to the judiciary and got back their recommendation that the Māori Appellate Court would be the appropriate body to consider appeals with the necessary expertise and seniority. That is a change from the original bill and, I think, an improvement, because I’m accepting an aspect of the member’s argument there that there has to be a natural justice process if that kaitiaki relationship or other things were to be challenged on the way through.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Minister, and it’s good that we’re having this interactive. The one question I think the Minister was going to answer was whether, in fact, the commissioner could overturn the decision of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and, if I understood what he was indicating before, that’s not the case.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. No, they have a separate jurisdiction to the commissioner. They are there to hear things where there is a kaitiaki relationship established or able to be established.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So that’s a no? Thank you. So this is really, really significant, and this is not to say that there’s not a role for the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—no one is suggesting that for a moment—and we all understand kaitiaki. But does the Minister not consider that if you establish a Māori plant varieties committee to assess whether something is of kaitiaki nature and they become the sole defining body to determine that, isn’t that a bit of a conflict? I would have thought that it just seems like we’re enshrining in this bill a sort of a whole separate process depending on whether it’s indigenous or “certain non-indigenous plant species”, setting that on a course through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and then, if you aren’t happy with the outcome, you go to the Māori Appellate Court. I’ll yield to the Minister.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is useful clarification, and I perhaps haven’t been as clear as I could be about the process of getting to that committee. There is a process that’s laid out—and we have debated some of that—as to whether a decision goes to that Māori Plant Varieties Committee or not, and the commissioner oversees that process and refers on it, as appropriate, to that committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I also just want to point out to especially the member Andrew Bayly that this has actually morphed into Part 5, the Māori plant variety. So if you have any questions on Part 4 or comments to make on Part 4, now is the time, otherwise we can move on to Part 5.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, thank you, Madam Chair, although my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192 actually specifically deals with clause 28, which is what we’re right in the heart of debating at the moment. So what I understand is that if it’s of a kaitiaki nature, the commissioner will refer that to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. That committee has the ability to solely determine whether, in fact, it is of a kaitiaki nature, and if there’s any dispute about that, a plant grower, or whoever it might be—a horticulturalist—can go to the Māori Appellate Court for a jurisdiction on overturning it. But the commission has no power to deal with that. Again, the nature of my SOP was to make it clear that the recommendation was that it should be an advisory issue, not a decision making—so I just want to make sure. This is the last time I’ll talk about that. But if that’s the situation and I’ve outlined it correctly, I’d love the Minister to be clear about that.

All right, can I move on to the next SOP? I know there are plenty of SOPs here, so I don’t want to hog this show, Madam Chair. [Interruption] Good—well, I’m getting encouraged here.

I want to pick up on Judith Collins’ great SOP, and I know that she’ll want to contribute to this. Her SOP 201 deals with new clause 39A. What it does is it talks about provisional protection, and it states that “An applicant has the right to take proceedings under this Act from the application date as if on that date a PVR had been granted to the applicant in respect of the variety concerned.” What this SOP is about—and I know that the Hon Judith Collins has worked very closely with the likes of Zespri to understand some of the ramifications, but that’s just one example of a horticultural entity. But what it does is that it retains the current provision for provisional protection set out under section 9 of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. So what this is doing is saying, “Don’t get rid of the old stuff; let’s protect it.”

The key thing about this is that if you do not put in this SOP with new clause 39A—without this amendment, the bill allows for a plant variety right holder to bring an action against infringement only after the grant of the right. Now, this raises the whole issue about time—time between making an application, between receiving the plant variety right and the ability to have rights over that plant variety—and to wait that period of time is a substantial amount of time.

I suppose one analogy which may or may not be appropriate is where we’ve lost rights, or we’ve seen some of our red kiwifruit being planted in offshore jurisdictions. I don’t know whether there was a delay there, but if there was a such a case where the application hadn’t been processed—certainly the application was made, but not processed and, therefore, it hadn’t enshrined the rights of Zespri in that case—then that would mean that Zespri would have to wait several years, and in that time the other jurisdiction could set about marketing and using that, and that’s a much harder situation to retrieve if you’ve spent years and lots of money trying to develop a new plant species.

So the big question for the Minister to start with is why on earth wouldn’t you protect the intellectual property of New Zealand companies—and, by the way, it might be Māori companies—in terms of making sure that between the time of the making the application and the granting of the licence, or the protection of the right, New Zealand companies, New Zealand entities, and New Zealand individuals have the ability to pursue proceedings against those who may have wilfully or—maybe even worse than that—deliberately stolen or misused plant varieties, or gained that plant variety through other means which are totally illegal? So I think that is an absolutely important provision that should be in adopted in this bill.

