Tuesday, 25 October 2022

TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2022

TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

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

List Member ELECTED

List Member ELECTED

New Zealand Labour—Soraya Peke-Mason

SPEAKER: Members, I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Soraya Peke-Mason to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard from his list seat. I understand that Soraya Peke-Mason is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the Chair to my right.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Ko ahau, ko Soraya Peke-Mason, e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke, e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou.

[I, Soraya Peke-Mason, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.]

Waiata

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

Waiata continued

SPEAKER: Ā, kāti rā, ka mutu tēnei wāhanga ka huri au ki ngā pitihana.

[Well, then, that part is concluded and I will now turn to the petitions.]

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 Niranjan Herath requesting that the House urge the Government to increase aid to Sri Lanka and encourage the Sri Lankan Government to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and release those jailed under it.

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

CLERK:

Ministers’ reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022 for:

Vote Justice

Vote Courts

Vote Te Arawhiti

Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, and

Vote Business, Science and Innovation emergency management portfolio

2022 annual reports for:

Crown Law

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Ministry of Justice

Te Arawhiti

Statistics New Zealand

Department of Internal Affairs

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Earthquake Commission

Southern Response

strategic intentions for 2021 to 2026 for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and

statement of performance expectations 2022-23 for the Tāmaki Regeneration Company.

SPEAKER: I present the 2021-22 annual report and the 2022-27 strategic intentions of the Office of the Ombudsman. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission Long-Term Insights Briefing 2022

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Ian Meredith and the petition of New Zealand National Party.

SPEAKER: The report of the Governance and Administration Committee is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand has reported that the New Zealand Activity Index, which is a broad and more timely measure of activity in the economy, is up 5.2 percent on September last year. Activity indicators are up in electronic card transaction activity, grid demand, heavy and light traffic movements, and job advertisements, together with a reduction in job seeker numbers. We know that this is a tough period for many New Zealand households facing cost of living pressures, but as I’ve previously said in this House, they do so while in paid work, which will also help ease the pressure they are under. The Government is continuing to support Kiwis through this difficult time through the fuel tax cuts, half-price public transport fares, and income increases for seniors, beneficiaries, and those on Working for Families.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, activity in the manufacturing sector is continuing to expand. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index was at 52 in September. Production and employment rose while new orders declined slightly after a strong showing in the previous month.

Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen of activity in other sectors?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector is also strong. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index stood at 55.8 in September and above the long-term average of 53.6, with robust gains in sales and new orders.

Barbara Edmonds: What indications do these reports on manufacturing and services provide about the economy overall?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Combining the results of the activity in the services and manufacturing sectors, the composite index was at 54.4, and BNZ’s economists say that this result suggests that the economy grew about 1 percent in the September quarter.

Barbara Edmonds: How do New Zealand’s activity levels for manufacturing compare globally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, while activity in the services and manufacturing sector in New Zealand remains positive, activity in these two sectors fell in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe. Globally, manufacturing contracted to 49.9 and services to 46.6. The composite index globally was 47.3 for the fourth consecutive month below the break-even mark of 50. New Zealand is as well placed as any country in what is a challenging global environment. Unemployment is at a near record low, wages are outpacing inflation to help deal with the cost of living pressure, our exports are growing, overseas tourists are returning, and the Government books are among the best in the world, with debt levels sustainably below those of the countries that we compare ourselves to. On this side of the House, we continue to face the future with optimism and don’t talk the economy down.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister understand that reciting statistics that allow him to pat himself on the back about the state of the economy makes absolutely no difference to the typical New Zealander who, in the past year, saw their real wages decline by 3.7 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What New Zealand households know is they’ve got a Government that’s supported them all the way through COVID, from the wage subsidy scheme to making sure we lift the minimum wage, lift income support, and lift the family tax credit. In contrast, they have an Opposition who wants to cut tax for the highest income earners. Liz Truss might have gone in the UK, but she’s alive and well over here.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in particular this Government’s ongoing support to workers and to Labour Day. Over the last year, we have increased the minimum wage, parental leave entitlements, and Working for Families tax credits. We’ve introduced legislation to end migrant exploitation, and we’ve taken steps to improve conditions for our Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers, our screen industry, and our bus drivers. This week will also see the passing of legislation for fair pay agreements to ensure our lowest-paid workers get a fairer deal. We’ve also taken action to ease the cost of living pressures on New Zealand, particularly those on lower incomes, through our temporary and targeted cost of living payment, fuel tax cuts, and half-price public transport. These—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Where is the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a long-held convention in this House that we don’t make reference to the absence of members.

SPEAKER: I’m guessing you’re talking about a member opposite you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Were you the member in question?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I was, and I was just asking a question—where the Prime Minister was.

SPEAKER: Yeah, no, no, no. I’m going to deal with this first, OK? So either the member did or didn’t refer to a member that is absent. Did he or did he not?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: In the manner of a question, I did.

SPEAKER: No, no. It’s either a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn’t. Did you?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I must have, yes.

SPEAKER: Well, then the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve also taken action to ease the cost of living pressures on Kiwis, particularly those on lower incomes, through our temporary and targeted cost of living payment, fuel tax cuts, and half-price public transport fares. These policies have also helped ease the inflationary impacts of the war in Ukraine and supply-chain disruptions, and supported New Zealanders. This Government backs workers and this Government backs Labour Day.

Christopher Luxon: Why are 100,000 kids chronically absent from school, and only 46 percent of Kiwi students attending class regularly?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been traversed a number of times in this House, the trend around absences from school began in about 2016. On this side of the House, we’ve released recently a strong plan to be able to address that, but also to address some of the underlying issues that sit behind reasons why some children aren’t growing up in households where that’s prioritised. Those things include things like lifting benefits, lifting the family tax credit—all of the things that the National Party have opposed.

Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 64 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA reading test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re very proud of the investments that we’ve made in education. We are seeing now the impact of having invested in teachers. But Mr Luxon can wave his hand all he likes; he has to own up for the fact that his party, when they were last in Government, consistently underfunded health, underfunded education—didn’t employ teachers, didn’t employ nurses. On this side of the House, we’re addressing that. It will take time, but it won’t be solved by tax cuts for the rich.

Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 56 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA numeracy test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The problem the member on the other side of the House has is that he would currently fail a numeracy test when it comes to his budget, because he wants to cut taxes, he wants to lift spending, and he wants to reduce debt. That’s the member who should be worried about a numeracy test.

David Seymour: Point of order. That was a question by the leader of the National Party about numeracy rates among New Zealand students. The Acting Prime Minister did not address that question at all; he simply abused the member asking the question. That’s not good enough.

SPEAKER: You’re under the regime of robust question time. The way forward—

Matt Doocey: Aw, come on!

SPEAKER: Yeah, you can complain if you like, but the way forward is to actually allow the member to answer. Now, this has been an ongoing issue, where the volume of interjections and the number of interjections are such that if you have a look at Speakers’ Rulings—yeah, well, you can smirk and laugh if you like—

Matt Doocey: No, I’m smirking at him.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s fine—means that answers are going to take longer, and, as I indicated last week when I said that if the House indicates to me that it’s actually not interested in the answer, then the Minister can address any part of it that he likes, or she likes.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I think my colleague Mr Seymour raises a good point. There could be no more straight a question than that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a completely factual, straight question. Now, the ordinary rule has been if you ask a political question, you can get a political answer. Everyone in this House would agree that that was a highly political answer from the Acting Prime Minister, but it was a highly political answer in response to a completely straight, factual question. That’s what raised the disorder from this side of the House, because, as Mr Seymour says, it was, essentially, just a political show in response to a very serious, straight question. So I’d put it to you that the question was not even remotely addressed.

SPEAKER: I stand by my ruling. However, I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask that question. Now, if the House is interested in the answer, I suggest that we listen to the answer.

David Seymour: Point of order. I in no way wish to reflect on your ruling, but can I just make an observation that while—

SPEAKER: No.

Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 56 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA numeracy test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a range of different measures on the numeracy and literacy rates of our students. We will always seek to see more improvement on that. One possible explanation for the member’s question is that those students started school under the previous Government and we haven’t been able to recover them yet.

Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 34 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA writing test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, there are a number of different measures of the success of both literacy and numeracy within our schools. We are continuing to invest in helping students who were failed by the previous National Government—for example, when they introduced national standards, or allowed the national Curriculum to not be implemented properly, and we’ll continue to support those students.

Christopher Luxon: How does he expect Kiwi kids to succeed when, under this Government, two-thirds are not even being provided with the absolute basic reading, writing, and maths skills that they will need?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason why I think that New Zealand children will succeed under this Government is that we’ve been prepared to invest in more teachers in their classroom, in paying their teachers properly, in making sure that there is food in schools so they can actually learn and not just be hungry. The secret of success for children in our country is actually investing in and supporting them, not giving tax cuts to the highest earning New Zealanders, which is that member’s plan.

David Seymour: How can the Acting Prime Minister claim the credit for those investments when he blames all of children’s failures at school on the previous Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I was doing was listing the investments that the Government’s made. The member has spent a lot of time criticising us for those investments. I stand by our record in having lifted 66,000 children out of poverty and investing properly in our education system and actually giving children a decent start in life.

Christopher Luxon: Is this Government failing low-income families, when just 2 percent of decile 1 students are able to pass a basic NCEA writing test, meaning a shameful 98 percent failed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that after spending $5 billion more per year on education and hiring 1,400 more staff at the ministry, attendance and academic achievement outcomes should be getting better or worse?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will accept is that it is a long journey back for New Zealand, from a period of time where investment just was not made in our schools or in our teachers. We stand by the professionals in our classrooms who are doing their level best, and we’re addressing the underlying causes that make it more difficult for children to achieve in our classrooms.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in particular, the Government’s action that has helped more people move off the main benefit. September quarter benefit statistics released last week show that the number of people receiving a main benefit continues to fall, year on year. The Government has been relentless and deliberate in supporting more people into meaningful employment, education, and training. There are now 13,731 fewer people on a main benefit compared to September 2021, and the number of people receiving a job seeker work-ready benefit also continues to fall. With more people moving off the benefit and into work, unemployment at a near record low of 3.3 percent, and incomes growing at a higher rate than since records began, it’s clear that while there is more work to do, our plan is working.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister stand by his statement earlier in question time today, “New Zealand is as well placed as any country in what is a challenging global environment.”; and if he does stand by that statement, why does he suppose New Zealand lost a net 10,000 migrants for the last two years in a row, compared with gaining a net 30,000 a year on average for the previous two decades?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question, I do stand by my statement. With respect to the second part of the question, I know the member would like to wish COVID away. Unfortunately, when you’re in Government, you can’t do that. We have got our immigration reset in process, we are seeing more people come into New Zealand, and we are filling the skill gaps that we need to.

David Seymour: Point of order. I just ask, I’ve heard members, particularly from Labour, shouting over the answer. Now, you’ve ruled that the Minister might not have to answer as fully in that circumstance. But I just ask you to reflect on the fact that it’s very unfair on the diligent and conscientious members of the ACT Party, who would like to hear the answer.

Dr Duncan Webb: Which one?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to hear the end of this, and remind me to come back to you, Dr Webb. Have you finished?

David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I quite agree with you; that shouldn’t happen. Members on the Government side should be aware of that—that when a question is being answered and there are no interjections coming from the ACT Party, in this case, then be careful that you don’t drown out the answer. Dr Webb, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I’ll give you an extra supplementary question.

David Seymour: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the COVID pandemic, being a pandemic, was global, and therefore it’s not a very good answer to suggest New Zealand is losing people because COVID happened here, when it happened in the countries the people are leaving to as well?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m glad the member has given me the opportunity to reflect on New Zealand’s COVID response. It is true that New Zealand’s COVID response included the shutting down of our borders in a way that other countries didn’t do. That decision saved thousands of lives, Mr Seymour, and I stand by it.

David Seymour: Why does the Acting Prime Minister believe that twice as many New Zealanders are now telling pollsters such as Curia that this country is going in the wrong direction by a ratio of two to one; and does he think that those New Zealanders are just wrong and missed the memo on how well the Government’s doing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that many New Zealanders and many New Zealand households are finding things tough at the moment, because we are living through significant cost of living pressures. That’s why, on this side of the House, we’ve invested to lift the incomes of those on benefits, of our seniors, our family tax credits through Working for Families, the minimum wage increases, and all of the support that we’ve given to businesses as well. The member might not appreciate that support. He might not have voted for that support, but on this side of the House, we understand it is tough for many households.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister think that daily reports of daylight robbery and violence in the street make it more attractive or less attractive for people to come to and remain in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: None of us like to see reports of crime taking place in New Zealand. We have seen, as Minister Hipkins and others have addressed in this House, spikes in youth crime. Police are being resourced to be able to deal with that. We now have at least 1,500 more front-line police than we had when we came into office—again, these are initiatives that have been opposed by the member’s party.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister think that increasing taxes by $22 billion, or 25 percent in the last three years—$7,800 extra tax per worker—has made it more or less attractive to stay in New Zealand; and if less attractive, when will this Government let people keep some more of their own money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When we look at the OECD’s definition of the tax wedge, which looks at the overall impact of tax which is paid by New Zealanders, I think we’re about 36th out of 38 when it comes to the OECD in terms of that rating. On this side of the House, we understand that it’s a balance between making sure that we tax New Zealanders fairly and we’ve got the resources to pay for our health system, and an education system and to invest in housing. It might be very, very simple in the member’s world, but getting that balance right is difficult and tricky, and I think the Government has done a good job of finding it.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister truly believe his Government is doing its best, and, if so, should we just accept rising prices, rising taxes, rising crime, and more and more people voting with their feet and leaving, some going as far as Antarctica?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that New Zealanders have worked extremely hard over the last couple of years to put us in a position where we have 3.3 percent unemployment, one of the lowest in the OECD; one of the lowest levels of public debt in the OECD; an economy that’s nearly 5 percent larger than what it was before COVID came along; where we’ve lifted 66,000 children out of poverty; where we’ve lifted the minimum wage to make sure our lowest income people are supported. This has not been easy. There have not been any costless decisions, but this Government is proud of what we’ve done to support New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement this morning that “every government would want to be able to adjust those tax brackets and make sure that people do keep more of that money in their take-home pay”, and how much more tax does he estimate New Zealand wage and salary earners are paying today compared to what they paid five years ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, in which I went on to say, “we have to balance that against all of the needs we’ve got in delivering the health system”—that you’ve just been talking about—“delivering education, building houses, making sure that we provide all the public services [that] people rely on.” To answer the second part of the question, wage and salary earners pay a range of taxes, and it is not possible to separate instances like how much GST is paid by wage and salary earners when trying to provide a comprehensive answer for the member. However, I can advise the member that total personal income tax payments represented 41.6 percent of total tax revenue in the 2022 year just ended, compared to 41.5 percent of total tax revenue in 2017—that would be an increase of 0.1 percent.