Again, we’ll just give the Minister—I will continue—[Time expired]

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to hear from the Minister why he didn’t take the advice from the actual experts in this area, because, quite clearly, the people who have the most experience in the plant varieties rights area are our horticultural giants like Zespri and like Turners & Growers. They are people who have been working in this area for a very long time and who have though their ingenuity, their commitment, the research that they’ve done, and the way in which they have conducted themselves been able to build an industry which is of benefit to all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—because we’re an exporting nation.

It seems odd to me that the Minister has not taken their advice, and I realise that there could be some who thought that perhaps kiwifruit farmers and others are making great profits and that that means they’re paying great taxes. I understand that there might be a bit of a snitch on the other side of the House to think that people who have bought land or leased land and who have taken risks should make a profit, but that’s how we get paid, basically. It’s called taxes, which they pay.

So I’d like to ask why that is, and why it is that we haven’t heard from the Minister yet on the issues that I’ve already raised with him today, as well as this particular issue that Andrew Bayly has referred to and which is contained in my Supplementary Order Paper, which is that it’s really important that we need to make sure that we are not just in competition with Australia or our near neighbours. We are in competition with the world, and with regard to our produce such as, say, kiwifruit, people like Zespri and Turners & Growers need to be able export the plant stock as well to other parts of the world so that they don’t lose the currency—basically, lose shelf space—in supermarkets all over the world. So they need to be able to do this, and they can’t do this effectively if they are not going to have the level of protection that they need for the incredible investment that goes on in producing and keeping up to date with trends that the buying public want to have.

Just to give an example of how important this is, we all remember the Psa disaster that came through and wiped out so much of the gold kiwifruit. It should in most people’s minds have been a situation where that industry was just completely gone for years, but it wasn’t gone for years because there had already been so much work done on the SunGold that there was grafting going on, and, in fact, a new variety was able to be brought to market that didn’t have the Psa issue.

So this is the sort of work that goes on. Even if we don’t see it with our own eyes, it’s still going on, and these New Zealand businesses that are so important to our country and our economy and our prosperity and our ability to pay for nurses’ wages and our ability to pay for police officers’ wages and our ability to get children to school—why is it that the Minister has not taken their advice?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I’ll just speak to the member Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper 201 there. What is being proposed would be completely out of whack with all of the jurisdictions we like to compare ourselves to, and it would put us in a position where if a plant variety right were never granted but we enforced, essentially, a provisional status, that simply wouldn’t be fair on people who were being sued—for example, the growers. It would introduce an injustice that none of our comparable jurisdictions have considered worth introducing.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister for his response. I find that quite horrific, that response, because I think it shows a degree of naivety that I find crippling, and I imagine anyone who is growing new plants in New Zealand and developing new plant varieties in New Zealand will be appalled at that statement.

But I just want to remind the Minister—and this is why it was so important I had this call, and I’m very grateful to Madam Chair for granting it to me. In the commentary to the bill, which is the bit at the beginning, it states that “The bill would also give effect to New Zealand’s international treaty obligations. New Zealand is party to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The 1978 revision of that agreement is reflected in the 1987 PVR Act. However, under the CPTPP which New Zealand signed in 2018, the Government agreed to implement law to either ‘accede’ … or ‘give effect’ to, the 1991 revision of UPOV (UPOV-91).” All glorious stuff.

So that is why I find the Minister’s response actually factually wrong, because the provisions, that the Hon Judith Collins is seeking to introduce on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201 were already enshrined in the original Act that this bill was going to amend. It was already there, and the further reason that it’s been put forward and why people like Zespri, which is not an insignificant New Zealand player, believe that it is important, and fundamentally important, probably, to make sure that we include this SOP provision is—and I quote—“Further, retaining the provision in the current Plant Varieties Rights Act 1987 allows New Zealand to give effect to Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991),”—UPOV-91, which I’ve just referred to, at the very start of this bill—“as it is required under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 13, provides: ‘Each Contracting Party shall provide measures designed to safeguard the interests of the breeder during the period between the filing or the publication of the application for the grant of a breeder’s right and the grant of that right.’ ”—that’s what we’re talking about; we’re talking about that time delay—“ ‘Such measures shall have the effect that the holder of the breeder’s right shall at least be … equitable remuneration from any person who, during the said period, has carried out acts which, once the right is granted, requires the breeder’s authorization, as provided in Article 14’ ”.

Minister, I’ve got to say to you that I think your advice is poor. You are factually incorrect. You talked about New Zealand growers, and it is absolutely essential that New Zealand growers, who spend a fortune not only in money but in time—because it takes years, often, to develop these plant varieties—have a remedy if someone goes and nicks their stuff or misappropriates it, as we have seen from time to time, unfortunately.

It is wrong. This provision needs to be included in the bill. I’m looking at the Minister, and I’m hoping he’s going to give us a proper answer.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I feel we have traversed some of this, but the definition that the member’s reading out is not a requirement in the way that he specifies that it is. Secondly, when a plant variety right is granted, then anyone who has used it is required to pay the grant holder appropriately. So, in the interim, if someone is lodging grant applications all over the place willy-nilly and without merit, it doesn’t hold other people’s rights out, and I think the member knows that.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 64; Sharma.

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Mark Cameron’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Judith Collins’ amendment inserting new clause 39A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Additional provisions that apply to indigenous plant species and non-indigenous plant species of significance

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 52 to 68D and Schedule 1A, “Additional provisions that apply to indigenous plant species and non-indigenous plant species of significance”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I expect that we will probably run over the time allocated for today, even as I make my comments on Part 5. It is where a lot of substantive material and, I expect, substantive debate will reside, and some of the issues we have traversed already in the committee in passing. The member Andrew Bayly’s Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) have gone across Part 4 and Part 5 in part, so some of the arguments will be traversed again, and I’m looking forward to the debate.

Part 5 of the bill gives effect to our Treaty of Waitangi obligations in relation to the plant variety rights (PVR) regime. It establishes the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, setting up the appointments process, remuneration, and the committee’s functions. It provides that all PVR applications must have to derive from either an indigenous plant species, or one of a short list of non-indigenous plant species of significance where that material was obtained in New Zealand must first be sent to the committee for consideration. It then sets out the role and function of the committee in relation to these applications, and you can see already that these are some of the things that we’ve already started debating but that probably actually belong in Part 5.

Importantly, it gives the committee a decision-making power in relation to the applications it considers. This is the right thing to do. Just as the commissioner is empowered to make decisions on matters relating to their expertise, so is the Māori Plant Varieties Committee empowered to make decisions on matters relating to their expertise—namely, in Te Ao Māori.

With one significant exception, the select committee did not recommend many amendments to these provisions. That exception is the right of appeal to a decision of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and we had begun to discuss that also in the debate on Part 4. The amendments to the right of appeal are discussed in the Government’s SOP 132, which was released on 8 March this year.

The SOP I’m tabling—SOP 132—to address a number of technical issues also amends the definition of “indigenous plant species”. While the introduction version referred to plants that “occur naturally in New Zealand”, an amendment recommended by the select committee changed this to “endemic” in New Zealand, following a comment made by a submitter. This has inadvertently narrowed the definition, as it will exclude those indigenous plants that are also found in other countries, and mānuka is a prime example of that. The SOP reverts the definition back to that in the introduction version of the bill.

Understandably, Part 5 has attracted a considerable amount of comment from both industry stakeholders and Māori. What this part sets out to do is quite new, going further than similar provisions in other intellectual property regimes. Industry stakeholders have generally been concerned about the uncertainties of how this process will play out in practice, and Māori consider that the provisions do not go far enough to protect their taonga. My view is that the bill addresses both of these issues.

Firstly, there will be at least a year following Royal assent before the Māori Plant Varieties Committee starts considering applications, and during that time, the committee will prepare guidance for breeders and kaitiaki. The committee is also required to publicly notify the processes by which it will consider applications, and it can advise breeders as appropriate. I think that will be appreciated by all in the industry—that increased scrutiny that comes with that—and that will give breeders the time and support they need in that to prepare for the new processes.

The policy decisions underlying the bill were also considered in a three-day Waitangi Tribunal hearing in 2019. The tribunal found no breach of the Treaty and, indeed, endorsed those decisions which strengthened the recommendations of the Wai 262 report.

A little on the right of appeal: the Opposition’s SOP 193 sets to replace the provisions for appeal to the Māori Appellate Court with provisions for appeal to a specialist plant variety intellectual property review tribunal. The bill as introduced did not contain a right of appeal—and, again, we’ve traversed this a little bit in the Part 4 debate—to the courts on a decision of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, though judicial review would always have been available. The intent was to have that committee with its experts in Te Ao Māori as the key decision-makers. However, many submitters were—and, in my view, rightly—concerned that that wasn’t sufficient and that that legislation should provide adequate pathways to challenge a decision when a person’s interests are affected by a statutory decision. Māori submitters who commented on the issue disagreed, supporting the rationale of the introduction version, and I congratulate the select committee on finding a solution to the issue that, hopefully, addresses everybody’s concerns.

So the bill now provides that decisions of the Māori committee be appealable to a higher court and has determined that the most appropriate court is the Māori Appellate Court, and that was the recommendation of the judiciary. I note that this court would have the necessary expertise to consider the kinds of questions that an appeal would seek to determine and that it would be more accessible for Māori, both in terms of tikanga and lower filing fees, than the High Court.

I have more to say, but I think it might wait.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m sorry to disturb the Minister, but I do have to report progress on these bills.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Fisheries Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.