Nicola Willis: Why does he support a situation where a median wage earner in New Zealand today is paying more income tax than they were when Labour came to Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have to do, as every Government has to do, is find the balance between investing in the public services that we know we all need—the health system, the education system, the housing that needs to be built—along with what we ask New Zealanders to contribute through the tax system. As I said this morning, of course every Government would like to make the adjustments the member’s advocating for, but the member doesn’t seem to understand that when making those decisions, you have to balance that against investment in public services. It’s very clear the member doesn’t understand that, because the previous Government underfunded health, education, housing, social development. The Bermuda Triangle that the member is stuck in might be a pleasant place to be, but it doesn’t add up.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think he’s getting the balance right when his Government increased Government spending by 16 percent in the past year alone while New Zealanders’ real wages declined by 3.7 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, because we’ve traversed this in the House before, when you take out the emergency COVID spending, the Government spending as a percentage of GDP was 30.9 percent. That is, effectively, the long-run average. The member might also recall that when her party was in office, following on from the Canterbury earthquakes, spending reached as high as 34 percent of GDP and then came down. We’re at 35 percent in the face of an even bigger economic shock.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Australian Treasurer and Labor Party MP Jim Chalmers, who said, “We don’t want to make the situation worse by making inflation worse. And you do that if you spray too much money around.”, and why does the New Zealand finance Minister continue to insist he can spend his way out of the cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have great respect for my friend and colleague Jim Chalmers and I wish him all the best for the Budget that he will deliver tonight. The member might want to reflect on the concept of spraying money around when she thinks it’s a priority right now to cut taxes for the wealthiest New Zealanders. Not even Don Brash thinks that’s a good idea.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider someone earning $60,000 a year to be rich, and, if so, why is it that that person today is paying far more tax if their wages have only kept pace with inflation while inflation continues to burn a hole in their pocket?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, no. What I consider is that middle-income people in New Zealand have worked hard over the last few years, and the Government has stood beside them, helping them stay in work, helping them get through COVID, and investing in our public services.

Question No. 5—Conservation

5. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with employment opportunities and conservation efforts?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana e te Vaa Tuatua. Jobs for Nature is continuing to provide our local communities with employment opportunities and conservation outcomes across New Zealand. Since 1 July 2020, over 4,000 people have been supported into employment opportunities thanks to Jobs for Nature. Across the Waikato, Maniapoto, and Coromandel regions, 14 Jobs for Nature projects will support up to 200 people into a variety of conservation work, which will see them upskill and focused on protecting our natural environment, biodiversity, and predator control. These grassroots projects go a long way in helping us reach the targets we set in 2016 to be predator-free by 2050.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How is Jobs for Nature supporting communities in the Canterbury regions?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Six Jobs for Nature projects across Canterbury will provide employment opportunities for more than 70 people by establishing a network of coastline trapping, setting up a native plant nursery, undertaking restoration work and planting around Lyttelton Harbour, and increasing pest control across Banks Peninsula and Christchurch. This is important work that has been made possible through Jobs for Nature funding.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Can she confirm that in Q4, the cost per job created by Jobs for Nature is now $140,000?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The member should recall that Jobs for Nature projects range across a four-year period and that costings for those jobs are scaled across that period. So in one quarter it may be higher than in other quarters when they may be lower.

Anna Lorck: How is Jobs for Nature supporting communities in the Hawke’s Bay region?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Six Jobs for Nature projects across the Hawke’s Bay will provide up to 60 nature-based employment opportunities and go a long way to contribute to really ambitious conservation efforts across the region. Several of the initiatives are iwi-led, creating new opportunities for them to contribute their knowledge and skills while working towards shared conservation goals through planting, wetland restoration, maintaining tracks, weed control, and pest control.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with job certainty?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has been instrumental in providing job certainty across New Zealand—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s a short-term scheme.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —particularly during the period when our borders were closed, Mr Goldsmith. In Queenstown, we’ve provided over 51 employment opportunities through the Tucker Beach reserve project, and in Auckland we have helped over 300 employment opportunities. These projects are required to pay at least the living wage and we have just celebrated Labour Day. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic front-line staff at the Department of Conservation, as well as the hundreds of workers supporting our natural environment through Jobs for Nature.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is she committed to progressing pay transparency?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mālō li, Mr Speaker. Happy Tokelau Language Week. Our Government has begun work on pay transparency and remains committed to addressing pay gaps in Aotearoa. Earlier this year, we accepted in principle all the recommendations of the Education and Workforce Committee following their inquiry into pay transparency. Just last Thursday, my colleague Minister Tinetti and I announced that NACEW, or the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, will act as a national advisory group on pay transparency, that their remit will be expanded to include ethnicity as well, and that they will provide advice on what a pay transparency system that is fit for purpose for Aotearoa could look like. We know that there isn’t one silver bullet to addressing pay transparency, and that’s why we’re committed to taking a range of actions.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister aware that the previous Minister for Women, Julie Anne Genter, also asked NACEW to progress pay transparency in 2017 and 2020, with mindfulness to the gap for Māori and Pasifika women, with research, best-practice case studies, promotion, as well as international updates?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: NACEW reports to the Minister for Women and so that’s actually outside of my ministerial responsibility. But I do understand that the previous work focused on a preliminary question around whether a pay transparency system would be something that we should be looking at, and I think we all know the answer is yes.

Jan Logie: What has changed since September 2021 when Traci Houpapa, the chair of NACEW, said, “NACEW supports the Human Rights Commission’s petition to include pay transparency in legislation.”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Once again, NACEW sits outside of my ministerial responsibility, but what we are doing here collectively—or jointly—is to look at the next level of detail. We’ve all agreed, based on what the select committee’s recommendations have been, that we should be progressing work to investigate what a pay transparency system would look like. There’s quite a bit of work that needs to happen at the next level to look at what that might look like for New Zealand.

Jan Logie: What does she say to Mind the Gap’s Dellwyn Stuart, who said, “An advisory group is not enough to put more money in people’s wallets. We need much greater urgency.”?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Again, as I said before, we are undertaking, on this side of the House, a range of actions to address pay gaps and to improve people’s pay and conditions. Just this week, for example, the work that’s being taken by Minister Wood around the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—once that legislation has passed—will contribute significantly towards lifting pay and conditions for workers in many sectors, many of which we see women and people from both Pasifika and ethnic communities overrepresented in. The employment action plans that this Government is progressing, or undertaking, across various population groups looks at issues around discrimination, diversity, and inclusion—yet another aspect that feeds into pay gaps. There is also work, for example: the 2020 amendment that was undertaken provides for a clear process for employees and unions to raise pay equity claims directly with employers rather than courts, making it much easier. The Public Service Commission is progressing work, and agencies will start reporting on the ethnicity pay gaps in addition to gender pay gaps from this year. There’s a range of work under way to address the issue that the member has raised.

Jan Logie: Can NACEW draft pay transparency legislation?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: NACEW will be the national advisory group to us on what a pay transparency system could look like in a way that is fit for purpose for New Zealand.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it was a pretty specific non-political question, and it wasn’t answered.

SPEAKER: It was addressed, though—can you ask the question again.

Jan Logie: Can NACEW draft pay transparency legislation?

SPEAKER: The problem is whether or not the Minister has ministerial responsibility for that. So I think she has addressed it, but perhaps not to your satisfaction. But none the less, it was still addressed.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister commit to legislating for pay transparency as requested by the Human Rights Commission, women’s NGOs, significant business leaders, and the public?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Minister Tinetti and I have committed to looking at what a fit for purpose pay transparency system could look like for New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his refusal to describe the New Zealand health system as being in crisis, despite recent tragic events involving emergency departments (EDs) and patients leaving without being seen because of the unacceptably long waiting times; if so, why?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by the many statements I’ve made about this Government having inherited a health system that was desperately underfunded and under-resourced year after year by our predecessor Government, and I stand by the investments that this Government has made in health, increasing health funding by 45 percent in five years and setting up a $7 billion building programme to restore and replace many buildings, compared to the roughly $1 billion under the previous Government. This is a health system that is under immense pressure at the moment, and this is a Government that will continue to back it with investment and action.

Dr Shane Reti: Does the Minister stand by his response to written questions which show that in EDs in June this year, 540 people were forced to wait longer than 24 hours and 32 people had a wait time of 48 hours, and does he regret not paying attention to the warning letter last year from all of the DHBs?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I received no warning letter from DHBs last year, as that member well knows. In relation to those figures, I think what I can say is that our EDs are on the receiving end of record presentations this year—over 100,000 in June; over 100,000 again in August—and I stand behind and stand with the amazing health workforce that we have providing care to people, even those who are waiting long periods of time to get that care, and making sure that people get the care that they need.

Dr Shane Reti: Did long ED waiting times contribute to the recent tragedy at Christchurch ED, given reports that the person was triaged at level 3 on initial assessment, which has a maximum waiting time for medical assessment and treatment of 30 minutes, but they were not assessed for treatment until three hours later—well beyond the maximum 30 minutes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware of some of the facts around the events in Christchurch, and I express my condolences to the family concerned. However, it is a matter that is under investigation by Christchurch Hospital, it’s possibly a matter that will be referred to the coroner, and I would prefer to wait until independent bodies establish the facts before drawing any conclusions.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to ED specialist and well-respected spokesperson of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Dr John Bonning, who stated, “time for Health Minister Andrew Little to show leadership” and that he advised him to reintroduce hospital wait-time targets?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As that member well knows, we continue to have a measure for EDs. It is the short-stay ED measure of six hours and, currently, on a national basis, our ED system is performing at about 76 percent—or at least for the month of June—and that has been deteriorating since about 2012, according to the research. But one thing we won’t do is repeat what happened under the previous Government according to the 2019 research, which showed that targets were used to manipulate and dodge good treatment for people. We have an ED system that is providing care for people and a system that, having weathered the storms of COVID and one of the worst flu seasons ever, is providing the care for people that they need.

Question No. 8—Women

8. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What reports has she seen on progressing women in leadership in New Zealand?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Today, our Parliament and the people of New Zealand are celebrating that we have reached 50 percent representation of women in Parliament. With New Zealand leading the world with women winning the right to vote in 1893, it wasn’t until 1933 that we had our first female member of Parliament, and it has taken until 2022 that women finally have an equal share of seats in this House. I’d like to extend my warm welcome to new Labour MP Soraya Peke-Mason, who has joined us for the first time in the House today.

Sarah Pallett: How has the 50 percent representation of women in Parliament been achieved?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As a country, we can be proud of the representation we have here in this House today. With the two largest parties in the House having a 59.4 percent and 33.3 percent female representation respectively, we are moving in the right direction. I also commend the Greens, ACT, and Te Paati Māori for their efforts. The evidence points to the importance of strong selection processes, reducing discriminatory barriers, and concerted efforts to encourage candidates who represent the diversity of their communities or those who might not have run without encouragement.

Sarah Pallett: What evidence has she seen on how to increase diversity and inclusion in leadership roles?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Change requires leadership. For example, over four years ago, this Government set a target to reach 50 percent of women’s participation on public sector boards. We have not only met that target; we are also now at 55.8 percent of women holding senior leadership positions in the Public Service. Research also shows that we need to reduce barriers to female leadership, which is why initiatives seen in this House to support parents, combat misogynistic attitudes, and increase the number of women representatives are clearly making a difference—but there is more work to do.

Sarah Pallett: How does New Zealand compare globally?

Hon JAN TINETTI: According to the World Economic Forum, New Zealand is currently ranked number four in the world as the most gender-equal country, behind Iceland, Finland, and Norway. While this is great news, I know that many women in this country experience gender-based discrimination every single day. That is why this Government has prioritised critical work such as our pay equity legislation, which has seen seven claims settled and removed gender-based pay discrimination for at least 104,000 people. But as I have already said, there is still more work to do.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: What is the intent behind clause 141 of the Water Services Entities Bill, and do Te Mana o te Wai statements grant mana whenua rights beyond those of other groups to influence the activity of water services entities under her Three Waters reform?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Mr Speaker, mālō ni. Te Mana o te Wai’s statements enable communities to put the health and wellbeing of water catchments at the centre of decision making by involving mana whenua and councils on behalf of their communities, and can be practically implemented by each of the four water service entities.

Simon Court: Why does this bill afford these rights only to Māori with an interest in fresh water and not to communities, businesses, and farmers who rely on fresh-water bodies for their livelihoods?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Te Mana o te Wai assumes an intergenerational commitment to our most precious resource: water. That’s important to Māori, it’s important to farmers, and it’s important to all communities. Design of mechanisms to give te mana o te wai need to carefully balance iwi, hapū, and whānau input with the need for water service entities to undertake investment activities to address the significant infrastructure deficit, and be consistent with the new economic regulatory regime. Designed well, these objectives need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they benefit the whole community and can take account of green infrastructure solutions for improved health and environmental solutions—that’ll be good for farmers as well.

Simon Court: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister addressed the question, which was specific: “Why does this bill afford these rights only to Māori with an interest in fresh water” to prepare Te Mana o te Wai’s statements? I don’t believe she’s addressed it.

SPEAKER: Well, I disagree with you.

Simon Court: Does the Minister stand by her statement that “Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those as ratepayers”, and, if so, why is her bill only allowing Māori to make Te Mana o te Wai statements, with no limits on their demands, and to which water service entities are required to respond and give effect to?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the question, Te Mana o te Wai statements embody an intergenerational perspective to put the health and wellbeing of the environment, communities, and the public at the centre of its thinking. It is a different approach; it does come from what is already accepted and established in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, and it does enable all communities to benefit from this perspective when we think about improved water service delivery.

Dr Duncan Webb: Do Te Mana o te Wai obligations lead to exclusive outcomes just for Māori?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No. Te Mana o te Wai responsibilities benefit the whole community and the environment by taking an intergenerational approach to the sustainable management and service delivery of water. When we consider how local implementation of Te Mana o te Wai objectives are implemented, we will observe a range of initiatives that support source protection; improving the catchment health of lakes, streams, and rivers; and, in water service delivery, could lead to further nature-based design solutions to improve waste water and stormwater designs.

Simon Court: Based on that answer, that communities will benefit from iwi and hapū making Te Mana o te Wai statements, why can only iwi and hapū give Te Mana o te Wai statements?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, to the first part of the question, Te Mana o te Wai statements are developed by iwi mana whenua groups, but not for the exclusive benefit of Māori. In fact, it’s for the combined benefit of communities, the environment, and in the way that we think about the intergenerational challenge of looking after our most precious resource: water—everyone will benefit.

Simon Court: Are spiritual beliefs, such as the existence of a taniwha on a bend in the river, permissible subject matter for Te Mana o te Wai statements, and, if so, why should taxpayer-funded entities be required to give effect to spiritual beliefs?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member sadly mischaracterises the intent of Te Mana o te Wai statements, which are intended to be practical applications for the way in which we can look after the intergenerational obligations towards our most pressure resource, which is water. If I think about the way in which the principles informing Te Mana o te Wai can be adopted for everyone’s benefit—I’m informed by the national policy statement for fresh water—there are six main principles to take account of: mana whakahaere, the obligation of kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, to ensure that governance includes everybody’s interests, long-term stewardship, and care and respect. I would faithfully hope that the member has sighted a Te Mana o te Wai fact sheet—that has been long held and put up on the website by the Ministry for the Environment. He chooses to ignore that information at his peril.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Transport: Mālō ni. What recent announcements has he made about making it easier for New Zealanders to use public transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, I announced that New Zealanders will soon be able to use a single payment system across public transport in New Zealand, whether they’re travelling on the bus, train, or ferry. The signing of the National Ticketing Solution (NTS) contract with supplier Cubic is a key milestone in the Government’s work to boost public transport use no matter where you are in the country. Local authorities also recognise the benefits of a single nationally consistent payment system, and the public transport authorities including Auckland Transport, Greater Wellington, Environment Canterbury, and a regional consortium of 10 smaller councils have all signed up to a participation agreement to deliver this solution. The NTS will increase public transport patronage, support our emissions reduction goals, and drive economic development right across Aotearoa.

Arena Williams: What benefits will the new National Ticketing Solution offer for public transport users?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The NTS will make public transport easier to use for all New Zealanders. It will mean that Kiwis are able to use an existing method of payment like a touchless credit card, debit card, or a mobile phone payment method. It will mean that there is one way of paying for public transport in any part of the country. No longer will people have to have different cards depending on what city they’re in. And finally, the NTS solution will mean that whatever journey New Zealanders go on with public transport, they will automatically get the best fare. We’re bringing public transport into the 21st century with this piece of work—something the National Party could not accomplish in its time in office—and it will make public transport better for all Kiwis to use.

Arena Williams: What responses has he seen to the announcement of the national ticketing solution?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The responses have been almost universally positive. Save Our Trains New Zealand said, “This is an excellent initiative that will make life easier for many”. Samantha Gain, General Manager for Metlink, said, “This is great news for our passengers who tell us that they want more and easier ways to pay across all modes of public transport”. Auckland Transport’s interim CEO Mark Lambert said, “This is a brilliant day for public transport users.” I’m not sure what Mr Luxon would say. He doesn’t think public transport should be subsidised.

Arena Williams: What other work is the Government doing to support Kiwis to use public transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government is committed to making it more affordable, easier, and attractive for Kiwis to use public transport. We’re doing that through investing in better public transport infrastructure right around the country: new, frequent public transport routes; the decarbonisation of public transport buses; better terms and conditions for bus drivers; and, of course, half-price public transport. This investment in the National Ticketing Solution is just one part of our Government’s commitment to better public transport, to make life easier for Kiwis, and to decarbonise transport.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What percentage of students achieved each assessment of the 2022 NCEA Literacy and Numeracy pilot, and can she explain why the results were lower than last year’s assessment?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education) (School Operations): Mr Speaker, mālō ni. As part of our maths and literacy strategy, we’re developing a standardised assessment for NCEA literacy and maths that all students will need to pass by the time they leave school. This is to ensure that all students leave school with essential maths and literacy skills fit for the modern world. The first pilot ran in 2021 and saw achievement rates of 67 percent in reading, 35 percent in writing, 65 percent in numeracy, 28 percent pāngarau, and 83 percent te reo matatini. The second pilot ran in 2022 and saw achievement rates of 64 percent in reading, 34 percent in writing, 56 percent in numeracy, 18 percent pāngarau, and 24 percent te reo matatini. This pilot was tested with small numbers of year 10 students, and the finalised assessment will become mandatory in 2024 for all school leavers. Results will vary, because the content of the assessment varies as we are still in the initial phases of developing it.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain why, after five years of this Government, literacy and numeracy skills have continued to decline to the point where only a third of students have the foundational skills to pass this co-requisite requirement for NCEA?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’d point out to that member that it sounds like she is supporting the Government’s policy to bring in mandatory maths and literacy co-requisites. We acknowledge that literacy and mathematics were on a decline and started with the introduction of national standards back in 2008—of course, the six years, the majority of schooling, that these young people had was under that regime. The results of the pilot highlight the fact that maths and literacy results in New Zealand have been falling for well over a decade. That is why we’re taking urgent action through targeted maths and literacy strategies to make it clear exactly what needs to be taught and when it needs to be taught.

Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, then, what specific initiative has this Government fully implemented and rolled out in the last five years in math or reading or writing to improve the numeracy and literacy of our 15-year-olds today?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’m pleased that that question was asked, and we do know that with the maths and literacy strategy, we are developing the common practice model which that Government failed to do and put the emphasis on to assessment rather than teaching to the curriculum. That’s exactly what we are going to do. We are having an evidence-based approach to increasing literacy and numeracy results in this country, rather than the failed experiment that that Government had, which they called national standards, which were neither national nor standard.

Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, is the Associate Minister telling us that the only thing in terms of literacy and numeracy that they’ve fully rolled out in the last five years is a literacy and numeracy strategy that they wrote this year?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That member fails to realise that the strategy that was written and launched this year has taken account of a lot of evidence that we have put into place in this country. What I would also say is I’m really delighted to be asked the question again. We’re rewriting a new, strengthened curriculum and introducing new NCEA maths and literacy standards. It’s a highly ambitious work programme to lift overall achievement, especially in maths and literacy. To support this, we have invested over $20 million in tutoring and catch-up learning sessions, which are well and truly under way in this country already. We’ve invested in over a thousand more overseas and domestic teachers to deliver this Government’s plan to lift achievement, far more than that side of the House ever did in their time in Government.

Erica Stanford: Does she think that more students would have achieved numeracy and literacy standards if the Government had implemented measures to catch students up for lost learning in 2021 instead of waiting for term 4 this year?

Hon JAN TINETTI: What that member has failed to remember is that we actually put that lost learning in place last year as well, when in November I made an announcement of $16 million to help catch those students up. We also have put extra support and money into The Correspondence School, which is now called Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu to ensure that our students can get the extra support that they need over the summer catch-up time. The member has a very short memory.

Erica Stanford: When she said in the news on Friday that “There is a cultural appropriateness that needs to be taken into account.”, can she give an example of the type of question in the pilot exams that she considers not to be culturally appropriate?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that the number of students in these trials—we’ve had a number of Māori and Pacific students. We know by listening—listening—to the teachers who have been helping implement those programmes that some of those questions have not been appropriate. As a former teacher myself, I know that some of the examples that are used sometimes are not cognisant with a young person’s life and a young person might not be used to some of the experiences that we might even be used to, as people who are privileged to sit in this House. So that is exactly the sort of work that we are doing.

Erica Stanford: Point of order. This question was quite specific around asking for an example of a type of question, and I don’t believe that was addressed in the answer.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question. You can either ask that again, or another one.

Erica Stanford: Can the Associate Minister give this House one example of the type of question in the pilot exam that she considers was not culturally appropriate?

Hon JAN TINETTI: What I can say is that there are questions in the exams that some of our young people don’t have the experiences in their background to understand. One of the responses that I will make to that member is that we have been very clear to our schools, at this stage, that we aren’t releasing in great detail the exam questions, because that could upset the nature of the pilot.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12—Naisi Chen.

Erica Stanford: Supplementary question because you gave me an extra one.

SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve run out of questions.

Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications

12. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: Fakafetai, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has he made regarding accelerating the roll-out of 5G services across New Zealand?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): Mr Speaker, mālō ni. Last week—more good news—I announced the Government is working with the major telecommunications network operators to accelerate New Zealand’s 5G roll-out and improve rural connectivity. Our three major mobile network operators—Spark, 2degrees, and Vodafone—will now be required to increase the pace of the 5G roll-out to small towns across New Zealand, in return for the spectrum that underpins their wireless technologies. There is also an expectation they will continue existing efforts to improve rural connectivity. This is good news for New Zealanders, especially those in our rural communities who stand to benefit from this new agreement through gaining access to the speed, capacity, and reliability of 5G services.

Naisi Chen: Who will benefit from an accelerated 5G roll-out as a result of the direct allocation process?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government is committed to improving connectivity for those in rural communities. This has been a key focus of our negotiations with communications operators over the past few months. The accelerated 5G roll-out will target provincial and smaller towns across New Zealand so people outside of our main centres can also enjoy the benefits of this new technology. The speed, capacity, and reliability of 5G is expected to underpin a successful digital economy. I do look forward to announcing further details around the towns that will be targeted during this initiative and the number of people who will benefit, in due course.

Naisi Chen: What reactions has he seen regarding the agreement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Craig Young from the Telecommunications Users Association welcomed the announcement that the Government would be shifting from an auction to directly allocating spectrum. He said that users have historically ended up paying for auction revenue through higher user-charges. 2dgerees CEO Mark Callander said that the announcement is great news for Kiwis. Matthew Flood from Vodafone said that the Government’s proposal supports the pace for our investment in areas that would not otherwise see benefits of 5G in the near term.

Naisi Chen: How does the agreement build on the Government’s current work to improve rural connectivity?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As of June 2022, Government investment in rural connectivity improvements has, amongst other things, provided faster broadband to more than 75,000 rural households and businesses under the rural broadband phase 2 programme. It’s provided mobile coverage to over a thousand kilometres of State highway, and coverage to nearly a hundred rural tourism sites under the Mobile Black Spot Fund. The proportion of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband has increased from 63 percent in 2017 to over 85 percent today. The agreement also complements other Government investment, including our $60 million manifesto commitment to improve rural connectivity allocated through Budget 2022, and the $47 million of rural capacity upgrades I announced in February 2022. I’m proud to be part of a Government which is improving connectivity for all New Zealanders.

Urgent Debates Declined

Ministry of Education—NCEA Literacy and Numeracy Pilot, Release of Results

SPEAKER: I received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the release of results of the 2022 NCEA literacy and numeracy pilot. The release of results by the Ministry of Education is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action—Speaker’s ruling 200/4. Ms Stanford stated in her application that the Government has made no formal statements around the release of the results. While the release of the report may warrant an urgent debate, this must be exceptional, especially where working through a report’s recommendations may take some time—Speaker’s ruling 208/6. I do not consider that the release of the results itself warrants the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is therefore declined.

Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department—Death of Individual

SPEAKER: I have also received an application from Dr Shane Reti seeking to debate events surrounding the death of the person attending Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department on Sunday, 16 October 2022. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action it has taken—Speaker’s ruling 200/4. While a review into the death is under way, it is not clear from the application that the Government has announced that it will take any particular action arising from the individual case. The application is therefore declined.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 26 October for further consideration in committee of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill; the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Māori Purposes Bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, the Organic Products Bill, the Civil Aviation Bill, and the Statutes Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fisheries Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 18 October.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, though that support does come with some caveats.

National supports legislation that enhances and protects New Zealand’s marine environment. Indeed, we do have a long track record on passing legislation—during our last term in Government—to enhance and protect marine environments, and we do what we can to encourage better fishing practices that enable our seafood sector to thrive sustainably. As I have spoken about so many times in this House previously, this country does rely on our primary industries, and, of course, our fishing industry plays a very large role in that. But we do—like everyone, I would I would hazard a guess—believe that fish dumping and illegal activity that is far too easily occurring under the current system must change in order to prevent lost future economic opportunity. I was actually lucky enough, very recently, to attend a trip to Fiji with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where a large part of our trip was focused on the illegal and unregulated and unreported fishing activity up in that region, in the northern part of the Pacific, where they estimate almost a billion US dollars of fish is taken out of those fisheries per year. So we will, as a party, support what we can to come down hard on activity like that.

As I said in my opening statement, we do, though, have some reservations about this bill, following its select committee stage, and that’s where I’d like to refer the House to the National Party’s differing view, and that we are particularly concerned about the fact that the operational implications of the bill have been left very much to regulation. I know the members of the National Party—and, indeed, our colleagues in ACT—did fight long and hard during the select committee process for there to be changes made to the primary legislation as opposed to in regulation, and, unfortunately, as often is the case these days, we didn’t quite have the numbers and we were voted down. But we do want to place for the record our continuing disquiet and concern about that. We did find in select committee that there was quite some resistance whenever we sought to put those clarifications into primary legislation, though we didn’t actually get a reason as to why we were getting that resistance, which is disappointing.

We believe that the penalty regime has no consideration on the various value weightings of respective species. I know colleagues did talk a long time about pilchards compared to tuna and who should be given weight as to what was more important to be taken into account when bycatches were dumped. But we believe that when setting fines regarding the discarding of fish referred to, should be had in matters including their species and their value. If I just quote from the National Party’s minority view, it says, “We also have concerns with the landings and discards section in the bill. Currently discards back to the sea can occur within a very strict set of expectations which may have a disproportionate impact on inshore fishers, depending on how pragmatic or otherwise officials are when setting the regulations.” And, of course, that comes down to the crux of our concern with this; it really is down to the officials of the day, as opposed to something being set in black and white and legislation. So it really is quite arbitrary. So we as a party will be watching the subsequent development of those regulations closely. We really do want to see a good balance struck between the ongoing improvement of fishing practice, but ensuring a viable inshore—and, of course, deep-water—commercial fishery can continue.

So to understand this bill it’s important that we understand what it’s actually measuring. The quota management system (QMS) that this bill seeks to strengthen is a process that actually oversees hundreds and hundreds of fish species which populate our nation’s seas in and around the exclusive economic zone, but they can be divided up into sections. And this is where it does become quite complicated. This is where the frustration has arisen from, the lack of adaptability and accountability to those total allowable catch rules—hence the need for this bill to be brought before the House—and that they change and that they move all the time. So, as I understand it, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has only assessed 50 fish stocks in 2021. But to give that some context, I understand that the current stocks within the QMS is huge, with about 98 species that are divided into 642 separate stocks within that quota management area. So, to put it simply, the existing legislation is simply not equipped to accurately measure this massive amount of data in this massive area.

As I went through before, the issues that we have primarily have been with that accountability, with the status updates—there is less than 3 percent of the total fish stock that’s been assessed, meaning MPI has no up-to-date data or visibility on what is actually out there, nor indeed the environmental impacts that fishing is currently having on New Zealand’s seas and waters.

So, just to conclude, really, this is quite a procedural change. We have registered forthrightly, I think, our reservations about the bill. We will continue to monitor this. We have heard very strongly the feedback from the industry. We do encourage the industry to keep communicating with MPI in the development of those regulations. We do want to see these as fit for purpose as possible. So we do support this bill. We are concerned about the potential for its costs to outweigh benefits once changes are enacted, but we do look forward to seeing how those early interventions have an impact.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. Before I begin my contribution, can I please take time to thank the officials we worked with during this process and the other select committee members. We spent quite some time on this piece of legislation during sitting hours and, quite often, in recess weeks.

What this piece of legislation proposes to do is to improve and incentivise better commercial fishing practices. We’ve heard quite a lot about the removal of the pre-set decision rules. That was a decision that was made through the committee of the whole House. There has been continued concern expressed over the use of the pre-set decision rules, and it seems that the rebuilding of trust is something that is quite important and needed before we can include rules such as this. There were changes made around graduated offences and the penalties regime, and we’ve heard quite a lot about the 50 fish number, and I know that the Minister acknowledged that perhaps it seems arbitrary but there has to be a starting point somewhere. Previously, there was just simply a maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine, no matter the offence, and what this piece of legislation does is amend that somewhat to make the penalty fit for purpose, the type of offence committed, and thinking about any previous offences that may have been committed by the fisher prior. So it’s proportionate to the offence.

This also goes to improve the effectiveness of cameras on boats. As well as them currently being used for observing fishing, it now extends to the observation of fishing-related activities such as sorting, processing, and the discarding of fish.

So, again, I just thank the members of the committee. It is a split committee—each side has the same number so there is no party that has more votes than the other, so I’m unsure why the member who spoke previously mentioned that they didn’t have the numbers. It is a split committee. It is a committee that works very well, and I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on the third reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the Primary Production Committee members who examined this bill, the staff that supported them, and the advisers—particularly acknowledging my colleague Eugenie Sage, who has been making previous contributions on this bill and who we know cares deeply about the wellbeing of our oceans.

Western science is catching up to what indigenous peoples have practised and told us for many, many generations. To quote Dr Alison Collins, who is the Chief Science Advisor at the Ministry for the Environment, she talked about how “Our seas are the meeting place of land, freshwater, and skies and thus the ultimate receiving environment, vulnerable to the cumulative pressures that result from our daily activities.”

This is what this bill is trying to address in part: to find a better balance between the extractor practices that we have been able for generations and the wellbeing of our environment. When this bill was first introduced, some of its aims were around introducing further penalties to allow for a fisheries regime with greater monitoring and thus more capture of offending—I note that the member for National talked plenty about that—changes to landing rules to require that all fish caught be landed, with some exceptions; things such as creating a new defence in cases of dumping fish in a net to allow release of protected species, such as dolphins, streamlines the process for setting and varying catch limits with new pre-set decision rules, as well as approval process for disposal of unwanted catch on land; as well as further technical changes related to monitoring.

One of the things that we took note of as the bill went through and was introduced was the sort of frame around rather than protecting our oceans and being part of the ecosystem, to create the conditions for innovation within the industry. We do think that there was a missed opportunity to take a more ecosystem-based approach when it came to how we approached this legislation.

As the process went through and we finished the select committee report and as NGOs, activists, and other people who deeply care about the wellbeing of our oceans contributed, we’re really happy to see the Government change tact in terms of the decisions around this bill.

One of the things that we were really pleased to see was the removal of provisions in the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which establish pre-set decision rules. This is important because the rules would have limited the public’s ability to comment on significant changes to commercial catch regimes and risk favouring the interests of commercial fishers over oceans’ health. The reality is, the fish which we consume rely on thriving ecosystems, not just a spreadsheet. This is why it was so important that we change these rules, which, initially, officials would have been able to use a predetermined framework to make decisions about recreational bag limits and total commercial catch limits. We’re really stoked that the Minister has changed his mind on this after pressure from the Greens, but the work still continues. For us, we remain concerned about the fact that we’re still not doing enough on preventing the bycatch of seabird, seals, dolphins, and other protected species.

One of the things that we’ll continue pushing, as I said earlier, is about taking a much more holistic approach, particularly on ecosystem management. That would actually allow us to take into account how fisheries interact with the marine ecosystem, rather than just considering species in isolation.

As I said in my opening remarks, everything is connected. As we tackle the climate crisis, we also have to confront that realities that the systems that led to the climate crisis are also leading to a biodiversity crisis, and that, in itself, actually puts the industry at risk. This is why we need to reframe from thinking of fisheries as purely from an industry lens, and actually from an ecosystem lens.

For us, it is really important that, despite our support of the bill, we acknowledge the changes that we need to continue working towards, and we’ll continue putting healthy oceans and sustainable fisheries first. Hopefully, with sustained pressure, the Government will listen and do more. Kia ora.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I think it’s incumbent upon all of us, as lawmakers, to weigh up and reconcile and debate the merits and pitfalls of any piece of legislation that comes before this House to reconcile, where possible, the problems that we seek to fix, and come out with tenable solutions.

Questions could be asked whether the bill was put forward in total good faith. I know we’ve canvassed before, and it was canvassed in the committee of the whole House stage, that the Minister may have arguably pulled a swiftie with so much of the removal of the pre-set decision rules. Large parts of the legislation were encapsulated by the inclusion of the pre-set decision rules. Now, I fully accept that it was tenuous, although we had a collegial debate and dialogue in the committee stage. But that was fraught with, in and of itself, all manner of unknowns, especially when the legislation had huge parts that were caught up in the pre-set decision rules and now they’re removed. In the select committee process, everyone was engaged with the officials in good faith and that was clearly evident with the dialogue. We sat there, quite often in recess weeks, to try and iron out the kinks with this legislation, which was considered to be incredibly technical.

Frequently, it was offered by officials, however, that the bill proposes to put the squeeze on industry to innovate. And what I was always trying to ascertain by that statement is what innovation ultimately looked like. Now, if I can give an example in my small contribution today, when I posed questions at the committee stage to the Minister—what innovation looked like—I had offered a few things about what the industry was currently doing, and I gave an example about mid-water fish. In that example, I spoke to yellow-eyed mullets, and yellow-eyed mullets are often commercially fished for bait fish. But in the same pressure zone in the ocean, so are kahawai, and, inadvertently, they are caught as part of bycatch. In that instance, as the bill is proposed—and it speaks to 50 more or less fish as being bycatch—there is now a prosecutorial reality to that.

Now, when I gave that example, I spoke to what the industry has actually done to alleviate that. It had gone from a 4-inch mesh to a 5-inch mesh to a 6-inch mesh. It had gone from a square to a diamond. It had changed, over the last decade or more, the use of cork lines, lead lines, and pressure zones that these nets—especially set nets—were set on. Now, in reply to written parliamentary questions that I asked about how the industry was actually going to innovate to alleviate this potential prosecutorial reality, which is quite hefty for 50 more or less fish caught in a 24-hour period, the very things that the Minister’s officials offered back to me—and I find it a glaring omission, because they, basically, repeated the example that I gave. If I could paraphrase, “The technologies are available or under development.” Well, if you’re a coastal commercial fisherman trying to reconcile a potential prosecutorial-reality because you have inadvertently caught more than 50 fish as bycatch, to the example I have given, you can see how this is a hard thing to stomach. And they go on: “Technologies of various stages of development include new nets with different orientation, or mesh.” Well, gracious me, that’s already been happening over the decades: new technology such as precision seafood harvesting, sorting grids, coastal commercial fishermen as deep-water, blue-water fleet are already doing this sort of innovation, this sort of stuff. So I’m trying to reconcile where the Minister is trying to land with us.

We all accept that the bill is predicated on preservation and sustainability of New Zealand’s fish stocks for a shared interest in recreational, commercial, and customary. But how do you reconcile that? In this instance, when especially we are speaking to a coastal commercial reality which often has multiple fish species that are caught—inadvertently, they catch bycatch. And over the instance of the 50 yellow-eyed mullet versus kahawai: how do they alleviate that? I’m still trying to get my head around that, as is the ACT Party. Anecdotally, multiple people have spoken to me about how onerous this is going to be on the coastal commercial fishery, especially those that sell to table-fish markets here in New Zealand. Now, the comparison was often made with blue-water fleets. Well, that’s a very different reality, and, often, the officials spoke to the innovation that had happened in Nordic countries, but they offered blue-water examples. They weren’t talking about multiple species of finfish caught in a coastal reality.

Just very quickly, before I close up, I want to talk about the ramped-up fine reality and encapsulate that, if I can, with the 50 more or less fish as bycatch, which, by the way, have to be landed, brought home, and inadvertently sold to a licenced fish receiver, if you have one, for a species that’s probably cost—30c in a kilo is what you’ve made out of it, and the average snapper might be over a dollar a kilo. But the prosecutorial reality that’s attached to this is—and if I can read the departmental disclosure statement out—“The bill will maintain the current maximum penalty [of] ($250,000) for the most serious breaches of … landings and discards rules with a new graduated penalty model. Fishers [and] … discard [of] 50 or [more] … fish a day could face up to a $10,000 fine.” Well, if you’re a set-net fisherman and you’ve gone down a harbour or an estuary and you’ve set your net as your commercial licence and your quota allows you to do, and, in my example of yellow-eyed mullet with kahawai, you inadvertently catch more than 50 fish as bycatch because there’s no technology currently at your disposal to alleviate that bycatch, you’re instantly fined—well, potentially caught up in a $10,000 fine reality. It also speaks to how fishers that discard over 50 or more fish could face up to a $100,000 fine, and fishers that offend two or more times in a three-year period could receive a maximum fine of $250,000.

Now, I’m all for, as is the ACT Party, creating an environment that has tenable solutions that are practical for coastal commercial fishermen, as is blue water, that speaks to the sustainability of the fishery wherever it is found and by whoever uses it. That’s beyond argument. Where the rubber really hits the road is the coastal commercial fishermen who, more often than not, sell to a table-fish market, are asking us as officials, as lawmakers, to stop, pause, and use common sense. They have gone to great lengths to innovate their way around this difficulty.

Now, the bill also speaks to cameras on boats. No umbrage there, most in the industry support that by virtue of the cameras on boats realities—they know that there’s a science argument to be made; this will help capture data and imagery of what is being caught. It won’t speak to the technological advances they’ve already made and the difficulties they’re having in alleviating bycatch currently. Without overplaying my hand here, this bill doesn’t do that. It simply doesn’t do that. It creates a penalty regime for those that have worked exceptionally hard to alleviate bycatch where is possible, and I’ve laid out my example.

ACT fundamentally can’t support this bill. It will drive up protein that New Zealanders need. We’ve got a cost of living crisis—this will drive, quite often, ma and pa fishermen that are in the coastal fleet out of business. They’ve already got fuel issues, they’ve already got labour issues, and now this. ACT does not support this bill as framed. It simply won’t work and it will drive productivity down and incur a penalty regime that most commercial fishermen don’t deserve. We don’t support this bill.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin my contribution this afternoon by thanking the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries for his leadership in bringing this bill to the House. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996, an Act which established the quota management system and is older than I am, funnily enough. But it’s a $42 billion sector, so it is of crucial importance, which I agree with my colleagues across the House on. So it’s important that we get this right and make sure that this industry is sustainable long into the future.

I’d also like to thank submitters. Although I’m on the Primary Production Committee, I wasn’t here to hear from submitters in person, as submissions were made while I was on parental leave. On that note, I would really like to thank the officials who worked on supporting the committee on this bill, who helped to bring me up to speed on where we were at when I returned back to Parliament.

I come from an electorate which is very into fishing. We’ve got the notorious Whanganui bar, over which many fishers head out across each day. We’ve got the Pātea bar, which is even more notorious, and, of course, Snapper Rock just out of Waiinu Beach. So this bill is really important to the people in my electorate.

I just want to pick up on a few points that some members across the House have made this afternoon. So they’ve raised concerns, for example, about the importance of considering the difference in value of fish. So we heard pilchards and tuna, for example, and this is important—absolutely—but the primary legislation, so in the Act, is not the place to put these matters. They’re going to need to be changed frequently, which means we need them in the secondary legislation, because otherwise every time we’re going to have to make these updates around the value of certain fish, we’re going to have to bring it all the way back through this parliamentary process. Putting it in the regulations is absolutely the appropriate place to put it, because it allows that flexibility and that expediency in making those amendments, which gives certainty to the industry.

I’d also like to point out that some of the concerns were around what the value then means in terms of potential penalties that fishers might face. As my colleagues across the House have mentioned, we did, as a committee, extensively question officials and submitters on this point. What we heard back from officials, quite clearly, is that they follow what’s called the Voluntary Assisted Directed Enforced model of enforcement. So, that is, they go in at entry level, which is voluntarily, so working with the fisher on the ground or on the sea to make sure that they understand their obligations and that they are taking voluntary steps towards improvement. Then from voluntary, the next step up is assisted, and that’s a little bit more hands-on. Then we go to directed, and then we go to enforced. So, unlike what my colleagues might have the House or listeners at home believe, the ministry will be working with fishers long before it gets to the point where fishers are being fined or prosecuted, so I am confident that we have got the balance right here, in this bill.

This bill, as we’ve discussed, also tightens the rules around landing and disposal—that’s around what fish can be caught. It’s also going to improve the effectiveness of the roll-out of cameras on boats. So, in terms of improving the sustainability of our fishing industry, I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Barbara Kuriger.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to make a comment in my speech today about the good work of the Primary Production Committee and particularly my colleague Todd Muller, who has been working hard for oceans and fisheries on this front. I sat through quite a large amount of this select committee, and one thing that became very clear to me—you know, I’m more used to talking about Friesians, Jerseys, Herefords, and a range of cattle than I am about the different types of fish, so it was very much a “Fishing 101” in regards to me. But what became very clear was that fishers do not want to deplete their fish stocks, and why would they? Because, actually, that’s their livelihood and that’s how they earn their catch. I am a great lover of eating fish, and I want them to continue to do that for a long time to come. So that was the first part of the bill that we were actually looking in.

The last speaker spoke about how this is primary legislation, and a lot of the work that needs to be done over the next while is in the secondary legislation—and that’s the hardest thing, as a legislator, when you put a bill in place and you look at what it means and then you know that you let it go for regulations to be developed around exactly what’s going to happen here. The hardest thing is that where the regulations come in place, it is actually all designed to describe and put the numbers and the manner of what happens to the fish that these fishers do not want to catch. So it’s not something that these fishers would deliberately do in terms of catching the fish that they don’t want to catch, but, by virtue of the process that they use, that’s what happens when they go on a fishing expedition. So it’s really hard to actually, I think, pinpoint exactly how this will play out in reality.

So the bill is not perfect, and there are elements of its design that will continue to be criticised by most, if not all, stakeholders. And I guess the other point to make in all of this is that there are two distinct, discrete groups of stakeholders. One is the commercial fishers, and the other group of stakeholders is the recreational fishers who all have to live in harmony in largely the same space of the ocean. And so while some fishing waters are deeper than others, there is quite a bit of tension between both groups wanting to maintain the outcomes for their leisure and for the industry. So it’s really important to note. It’s fair to say that the bill is not perfect. There are elements of its design that will continue to be criticised, probably by both sides—if not all stakeholders.

But I think the biggest thing from National’s perspective is that we’re watching this very carefully. We were hugely disappointed that just after the second reading and just hours before the committee of the whole House stage, Minister Parker decided to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 257, which removed part of the bill that would have enabled streamlining of the process for setting the total allowable catch for a fish stock. So that was really disappointing because it was a good select committee. It was a select committee that was very good right across the parties in terms of discussion, and it was really disappointing to get to that point and have that thrown away at the committee stage.

So there’s a commitment here from National that when National’s in Government in 2023 and the transition process has begun, we will closely monitor which parts of the bill are working and which parts aren’t, and we’ll seek to improve those parts. We will be watching carefully, and I know Todd Muller has had a lot of close interaction with the industry. I’ve had some. Some good fishing goes off the coast of my electorate in Taranaki and Raglan and other places. And I think it was very clear that the last-minute changes were made here—and it was even stated by the Green Party today that they’d put pressure on the Minister to scratch these provisions and he’d folded to it. National is disappointed about that, but, having said that, we will support the bill today and continue to monitor what happens beyond its passing. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Mālō ni. Fa‘afetai, Mr Speaker, and happy Tokelauan Language Week. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill in its third reading. I haven’t had the privilege to speak in the last two readings, nor to sit on the select committee, but I just want to acknowledge Minister Parker and also the chair of the Primary Production Committee, Jo Luxton, the members, and the officials for their work on this important bill.

What does this bill do? It amends the Fisheries Act 1996. It helps to redesign the fisheries system and also simplifies the landing and discard rules for commercial fishers, but what I like about this bill is that it helps to incentivise the behaviour of our fishers in order to target the fish that they need and also minimise the fish wastage and also the discard of dead fish at sea. It also allows the return of catch to safeguard marine mammals and protect ray and shark species, and that’s all about protecting the ecosystem and the environment but also the health and wellbeing not only of the environment but of our whānau, who also fish as well. So—straight to the point—I commend this bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting, the process that we go through in passing legislation, and, I think, in reflection of where we got to in this bill in the pre-set decision rules, it is an example of how we have a Government who is listening. I have to say that when I was at the Hawke’s Bay A&P Show on People’s Day—on People’s Day; a fabulous day at the Hawke’s Bay Show—I got to catch up with the members of LegaSea recreational fishing and they were very complimentary of this Government and how we do continue to listen.

During the submission process, we had many, many submissions on those pre-set decision rules—which, yes, would have enabled more streamlined decisions on sustainability measures, including catch limits. They have now been removed from the bill because it remains clear that there is concern over the use of those tools. It became clear with the stakeholders concerned, regarding this proposal, that we have to rebuild trust in the fisheries management system, which is needed before considering such changes.

So I find it really ironic that the National Party is deeply disappointed in this decision, because there are thousands of amateur people who go out and fish—mums and dads, and many, like the members I met at the Hawke’s Bay A&P Show—and they are pleased with where this legislation has got to, and I am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve spent a lot of time engaged in fisheries-related matters and got very little return. It’s easier to spend 10 minutes in such activity and land nothing, but we’ll see if we can improve on that on this occasion.

Hon Member: That was clever; very good, Mr Penk—very good.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you—thank you. There’s plenty more where that came from. I note, actually, the Minister of fisheries is David Parker, and I know that he likes fishing expeditions, because in his role as revenue Minister he’s got the IRD looking into the affairs of New Zealanders who are presumably too wealthy for his liking.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And often just they’re sharks.

CHRIS PENK: Anyway, wearing a different—sharks indeed! Loan sharks perhaps even, Mr Woodhouse. So thinking about this actual bill that is in front of us, nevertheless, it is in the literal meaning of the word fishing, of course. I’ve not been involved in the legislative debates until this point, so I’ve taken great pleasure and interest in hearing colleagues across the House giving their views on the matter, including on behalf of their party, and you’ll have heard the views of National Party members in terms of obviously wanting to support the overarching aims of the legislation but expressing some wariness about the mechanism being created whereby a lot of regulations can come out of this primary legislation.

I know that any regulations that pass the desk of the Regulations Review Committee will be well considered under the chairmanship of the Hon Judith Collins and that fine team, but nevertheless it is incumbent upon us as legislators in this House, none the less, to make sure that we can bring to light any potential fishhooks. I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. I didn’t even mean that one. It’s just quite hard to avoid.

But, nevertheless, we do have to—

Hon Dr David Clark: Plumbing new depths.

CHRIS PENK: —make sure that we’re not—I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr David Clark: Plumbing new depths.

CHRIS PENK: Plumbing new depths, even, according to the Hon David Clark. I love it, thank you.

Hon Dr David Clark: It was a real sinker, that one!

CHRIS PENK: Yes, indeed. We’re going to move on.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: On a scale of one to 10—

CHRIS PENK: Haha! You’ve got to say “scale”. I’m not going to do fish puns just for the halibut, but anyway—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you’re using the wrong bait here, Mr Penk.

CHRIS PENK: Ha, ha! Very good, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr David Clark: Sole destroying!

CHRIS PENK: Sole destroying—ha, ha!

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Now he’s floundering.

CHRIS PENK: Oh dear—floundering! I’m just repeating these at this point so that they get into Hansard. We don’t want to miss any of these—don’t want any of these to be the one that got away!

Anyway, on to the bill, because it is a serious matter. One of the things I do look for, and having an initial glance at this, is the distinction if there was one between shellfish and what we might ordinarily call “fish”—fish proper, for want of a better phrase. As I say, I’m not an expert in the area. But all jokes aside, it is a very serious topic, of course, for New Zealand, and I’ll come back to that distinction between shellfish and other fish shortly.

But just to put the debate in context, of course at the risk of stating the obvious, New Zealand is a maritime nation. We are, according to one characterisation, a very large nation of which most of our territory is water. So looking at a map or a chart, there’s more blue than green, which is how we like this Parliament as well, of course, on this side of the House, too. But certainly in terms of the ecological reality, it is hugely significant from an environmental perspective and, of course, from a commercial perspective as well.

I understand from no less an authority than the legislative statement, actually, that there is some $4.2 billion worth of revenue, or total economic activity, I should say, including $1.35 billion of export revenue in any given year, associated with fishing and presumably fishing-related activities and sales and support activities and so on. According to my maths, about a third is export dollars from that economic activity. So that’s to be taken very seriously by any country, particularly at the volumes we’re talking now for New Zealand. So it is really important in a commercial sense. Tourist activity is popular as well. Remember tourists? We used to have those but, at least theoretically, that’s an activity that any such people who may grace our shores again would enjoy as well and add to our reputation and the experience of those who would come here and spend some money on our shores.

Thinking about the importance of the legislation, and particularly its aim to spell out as clearly as possible which fish stocks are able to be kept, or must be landed, indeed, versus those that are able to be discarded—of course, in any given scenario, that’s important to provide some certainty for those who are out there on the water, knowing how they’re to regard their catch. But, of course, having rules in place and providing that certainty drives the behaviour as well. The behaviour in question would be—and, again, I don’t profess to be an expert, but the types of nets or lines or other paraphernalia and, of course, also the depths at which they’re fishing, the areas in which they would fish and so on. So having a set of guidelines, and they use the word loosely—we’re mostly talking about primary legislation, again with that regulations element—the clearer we can make the matters for those who are engaged in this important activity, the better it will be for them, but also for the environment, because then there won’t be inadvertent catch of creatures that they’re not able to catch.

I do note, actually, and I should point this out for the sake of fairness, that while we in the National Party are saying, quite rightly, that there’s extensive provision for regulations to be made, the bill as it now is, which is the amendment to the Act, does actually set out, to some extent, exemptions that can be made as they relate to existing regulations. So it’s a bit of a hybrid, I suppose, in terms of the way that the whole regime operates.

But I saw, for example, in relation to the schedule—I’m talking about existing regulations to do with many different types of fish: blue cod catches the eye at the start, blue moki, butterfish, and so on—it goes through those settings in very specific detail; how catches and stocks and species are to be treated in each individual case. So it’s quite interesting how it all fits together. I did notice within those regulations that scallops are mentioned, so there is a shellfish element, at least in part. And the reason that I’m interested in that is actually from a local perspective.

For the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate, which is very coastal, representing a wedge of that thin body of land that is the North Island of New Zealand, in the upper part of that—obviously lots of coastal area, obviously lots of good fisheries not only within shallow waters and in deeper waters but, of course, on the rocks as well—this is quite a controversial and a serious point in those parts, and, no doubt, other coastal areas in New Zealand and elsewhere that people are interested in these matters from an environmental point of view. And that’s to say that when the regulations allow a certain number of a particular kind of shellfish to be gathered per day, the limit is expressed per person. So if you have a large gathering, family or some other group, each with access to that number of shellfish to be gathered and it’s per person basis, then, over a relatively short period of time, a single group can really clear out an area in a way that’s surely very damaging to those ecosystems, recognising the reliance of other creatures in turn on those shellfish, as well as the importance of the shellfish themselves.

From an ecological point of view, but obviously recognising that there is a lifestyle implication for those who live near the water—there may even be an economic implication at an individual household level for people who rely on gathering shellfish and other types of fish for their sustenance and to put food on the table. And good luck to them, I say, if they want to do that activity. It’s pretty hard work, I would have thought, but there are people amongst us for whom this is an important activity and therefore it should be important to us all. And certainly, as I say, from an environmental perspective, that certainly makes sense.

I think the select committee, it seems to me from the outside, did a good job of trying to grapple with understanding how this bill fits into the ecosystem from a parliamentary sense or a statute book perspective of how it all ties in. So the shellfish and the other fish, obviously, complement each other to some extent. And, of course, recreational and commercial types of fishing is another distinction we can draw; noting, of course, that if there’s too much commercial activity, then that will impinge on the ability, some might say the right indeed, of New Zealanders to engage in recreational fishing activity.

So I think that’s probably enough for me on the subject. I mean, after 10 minutes, whether I’ve landed anything or not, you can be the judge of, but, in any case, like my other colleagues in the National Party, I do emphasise that we support the intent of the bill. We will watch carefully to see how its particular provisions are put forward by way of regulation and, of course, how those are enforced and applied and so forth. We commend the bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and take a final call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I think, as my colleague Anna Lorck reflected, getting to this point shows there’s been a lot of complexity, and ongoing changes right up to the last minute reflect the fact that this Government is prepared to tackle some really, really wicked problems. As Barbara Kuriger pointed out, it can be really difficult when you have multiple stakeholders who have different priorities.

I want to acknowledge some of my local fishers, inshore fishers, including Keith Mawson from Egmont Seafoods, who was one of those people who constantly came and talked to us and really helped us to grapple with the issues.

Hon Member: Oh, “grapple”!

ANGELA ROBERTS: Oh, I didn’t notice that.

The inshore fishers have a shared vision with us in this House about the desire for transparency, accurate information-gathering, and improved fisheries and environmental outcomes, and this is where some of the changes are really going to help with that. We are so data-poor in our ability to be really responsive in a really accurate and useful way to the fluctuations and the changes that happen out there on the ocean. It’s going to be really helped by things such as cameras, and that is why the inshore fishers are really supportive of the opportunity that cameras will really enable.

It’s great to hear that everybody in this House is going to continue to monitor. It isn’t just the data that is going to be really important but what has been acknowledged with the most recent changes is that we need to rebuild relationships. We cannot make changes and have a really great fishery and ecosystem and ocean without everybody being involved in the decision making. So it is going to be great to have everybody on board to make sure that the changes are useful and really help to protect our fishery. We want our fishery sector to survive and we want our biodiversity to be restored. Just one final quote as an artist, we always had to go back to the musicians, and we want to make sure that in the future we have not just the biodiversity but fishers who want to be there in the future. As Split Enz said, “That’s the life for me, living on the sea.” With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 October.

Part 6 Content of fair pay agreements (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were considering Part 6 of the debate on clauses 114 to 129, which is the content of fair pay agreements. The question is that Part 6 stand part, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith has the call. He has one minute and 12 seconds remaining, should he wish.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Twelve seconds?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): One minute and 12 seconds.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I will just finish my speech, and, as I recall, I was surrounded by a very large crowd supporting Trevor Mallard for his valedictory. I sensed that quite a few of them were union supporters and not particularly keen on my particular insights on that matter, so it’s nice to have a clear audience here.

What I was trying to say, and what I’d like to just come back to in slightly more detail if I get a chance, is that we’re at Part 6 of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, which is misnamed, in our view, because it’s not fair and it’s about mandatory union deals. But Part 6 is the important part of the bill which focuses on what needs to be included in the fair pay agreements, and there is a list under clause 114 of things that must be in the agreement: the date on which it comes into force, the coverage, the type of work covered, the minimum base wages, the rates of payment for overtime, penalty payments—[Time expired]

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my great pleasure to take what’s my first set of questions for the Minister in this bill, not being able to on previous days. My concern relates to clause 120, “Minimum wage exemption permits”. This has been something of a talking point for many, many years, going back to when Ruth Dyson attempted to, I guess, be rid of minimum wage exemptions, much to the chagrin of those who benefited from them, back in the Clark Government years.

For those who aren’t familiar with minimum wage exemptions, these are permits issued by the labour inspectorate for people with disabilities, often intellectual—and often through organisations that are euphemistically known as sheltered workshops—who nevertheless provide a valuable service to their clients and to those members of the disabled community but nevertheless would not be productive enough to earn the adult minimum wage.

The way I read clause 120 is that the minimum wage permit process will continue, but if the employee already has a permit, and the organisation is then covered by a fair pay agreement that sets out the minimum base rate that’s equal to or greater than the minimum wage—which is kind of obvious because it would have to by law—then that permit continues unless the minimum wage exemption is set at the percentage of the adult minimum wage.

Now, clause 120(3)(a) says that “if [a] permit is expressed as a percentage of the minimum adult wage … set [out in] section 4 of the Minimum Wage Act … the rate of wages must be calculated by applying that percentage to the minimum base wage rate set [out] in [a] fair pay agreement” ergo, despite the fact that there isn’t a change in the productivity of the person with a disability who has a minimum wage exemption, the cost to the employer will go up, potentially quite materially, depending on what the fair pay agreement comes up with. Now, that could be a problem for the employee. In fact, the employee may not benefit from that, because, almost always, those who are the subject of a minimum wage exemption are eligible for other income supports that are abated if the individual’s earning potential goes up.

So my questions around this are: firstly, can the Minister advise the committee what proportion of those, I think, about 800 or 900 people who are the subject of a minimum wage exemption have that exemption expressed as a percentage? So how material is clause 120(3)(a)? I understood that it was more of a dollar amount, in which case, clause 120(3)(b) would apply and the rate just goes until the permit expires.

If there are a large number of people who do have that permit expressed as a percentage, then am I correct in assuming that simply by way of settling the fair pay agreement, their income, the mandatory amount that they should be paid, should go up, despite the fact that a labour inspector has determined that their level of ability to contribute, their productivity, has not changed?

Thirdly, will the Minister commit—and this is the money shot, really—to ensuring that the changes in this legislation will not negatively affect those people who are the subject of a minimum wage exemption? If he has visited any of the organisations around the country that use these—and in my patch, it’s Cargill Enterprises in South Dunedin, who do a fantastic job, not only for their clients, the people who buy their services, and that’s Air New Zealand and a local gas fireplace company that has wooden pellets assembled for their freight movements—they will not be negatively affected, but it’s the staff themselves, those people with disabilities, who absolutely love coming to work every day. I have a family member who works there, and the money is important. He’s paid fairly; he’s very productive, despite his intellectual disability. It would be a tragedy if, as a consequence of these changes, those roles were put at risk. So we need a commitment that that’s certainly not his intention, to dispense with the minimum wage exemption process, but also his confidence that that won’t happen.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s just good to be here in the Chamber after the long weekend. I sort of touched on this a little bit last week, but I wanted to explore it more broadly in relation to my own experience in the private sector, which was in financial services, which is a significantly sized industry with a number of workers in the New Zealand workforce.

We’re talking about applying minimum base wage rates here. How would you apply this across sales roles, not just in financial services but you’re also going to look at, say, any sales role in a sense? I’ll take real estate agents, for example. Some of them will be on straight commission; some of them will be on wages plus commission. There’s quite a balancing act in that regard. How do you cater for this? Because what it looks like is that this is quite a blunt tool, probably designed for an era that we are no longer in. The issues we have here with where the modern workforce is at is that it’s a lot more specific to industries and workplaces around how they’re designed. So I’d like to know, Minister, how you would address something like that in a sales environment where people have got a wage structure—wage plus commission—and others are just purely on commission? I’ve got friends who are in that boat, because they opt to go straight for the commission option because that motivates them and that’s the way, they believe, they can make the most money.

With regards to 114(1)(d)(iii), it mentions “overtime worked”. Now, I know in the professional services industry, a lot of people will not have specifics around overtime; it will be expected that you will work until the job is done. That will also work in your favour sometimes; if you complete the task, then you are able to leave early, be what may, but there is also an understanding that it’s not, say, like factory work where you’re producing—which is probably more what this could be designed from—something and you work an eight-hour shift. But in a lot of professional workplaces, that won’t be the case. As you would know, Minister, from your time in Parliament, sometimes there’s not such a demand and sometimes there’s significantly more, so you’re expected to meet those needs as that comes through.

Also, how would you apply that across, say, the financial services sector where you’ve got numerous different roles within that? Some people will be stock brokers, some people will be analysts, and some people will do eight hours a day just on something fairly mundane like data entry. They are going to have significantly different hours and expectations. I know that you would’ve consulted quite vigorously on this, so I’d be interested in the feedback sessions from professional services industry and what feedback they gave you around how this bill could impact them in relation to the base wage rates and around the overtime worked.

I’d also note, just going down a little bit to the “training and development”, clause 114(1)(da), that I see a bit of an issue around how that could be applied, because if you’re doing it across an industry, you are going to have some companies within that industry that are very large and have got all the extra resources, like training and development staff. Some are just little mum and pop operations with a couple of staff, so they’re not going to necessarily have the resources that the bigger players would to be able conduct that training and development. With that, are you going to set base training and development requirements across the whole industry, and, if you are, what considerations have been given to the resources that some may have versus some that may not have access to that? Those are probably my major points on that, so I will leave it with you, Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you to members for their questions as we carry on with this committee stage of the debate.

In respect of the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s questions, which relate to clause 120 and minimum wage exemption permits, I think the key point to be aware of here is that exemption permits will, effectively, operate in the same way against pay that is set through a fair pay agreement (FPA) as they will act as against the minimum wage.

The important thing here is that FPAs will set the minimum legal entitlement for the purposes of pay. It’s just an important point to reinforce that when FPAs are established, they will not actually have the legal character of individual employment agreements or collective employment agreements: they will be brought into force via statute and will form the minimum legal entitlements for certain terms and conditions that are described in this part, including pay.

So, effectively, this provision will work in the same way as it works as against the minimum wage. If a permit says 80 percent of the minimum wage, it will apply to 80 percent of the minimum rate in the FPA. So, effectively, the relativity of that person who the exemption permit might apply to because of their disability will be retained. If there wasn’t this mechanism in there, those people would potentially end up being paid disproportionately less than other workers otherwise. I’m afraid I don’t have information to hand—and neither do officials—in terms of the percentage of people who have a percentage. I’m happy to try and find that out, but we don’t have that at the moment.

In respect of whether this will have a negative effect on employment, this is really a broader question and debate around the Government’s intention that FPAs will improve pay and conditions for many workers who they cover. Our view on the whole is that that will not negatively impact employees. I accept some members opposite might have a different view on that as just a difference of view, but we do not believe so.

In response to Mr Uffindell’s question, he notes that the financial services sector is large, and so how will minimum rates apply across a large sector that might have varied roles? Well, I think the core answer here is one that we’ve canvassed quite a bit in this debate, which is that FPAs set minimum standards and there is capacity for employers, employees, and unions—at the collective bargaining or individual bargaining level—to vary terms and conditions over and above those minimum standards. So in the same way that there might be a collective agreement that’s in place at the moment that sets minimum conditions, people can still have more than what’s in there, just not less than what is in there.

In terms of questions about mandatory content in 114(1)(d)(iii), I think it’s a somewhat unlikely example he raises, but it’s theoretically possible that the good stockbrokers and analysts of Queen Street might want to organise themselves into an FPA. The key point here is that the Government will not set terms and conditions for those people. They will, through their representative mechanisms, bargain for what they think are appropriate terms and conditions in respect of hours or overtime or whatever.

The mandatory-to-agree provisions described in this part are simply headers. What is actually then bargained and agreed for each of those mandatory terms and conditions is entirely up to the parties to work through as they see fit—and will inevitably vary from FPA to FPA depending on the nature of that occupation or that sector and what seems sensible to the parties who are at the table.

And really, that same point applies to the provisions around training and development. I note we received very strong representations at select committee—and this is one of the changes made at select committee—that training and development should be something that’s in here because a core goal of FPAs is to drive a more productive workforce that provides more and better training pathways for people. But exactly how that is established will be up to the parties to bargain for themselves. It could be that the parties bargain for themselves that there is not a substantive additional requirement in place.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to carry on a little bit from the questioning by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse around the minimum-wage exemption permits. This is particularly pertinent for me. I served on the Southland disAbility Enterprise board for a number of years, and I was there when Helen Clark sought to get rid of this in the early 2000s, which caused a lot of consternation, obviously, to that organisation. I very recently visited Abilities Group in Auckland, Attainable in Auckland, as well as Altus—they are three enterprise entities that serve a similar purpose, and, of course, my colleague has talked about Cargill Enterprises in Dunedin.

I heard the Minister’s answer to the questions about the minimum-wage exemption, but I am still a little concerned about the level of flexibility that is needed for the staffing or for the staff involved in these enterprises. If I can give some examples, because the Minister talked about how it would relate to the fair pay agreements set for that work—but in in the case of these enterprises, they are constantly looking for different work to attract into their enterprise. It may vary from untangling the headsets from Air New Zealand one week, to the packing or repackaging of spices another week, or to dealing with recyclables, particularly around e-recycling. So they are, within these enterprises, moving across different types of work, week to week, and, in fact, sometimes day to day, particularly when these enterprises have to take cognisance of the skill level of a person on any one day.

I think of a young gentleman that I know well in Recycle South, previously Southland disAbility Enterprises, who, from time to time, suffers from very bad epileptic fits. When that occurs, he will be very sleepy and very difficult to motivate for the rest of the day, so he may well be moved from working on the MRF—the material recovery facility—which is the big conveyor belt that does all the sorting of the recyclable materials. He may be moved into a much more repetitive and mundane task that requires less from him during the rest of that day. So I can see there being difficulties if the minimum-wage exemption is set against one particular negotiated fair pay agreement for a specific type of work, and yet the people within the enterprise are working, perhaps, across different types of work within not only a day but across, of course, a week, as different types of work comes in for them.

So I’m still not clear how the minimum-wage exemption permits will work for those enterprises. And I hope that they are not going to be struck with the administrative burden of having to try and make proportions of the day in one type of work that has one fair pay agreement minimum wage set, and then having to look at other rates for the rest of the day. Being very cognisant of how little administrative support they have in these enterprises, I’m just not convinced—from the Minister’s answer—that they are not going to be heavily burdened with a lot of extra administration within this. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly, in response to the member’s question, there is nothing qualitatively different that will apply here as compares to what qualitatively applies outside of the fair pay agreement (FPA) regime. I don’t imagine that the employee that Ms Simmonds has described who might do different types of work depending on their circumstances will have different rates of pay at the moment. They’ll probably have one rate of pay that the employer pays to that person, and the minimum wage exemption process might apply a percentage of the minimum wage to that person. That is likely to apply in the same way under an FPA; it’s just that the base starting position for what the wage is, rather than being the minimum wage, will be the minimum rate that is specified in the FPA.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a brief comment in support of the intervention by Penny Simmonds but also in response to the Minister’s two answers—very thoughtful answers; thank you, Minister—to this important issue. When he answered my question, he talked about the scenario of 80 percent of the minimum wage. Now, my experience of the enterprises like Abilities, Southland disAbility Enterprises, and Cargill Enterprise is that if somebody was at 80 percent productivity, they’d probably be on full minimum wage. That’s the way that these guys operate.

I’m sure the Minister is familiar with Marxist theory of surplus value in labour. Well, actually, this works in reverse where it’s quite often the case—even with a labour inspector’s assessment of the productivity of the employee—that they’re paid more than their productive output. The organisations that run these schemes are perfectly happy to accept that negative dividend, if you like, on their productivity because of the other value that is provided by the meaningful nature of the work and the enthusiasm with which these people—some of them are severely disabled, blind, or intellectually disabled, but they live to come to work, to be and feel productive. So we’re more likely to have percentages that are lower than that.

I know of percentages—well, I should restate it. In my time as Minister, there were percentages as low as 15 percent of the minimum wage and there was very little productivity involved, but the value was exponentially greater than that. My point is this: if there’s a high proportion of those 800 or 900 minimum wage exemptions that are related to a percentage, automatically with the passage of this legislation, their rates of pay will go up from the minimum—rather, when a fair pay agreement is set, if one is, then their rates of pay go up. They’re already probably above the productivity that is created. That tipping point where it becomes uneconomic—just simply not able to continue—I think is very real.

That risk is real, so I would encourage the Minister to be cognisant of that as this bill progresses and as fair pay agreements progress, because I think I heard him say that he doesn’t see a time when these minimum wage exemptions wouldn’t be around, and Penny Simmonds has got a much better memory of the Clark Government’s attempts to do that. I don’t think they were ignoble attempts, but they had just so many unforeseen consequences for vulnerable people that wiser heads prevailed in the end. I hope that wiser heads will prevail here but also that the mathematics doesn’t get in the way of an excellent scheme that won’t benefit the employee, bearing in mind that the other income supports available through the Ministry of Social Development would be abated and the in-pocket earnings of these employees would probably only marginally go up, if at all.

So I’d just encourage the Minister, but I’d also encourage the Minister to go to these workshops, if he hasn’t already. He may well have. They are uplifting places, places that I think have a great future for the wellbeing of our vulnerable New Zealanders.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to return to where we left off last week, and specifically in relation to clause 115, “Topics that bargaining sides must discuss”. I asked a question last week and didn’t get an answer at all. We were cut off as the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard was about to give his valedictory, so we didn’t get an answer to this question. But I want to expand on it and talk about it in relation to clause 115 about topics that must be discussed.

The issue that I raised that hasn’t been answered is around migrant workers. Migrant workers currently are required, for the most part—there are some exceptions—to be paid the median rate, which in February next year will be $29.66. So my overall question last week to the Minister was: how does this affect the bargaining? We’ve asked this question at the select committee and we didn’t get an answer. I asked it again last week and we didn’t get an answer. It would be good to hear from the Minister how he expects that when bargaining is under way for a base minimum rate for a particular job in a particular sector, the migrant rate of $29.66 will be taken into account, and whether it will affect the bargaining. As you can imagine, if you’ve got a Kiwi worker standing next to a migrant worker, the Kiwi worker may be earning $23 or $24 and the migrant worker’s earning almost $30 an hour, how will that affect bargaining? Because you can imagine, if you’re sitting around a bargaining table and there are a whole bunch of migrant workers being paid the median rate and Kiwi workers are being paid significantly less, you can imagine that that would have a significant impact on the bargaining, because the unions and people who are party to the negotiating on the employee side would want that taken into account.

Nowhere in this bill and nowhere in any of the discussions at select committee have we talked about this or worked out how it’s going to be accounted for. It’s not included in clause 115 about topics that must be discussed, so we’re not required to talk about people on higher rates doing the same job. So I presume that it will just be something that comes up in conversation. And I guess that following on from that, the next question is—and this is not impossible—that a fair pay agreement takes all these things into account, under clause 115, and it comes up with a base minimum rate that is higher than the migrant rate of $29.66. It’s possible. The Minister might say that it’s unlikely but it’s certainly possible that that minimum rate may be negotiated at a higher rate. So my question to the Minister then is: what happens to the migrant rate? Are they bound by Immigration instructions which require them to be paid the median wage at least, and it is that going to be fine or will they then be pushed up to the new minimum rate? That’s a second question. So the first question is around how migrant wages, the minimum rate—in effect it is a minimum base rate for migrants—will be compared to Kiwis in these negotiations. And the second part is: what if a fair pay agreement is negotiated at a higher rate than what the migrant is required to be paid?

My next question is around a clause we haven’t discussed yet, clause 119, similarly in relation to migrant workers, because this could possibly come up. So clause 119(3) states, “If a fair pay agreement provides a minimum base wage rate that is higher than the minimum wage payable under the Minimum Wage Act 1983, the Acts listed in subsection (1)”—which are the Holidays Act 2003, the Minimum Wage Act 1983, and the Wages Protection Act 1983—“apply as if the minimum base wage rate provided under the fair pay agreement were the minimum wage provided under the Minimum Wage Act 1983.” That’s a mouthful but the Minister knows what that means. My question is: what happens to the migrant worker who is on a different rate than what is negotiated in the FPA? So the FPA negotiates a rate that is, say, $24 an hour. The migrant worker is required to be paid $29.66. So does the FPA kick in and does clause 119(3) apply to the migrant worker, and do those Acts listed reflect that median rate for that migrant worker or does it revert to the FPA so all of those Acts would assume that the FPA rate is the rate that the migrant worker is working under.

So it’s quite complicated. I know the Minister will understand it, and hopefully he can give me an answer on each of those three individual parts.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to answer the member’s question. The starting supposition of the member is an accurate observation that for some—but not all—migrant workers, there will be a wage requirement that is a condition of their visa. So the member refers particularly to the median wage requirement, which is a requirement under the Accredited Employer Work Visa. There will be other categories of migrant visa where there is not that requirement in place, but many will come in on that rate.

The observation she makes is relevant now, before fair pay agreements (FPAs) have taken effect. There will be workplaces where a migrant worker enters under the Accredited Employer Work Visa on that median wage requirement, and that wage rate might be different to other workers who are within that workplace right now. That will be the case across workplaces where everyone is on individual employment agreements, and it could be the case if that workplace has a collective agreement that is in place. So it’s not a new and distinct issue to consider. It might have slightly wider application to a slightly bigger group under FPAs, but it’s not fundamentally different from what we deal with now.

The answer to the first part of the question is that that migrant worker, to be able to get that visa to work in New Zealand, has to be paid at the rate that is specified in instructions for that visa. That’s the entry point. If they then work in an area that is covered by an FPA, they will have to be paid at the minimum rate that is in that FPA. So if the minimum rate in the FPA is higher than the rate that was required for their visa, then they will have to be paid at that higher rate, effectively.

How that might affect bargaining: if there are migrant workers who have that rate and other workers who are at different rates—that will be for the bargaining parties to determine amongst themselves in the bargaining process, as it would be under a collective agreement bargaining process now. In fact it will be—that will be playing out as we speak across collective bargaining processes. It will up for the parties to work through as they understand what is happening in that particular labour market.

Then in respect of clause 119(3), which relates to the fact that certain terms and conditions under FPAs are minimum entitlements, the member asks what happens if the migrant worker is on a higher rate than those. Well, the migrant worker is not affected, they are above those entitlements. If the migrant worker’s rate is lower than those minimum entitlements, they will have to be brought up as a minimum to those minimum entitlements.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just a little bit concerned around these fair pay agreements, because, as you can guess, you’re going to be lumping many sectors together, and a lot of small businesses can fall into multiple sectors. I’ve just got a little concern here and am asking for clarification, because at the moment, a lot of the small businesses are under ACC as part of this. If you have maybe, say, admin people and you have construction people and you’re in a small business, and your admin people decide they’ll go with the administration fair pay agreement and your construction people decide they want to go with this, but the small business’ ACC levy is based on the company, not on what the people do. So even though you’re offering probably better wage systems for these people, but their ACC—so I don’t know if anybody has asked this question: how is this going to affect the individuals’ ACC levy if you have multiple people in industries? Because ACC has been done under what the business does, rather than what the person does within that industry.

As I said, like Sam Uffindell mentioned, within the financial sector there are many different roles within that big sector, so it’s going to be quite confusing. I’m just concerned that people are going to end up still paying more money and losing money under these fair pay agreements, because some of these older systems may not have been necessarily looked at.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Fair Pay Agreements Bill will not have any impact on the ACC levies that people pay. That will be based on the type of work that people do, as assessed by ACC.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, this is a substantive part of the debate. I’m not hearing anything in the way of repetition. There are a number of members seeking the call, so I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on to clauses 122 to 126, around the “Differentiation of application and entitlement”. The Minister and the Government have conceded that some form of regional variation is required for these fair pay agreements. Obviously, there was a lot of concern originally when the fair pay agreements were first mooted that it would be a nationwide straightjacket so that somebody working in Ponsonby, in Auckland, in a cafe, had exactly the same arrangements as somebody in Balclutha or the Hokianga or Haast or maybe just in Christchurch. But the circumstances and the situation of those different parts of the country would have different requirements, and things that may make sense in Auckland may not make sense in Hastings, for example, in terms of the sorts of things covered in the fair pay agreements, which include research and development, which include pay rates, which include leave entitlements, all those different things. So the difference between urban New Zealand and rural New Zealand and the ability of businesses to pay different rates, they have conceded in this legislation by allowing, in clause 123, for some variation.

So one of the questions I have for the Minister is: well, are there any limits on that variation? Clause 122 says that the basic sort of objectives and date and coverage of the agreement can’t be changed, but things that can be amended are the minimum base rates, overtime rates, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and so forth. There doesn’t seem to be any limit in the differences, but I’d be interested to know that.

Then, following on from that, of course, is: surely the logic for that exemption or the ability to have district variation applies equally when it comes to the size of businesses. Any just simple common sense would conclude—you know, any rational New Zealander would conclude that a business with 10,000 employees has far different concerns and arrangements and capability when it comes to arrangements regarding training and development for covered employees than a business with two employees. The example I’ve always used is the superette up in the Hokianga or a little place like that. So the difference between a company that employs one or two people in a small, little operation and another business that employs 10,000 people, the Minister does not seem to concede that there is any argument for the ability to differentiate when it comes to all sorts of things, as well as base pay rates and overtime worked, penalty rates, and all that speaks to the kind of flexibility that is needed much more in a small business environment. You know, it’s just so common sense, it’s hard to understand.

So my fundamental question I have for the Minister is: how can he see and concede and understand that there does need to be regional variation between Auckland and Hastings and New Plymouth and Hokianga, that there’s different requirements for different kinds of business environments in which they are operating but refuse to concede that there might be differences between a company employing 10,000 people and one employing two? The fiction that he seems to have in his mind is that all those businesses can handle things such as leave entitlements and arrangements for training and development in the same way. That, to me, doesn’t make much sense.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am concerned, from the answer that I received to my previous question about the minimum wage exemption permits, that the Minister perhaps hasn’t got a full understanding of the type of work that goes on in these enterprises. I’m also interested that it is within the Fair Pay Agreements Bill when in fact the Minister, Minister Sepuloni, has said that it’s her intention that the minimum wage exemption permits will actually go within this term of Government. So I’m wondering if he can, first of all, confirm that he has had a discussion with Minister Sepuloni to find out whether that is actually still in the work plan for this this term, and, if it isn’t, then we really do need to get down to the real details of how this is going to work for the disability enterprises such as those that I mentioned before.

I want to be very clear about the range of type of work that can occur within these enterprises, and I know that the Hon Paul Goldsmith was talking about the flexibility needed in small businesses but, actually, the flexibility needed in these enterprises, which are large businesses. I will try and illustrate the example of the differences in tasks that might be undertaken. So, for example, someone working there on a wage exemption permit may be doing the cleaning for the enterprise, but his or her disability is such that on any given day he or she may not be able to do that type of work. Cleaning has been given as one of the examples where, you know, a fair pay agreement for cleaners is a likelihood. But on some given days, that person with the disability may actually have to go and work in another part of the enterprise where they are sorting and putting two screws into a metal plate that is then ready to be used for another purpose by another business—very repetitive work, work that perhaps doesn’t require anything like the level of skill or physical requirement of the days when that person does the cleaning job.

So they are that extreme, and when I said that one day a person might be repackaging large amounts of spices into small 10 gram bags, but then on another day when they are physically able they might be working in the timber yard, dismantling pallets and working with heavy timber. So they would be covered by very—well, I presume, I don’t know, because it’s hard to tell within here, but they could possibly be covered by very different fair pay agreements; you know, a cleaner’s fair pay agreement and/or one where they are in a factory environment, just doing repetitive work over and over with a small metal plate and a couple of screws, or dismantling large amounts of spices going into a small package where they have to weigh and use skills there, or, another day, working with timber.

I just can’t understand how there won’t be this big administrative burden for these enterprises, trying to work out what fair pay agreement each component of their work might be, remembering that they are out hustling for contracts all the time, and so they take contracts that are going to provide work for their people at the enterprise and they won’t know from one month to another—except for the ones where they have continuity—just what type of work and what fair pay agreement it would be covered by.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Working backwards, I’m happy to assist the members with their questions. In respect of Ms Simmonds’ previous question, the answer to this is in Part 1 of this bill, which we dealt with extensively last week, and that confirms that only one fair pay agreement (FPA) can apply to a worker, based on the FPA which covers the largest part of the work that they do. That is covered in Part 1 of the bill, which we had a good debate on.

In terms of the broader question about the future of the minimum wage exemption scheme, that is a question for Government, Cabinet, and the Parliament later. That scheme currently applies, so it needs to be reflected in the FPA legislation because the FPA legislation deals with minimum entitlements.

In terms of Mr Goldsmith’s questions around variants based on size, there are really two responses there: the first is to remind the committee of the fact that FPAs set minimum terms and conditions in the same way that the Government currently sets minimum terms and conditions across the minimum wage and minimum statutory entitlements. There’s still, then, flexibility for parties to agree different terms and conditions over and above that to reflect size, complexity, and capability. And that will still be the case with FPAs. In addition, within FPAs there is no constraint on the bargaining sides agreeing for there to be different provisions which apply to different groups within that FPA, provided that’s not inconsistent with other legislation.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you for that. It’s not going to affect ACC, but say I’m an admin person and I’m working in a construction company. I don’t go out on to the construction site at all. Or I could be an administration person sitting in a bank. We’re doing virtually the same sort of administration, but we end up paying different ACC rates because, again, it’s based on what the company that you work for does.

So this fair pay agreement, if it’s not taking into account via smaller businesses, may end up having a few awards because of what that person aligns with, what they do within their role. Is that going to be fair on, say, the administration person in a construction company paying that higher rate—who don’t go out on scaffolding—to have to pay the same as someone that does? And especially when that’s saying that this fair pay agreement is part of it, that ACC hasn’t been looked into or—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is—her speech is now out of order. [Interruption] Excuse me. I’m telling the member that her speech is now out of order. So if she would like to continue, she has three minutes and 58 seconds long. But reference to ACC is something which is not part of this bill—let alone Part 6—so I invite the member to continue.

TONI SEVERIN: OK. It’s just that I’m—the reason I was asking for this was because it is all to do with around awards and different awards within different organisations. And the reason I asked that is because I have been asked—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

TONI SEVERIN: Yeah, I just—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member does not question the Speaker’s ruling. I’m encouraging the member to continue with her call. She has three minutes and 44 seconds left. I am listening very carefully for the member not to dispute my call, but to stay in order.

TONI SEVERIN: Thank you. It’s just that it’s just really confusing and, as we’re saying, I was just trying to get some—it’s around the different awards within industries, not going to bring in ACC—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Moving on.

TONI SEVERIN: OK. Moving on around that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Look. Right. The member will resume her seat. I’ve asked the member—still relatively new in this House and she needs to listen. I’ve encouraged the member to stay in order. And if the member doesn’t pick up the hint, again, I’m afraid I’m going to have to terminate her speech.

TONI SEVERIN: Thank you. Because it’s all to do with different awards and different things within different industries and fair pay and how people are going to be awarded with what they do in the companies or what award they choose to be with, people just would like to know that there might be something down the track for them.

If they look at the award that best suits their roles within smaller businesses and with industries, people would like to know that there could be something down the track there that this Government will look at in other areas that affect their work and money that may be coming out of their bank accounts for them to be working in those different industries.

Where I was sort of leaning is that because we’re going to have these different awards, that people are going to look at what’s going to benefit them and their pocket within small industries. And at the moment, it’s supposed to be fair and in some it’s still not fair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just responding to the Minister’s comments and I didn’t quite understand it. Maybe that’s my problem, but he seemed to be saying that I was making the point that the bill allows for regional variations, accepting the fact that a business operating in Auckland might have different requirements and needs than one in Hastings, for example, or the Hokianga. I asked why wouldn’t that same logic apply to differences between very large companies with 10,000 employees in, too, and he said it sets a minimum floor.

Anna Lorck: Great workers in Hastings.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. What I can’t sort of work out is if we have a regional variation where that minimum floor, when it comes to pay rates or leave entitlements and so forth, which may vary in different regions—I presume that is the point of the regional variations, that you would have a different minimum base rate potentially and a different penalty rate potentially or different arrangements in relation to flexible working potentially. All those things would be different, because I would have thought that was the point of regional variations. So I don’t quite understand why that logic wouldn’t also apply in relation to the size of the company.

Secondly, I wanted to come to my two amendments in this part. The first is amending clause 114, which is the mandatory content for each fair pay agreement, and my suggestion is that that should include the impact of the agreements on the productivity of the sector in which the agreement provides. Because the Minister has very, sort of, casually claimed that this misnamed fair pay agreement legislation would improve productivity in New Zealand’s workforces and he’s offered no evidence whatsoever to back that up. So I’m just curious as to how he thinks that’s going to happen magically. But if it’s good enough to debate and include in a fair pay agreement arrangements for training and development and for leave entitlements, why does it not also have to include, if you’re going to have this—and of course, we don’t want to have these at all, but if you’re going to have them, surely some recognition of the need to discuss and consider the productivity of the workplace and the occupations, because ultimately it’s only improved productivity that leads to higher wages in the long term. You can legislate for them as much as you like and you can force companies to do it, but ultimately if the businesses are not productive, it won’t be sustainable. So my suggestion is why is that not part of the mandatory content? I just have a suspicion that he won’t agree to that. He may do; I don’t know. He could surprise me. You never know; he might agree to it.

But if he doesn’t, then my fall-back position is that it should be included in clause 115, which is the list of topics that bargaining sides must discuss. And I can’t think of any objection that you could come up with to argue against including it, at least in the topics that must be discussed for a fair pay agreement. So alongside health and safety requirements, alongside arrangements for flexible working, and alongside the objectives of the proposed agreement, why on earth would he not include a discussion around the productivity of the workforce and the occupation so that the two sides who are bargaining have to have a discussion and, if needs be, an argument about how we make our workplaces more productive? Because that is the key challenge for so many workplaces, and a focus purely on entitlements and allowances and what you’re going to get paid, without relating those to the productivity of the firm, I think would make it very difficult. It would be a limited discussion and not helpful. So that is my point there.

Finally, in clause 116, we have subclause (2), referring to any fair pay agreement that is contrary to law, and I wondered what he had in mind there. I presume he might have in mind things that might breach competition law in relation to cartel activity and agreements. I’m not sure, but I’d be interested if he was able to enlighten us as to what he had in mind in relation to clause 116 as well.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of the member’s first question, I have already answered that. The reality is, as I said, that unions and employers can negotiate for differential terms and conditions based on the size of enterprises. In terms of the member’s suggestion, via an amendment, of inserting a discussion about productivity, the Government doesn’t agree to that, and the reason is that fair pay agreements (FPAs), as the member accurately describes, set terms and conditions for employees. Productivity is an outcome that we hope will arise from fair pay agreements and other investments that the Government is making. If we were going to insert productivity, then we could insert other measures, such as the happiness and satisfaction of the workforce and you could go on and on. Those are outcomes. FPAs are about setting minimum conditions, so a measure such as productivity is important but doesn’t fit into the space.

In respect of clause 116, it is simply about ensuring that FPAs which do get brought into force by a secondary piece of legislation are consistent with other laws. There’s nothing specific about which laws—they have to be consistent with all other laws.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on to clause 121A, differing minimum wage rates, the starting-out rate and the training rate. My questions here are around the ability of the bargaining side, on the employee bargaining side, to, effectively, get rid of the training rate or the starting-out wage. Now, obviously, these are set out in the Minimum Wage Act, section 4A(1)(c)(i) and (ii), and are set out under regulations. So my question to the Minister is around the ability of the union—because in most cases, the lead bargaining side on the employee side will be the union, and their views, as far as I’ve heard, on those starting-out rates and the training wage have not always been favourable.

So my question to the Minister is: in the fair pay agreement negotiations, is it potentially possible that the—because the first thing I’d note, in clause 121A it says, “A fair pay agreement may specify a starting-out rate”, and it says “may” a couple of times when talking about the training rate and the starting-out wage, so it’s not required to be negotiated. So my question firstly is: if it’s not negotiated, I presume, and can I get the Minister to confirm, then is the fall-back what’s set out in regulations under the Minimum Wage Act? But if the union on the employee side is particularly aggrieved by a starting-out rate or a training wage—and we have to remember that those are set out to give young people and people who are just entering a sector a go and give them a step up into that job. Is it possible for the union to negotiate so that those rates do not exist anymore? Could they go into a negotiation saying, “We don’t want these rates. That’s our bottom line. We insist, if there has to be one, that they are the same as the base rate of pay that we’re negotiating for every employee.”, thereby, effectively, getting rid of the training rate and the starting-out wage?

Further to that, in clause 121A(2)(a)(i) it states “the date on which the employee … completed 6 months’ continuous employment”. Is there the possibility for the negotiating side, the union side, to negotiate that down, so from six months down to two months or three months, if they don’t think that a starting-out wage should carry on for six months? Is that possible in these negotiations?

In the last part, staying there, though, in clause 121A(2)(a), the very first words in that line are “may pay the employee in accordance with that rate only until the earlier of”. Is it an oversight there that the word should be “must” rather than “may”? It would make sense, in this context, that the word should be “must” rather than “may”. So I presume, unless the Minister can correct me, that that may be an oversight, and should, in fact, say “must”.

So going back to my question: firstly, is the employee side able to, basically, negotiate out of a starting-out and training wage rate by setting it at the same price as the floor that they’re negotiating for everyone? Can they also negotiate out of the six-month minimum to make it less; for example, one or two months? And then also that final part of that question, the third part is: should that word be “must” rather than “may” in clause 121A(2)(a)?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just responding to the Minister’s reply again, where he said that the fair pay agreement was about terms and conditions and that productivity was an outcome, and, therefore, it’s something that shouldn’t be considered directly through the legislation as a mandatory topic. Then I’m looking at clause 115 where it says “(1) When bargaining for a proposed agreement, the bargaining sides must discuss whether the proposed agreement will specify the following topics: (a) the objectives of the proposed agreement:”. That’s not the terms and the conditions; it’s the objectives, and I would have thought that one of the objectives would be to make it a happier workplace, as he referred to—perhaps. One of them might be to make it a more productive workplace, another one might be just to get higher wages, another one might be to have longer holidays—I don’t know. There could be a whole lot of objectives, but I would have thought that given that clause, a more productive workforce may be something that was coming.

Now, the only point that I was trying to make with my amendment was to highlight further the question of productivity, because it is so critical. We have a bit of a disagreement with this current Government about how we improve wages as a country. Fundamentally, in our view, on that side the Government seems to think that there are two primary levers that they can pull. One is to legislate for higher wages through higher minimum wages or longer holidays or fair pay agreements, and aggrandisements like that—so, firstly, legislate for them—and then, secondly, starve off immigration, and that forces up higher wages. That seems to be their approach. Our argument is that actually, yes, you can do that, but long term, the only sustainable way to improve wages in the country is to have more productive businesses that are more internationally competitive, that can compete with the best in the world, and that can deliver more product for the number of workers and the capital employed.

So that is why it is so important, and I would have thought that if clause 115 refers to the objectives of the proposed agreement as being something that must be discussed, it’s perfectly rational and it follows logically that that discussion should include a discussion around the productivity of the workforce and the impact of the decisions made in the workplace agreement. The most obvious one would be a shift to hourly rates rather than piece rates—that is, the number of apples picked versus an hourly rate. A shift in the balance between those two things can have a very significant impact on productivity.

The ability to pay excellent workers who are highly motivated and very hard-working differently to other workers is also related to productivity, and the Minister will say, “Oh well, this is only a floor. You can add higher rates to whoever you like.” But if the floor is so high that that is all that the business can afford to pay and it’s really at the margins, there is less flexibility because you don’t have the extra resources available to pay the higher rates to those who you want to pay more. The higher the floor goes, the less flexibility there is for most businesses—not all businesses. So I can’t quite see the logic for his dismissal of that point, and I’d like him to maybe just see if he could reassure us more on that topic.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on to getting towards the—I am, anyway—end of the section. I want to go on to a new part we haven’t talked about yet, clause 129, which is the delayed commencement provision.

This is an unusual provision, and I wanted to ask the Minister to give us some examples of when this might apply. It’s not something that came up in detail in select committee, but I’m interested to know because, in clause 129(1)(a), the bargaining sides must be satisfied that “declining the employer’s application would result in a less favourable overall outcome for the employer’s employees when approving the application;”, so under what circumstances would that happen? Under what circumstances would we find that by not implementing the fair pay agreement (FPA), which has just been negotiated, the employees would be worse off than if it was implemented immediately? This is not something that came up, and I’m interested in a situation where this could possibly happen so that that the FPA for that particular employer can be delayed—you can see, potentially, a number of employers wanting to have the provisions of the FPA delayed for their own purposes—but in terms of the employees being in a less favourable situation: if it was employed right now, compared to if it was in place later on.

So I’m not aware of any situation where that might be the case, and I was hoping that the Minister could give us some examples of when that might possibly happen, in relation to clause 129, “Delayed commencement provision”, so that we can better understand that clause. I’ve got more questions around that, but I want to make sure that I’m on the right track before I ask them. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Working through questions from Erica Stanford and Paul Goldsmith in respect of the ability of parties to bargain for starting-out rates and training rates, it is as described in the bill. It is an ability for the parties to bargain for those, provided they do not go below the minimum statutory requirements. It is a “may” provision that provides parties with the flexibility to bargain as they see fit, dependent on their sector or their occupation. In particular, in terms of the provision around six months, the rate cannot extend for longer than that, but it could be shorter than that if the parties agreed to that through bargaining. It’s entirely up to them within those provisions.

In terms of Mr Goldsmith’s point around clause 115, he’s not wrong. Clause 115 describes the objectives of the fair pay agreement (FPA). That part is not about the terms and conditions. If parties did wish to include wording around productivity within that, then they could.

When it comes to Erica Stanford’s questions around clause 129(1)(a)—the delayed commencement provision—that will ultimately be up for the bargaining sides to determine, based on arguments that are made to them. But a potential situation in which that could apply is if a particular employer, let’s say, got most of their revenue for most of their business from a particular contract that required them to organise their work in a certain way and it was going to take some time for them to reorganise their affairs to be consistent with the FPA, the delayed commencement provision provides the ability for that employer to do that.

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

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 114(1) 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 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 115 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 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 Finalisation of proposed agreement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 130 to 163, “Finalisation of proposed agreement”, and Schedule 2, “Ratification process: number of votes for covered employers”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just make the point that this part is quite a substantial one with lots of different issues in it, and we will try and work our way through it systematically. But, fundamentally, it’s around what happens when the bargaining has been completed, and clauses 132, and so forth, relate to how the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) assesses and, if it’s up to scratch, approves the agreement, and then it sends it off to be ratified by both the union and the employer side. Then the ERA, sort of, has to verify whether or not the vote is correct and in favour. And, then, once that’s all happened and the various checks are made, it is brought into force through secondary legislation, and the chief executive has to issue the notice. Then, we’ve got all the complications about who it entails. So I just hope you don’t cut us off too soon in our discussion of this part, because there are many different elements to it and we want to have a chance to work our way through them.

So starting off with the whole question of the assessment of the ERA into the agreements, in themselves, when it’s finalised—or, fundamentally, I suppose, the broad point I’d make is that once it is finalised, it applies to everybody: all employers and all employees within its coverage. So that is, I suppose, one of our fundamental objections to this legislation—that there is no choice involved. That’s why we call it mandatory union deals rather than fair pay agreements, because, you know, a bunch of people negotiate the agreement between the union and the employers, and if there are a thousand different employees—ranging from, if we were talking about checkout operators, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises at one end, to mum and dad owners of a superette in Hokianga, at the other end of the spectrum—some of them will be involved in the discussions, most of them won’t. There’s a lot of debate about how much information will filter down to the small operators and how much will filter back from the small operators and who will listen. But, regardless of all that, when it comes to the crunch, if it works its way through Part 7 of the bill and comes out the other side, it applies to everybody—and they haven’t had much of a say about what’s happened. The vast majority will have no direct say in the outcomes that affect them directly. We don’t think that’s right, and we don’t think it will help them in any particular way.

But, then, when it comes to the ratification, in clause 140 and following, and the entitlement to vote—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is not required, as far as I can see, to consider each vote cast; they just have to take a little sample of the votes. I don’t quite know how the Minister thinks that would reassure people. So if you had a vote that was close and you had, you know, a thousand different employees trying to agree to this, or 2,000 employees, you actually do need to have quite a process in place to ensure that you get a democratic outcome. So the first thing I want to know is a response from the Minister as to the extent to which he’s satisfied that MBIE will have the time and patience and ability to verify those votes, rather than just taking the word of both sides and a swift, sort of, sample, because I don’t think that that is sufficient to do the job properly. Then, when it comes to—actually, I’ll leave it there for the time being and I’ll come back to it.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to ask the Minister specifically—get this section right—about the time frame for the authority to assess the proposed agreement.

So once the fair pay agreement (FPA) has been negotiated and both sides have decided that they’ve come to an agreement and it goes to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for assessment, they’ve got their 20 working days in order to come back with their determination.

In the bill here it says that if there is determined to be exceptional circumstances, then that date can be extended. So my first question is: what are those “exceptional circumstances”? Where do we set the bar for those exceptional circumstances? I mean, the ERA has already had 20 working days to work out if there are any overlaps or if they approve the FPA. So I’m keen to know what the exceptional circumstances are. That’s important because it then triggers another 20 days—sorry, I’m confusing myself. It’s a very confusing the bill. So that’s the stand-alone part: what are the exceptional circumstances?

The bit that triggers another 20 days, of course, is the overlap. So if the ERA determines that there is an overlap between two FPAs that have been recently conducted, that triggers another 20 days. In the bill it talks about the ERA having to determine which of those terms are more favourable. I want to know from the Minister, what is the framework that they make that decision in? Because in some cases, it might be quite clear cut; it might be extra days or extra pay. But in very different sectors, there might be a grey area as to what is more favourable to the employee.

So my first question is around the exceptional circumstances. That exceptional circumstance clause kicks in both for the initial determination by the ERA and it also kicks in if they are taking an extra 20 days to work out if there’s overlap and which terms are more favourable. So that’s my first question: what are those exceptional circumstances and where is the bar?

Secondly, my question is around what framework will the ERA use to determine favourable terms? As I mentioned, in some cases it might be very clear-cut—totally understand that—but in some cases it may not be so clear-cut. So what framework does the ERA use in order to determine favourable terms under different fair pay agreements? So if the Minister could address that, that would be useful.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s and Erica Stanford’s questions: Mr Goldsmith, in one breath, said that the majority of employers would have no say in fair pay agreements (FPAs) but then went on to ask questions about the ratification process which, by definition, they all get to vote in. He asked about the processes, effectively, for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) oversight and, I suppose, there being a level of confidence in the accuracy of that vote. I do note that there are very specific provisions in the bill about the bargaining sides having to provide information about that vote and its result. It is on those bargaining sides to provide a declaration to that effect, so there is a strong duty that is placed on the bargaining sides in the legislation, which I think can provide real confidence there. On top of that, MBIE then does have the ability to assess a sample. In the event of a close vote, MBIE would act rationally and would have the ability to look at a larger sample to give themselves the assurance that they felt was necessary for that particular ratification process.

In terms of Erica Stanford’s question around “exceptional circumstances”, this is wording in a concept which is picked up from the Employment Relations Act. It would depend on the particular nature of the case: the complexity of the bargaining, the degree to which it had been a smooth process, perhaps, or a rocky process. MBIE would need to take those things in the round, and if they believe that, on a qualitative basis, there were exceptional circumstances they have the ability to take a little bit more time there.

The other question the member has was around the framework for the better-off overall test. I just note this is a reasonably well-understood concept in employment law; it’s the process which, for example, is used in the Australian jurisprudence in respect of their modern award system. It is an overall assessment that in MBIE will apply across the terms and conditions in those FPAs as they affect the majority of workers. So it’s not necessarily a strict “look at this condition”, “look at that condition”—it’s looking at it in the round and forming an assessment as to under which FPA the majority of employees would be better-off.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to continue that line of questioning of Erica Stanford’s in relation to bargaining overlap. It seems to me that the clause 139 of Part 7 is, without doubt, the most comically confusing that I have read in a very long time.

So my first question relates to the issue of coverage overlap. It appears to me that the question of coverage overlap is not addressed at any stage in the initiation bargaining process between employer and employee groups. It would strike me as fundamental to understanding and avoiding coverage overlap that that be the case.

Now, I may be wrong, but I’ve had a good look; I can’t see any requirement to make sure that the boundaries of coverage are more clearly articulated to avoid coverage overlap. So that’s the first question: is there a way of avoiding this? Is this some sort of belts and braces exception? Because one could think of many, many scenarios—I think Mr Goldsmith’s already gone through a couple—where industries or occupations do overlap at some point.

Then we come to this—the only way I can describe this is a—comical process set out at clause 139 where a party or parties unrelated to the agreement are either bound in or biffed out, depending on which agreement is more favourable. So in the scenario of agreement A providing better terms overall, then the authority must advise both bargaining sides for agreement B that aren’t the party to agreement A that they’re no longer a part of agreement B,; they’re now part of agreement A.

Now, even if one agrees that there is the potential for coverage overlap, there must have been a much-simpler way of joining these two agreements so that if the intention is that the best terms overall are accorded, this is a really, really odd way of doing it.

The other question that I have in respect of that is: what legal advice was provided or asked for in respect of whether this is even lawful in contract law? I mean, obviously the legislature has its own cognisance, but it seems to me that this is a very bad breach of the principles of contract law and the principle of privity, which is that one can’t bind third parties to agreements to which they are not a party. They didn’t negotiate them. Agreement A is separate from agreement B, even if there is overlap. One can’t then draw on employers—and employees for that matter, although they’re probably pretty happy about it—that were not a party to subsequent negotiations and then say that because agreement B provides better terms overall than yours, you’re now bound by that agreement. Even though those parties had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations, the costs and requirements will fall on them. Even the employees who may be members of one union are, effectively, told that they’re no longer part of the agreement to which they have contributed.

That’s why this is comical. That’s why this is going to turn into a complete farce and the risk to both employers and employees, of a complete muddle, is very high. So do we have clauses in the bill that prevent, to the degree possible, coverage overlap? Was there consideration of a much more straightforward process to deal with coverage overlap when terms and conditions are better in separate agreements that avoids this farcical process? And how does that reconcile with the very well-established principles of contract law, where one shouldn’t be binding parties that are not subject to that agreement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the member’s question, there are provisions, I think, in Part 3, which set out a structure to avoid, as much as possible, there being overlap that might emerge subsequently. The member is right, perhaps, in describing the provisions of Part 7 as being “belt and braces”, that in the event that that does arise, there needs to be clarity as to which agreement applies.

In respect of the member’s second question, which is about his assertion that parties who might not have been involved in another agreement will get brought into it, I don’t agree with that. By definition, if work is covered by another agreement, the employer would have had the ability, in the bargaining of that agreement, to have participated in that process from the point of its initiation.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Madam Chair, thank you, and, really, it is leading on from the discussions that we have been having and the concerns that were brought up in the Primary Production Committee from a lot of employers about this flow of information up and down. Many employers were concerned that they may not know or, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has said, might find out at a later date that their entity is being covered by another set of negotiations. This was very much the crux of a number of employers’ concerns about this legislation: that it was going to be very difficult for employers to know when they were going to be covered, and the fact that they might be pulled in under other coverage that they were not involved in the negotiations for.

I guess, as an employer for 23 years, the thought of setting your budget on what you thought were the known costs that you were going to have for the coming year, only to find perhaps that, at some stage down the track, better terms and conditions then have overlapping coverage with part of your entity, throw your budget out completely. And so we can understand why employers were so concerned about this.

And, I guess, the other part of the voting component of it are concerns there about what will constitute votes that will be able to be counted if the employer hasn’t been able to motivate their employees to be voting and, therefore, if there are a lot of small employers with small pockets of employees who might feel that it wasn’t worth them voting because, within their coverage area, there are some very big employers and they might feel that it won’t be worth them even voting on it. So the voter turnout: is the vote going to be on the majority of those that would be eligible, or is it on the majority of the turnout that will be determining this? Because I think that’s where we are going to see some very, sort of, perverse disincentives for people to bother to vote on this.

These were all the kind of things that came up on a regular basis from the select committee submissions process with employers and employees. A number of employees that had been employees in other jurisdictions—in Australia, for example—where they saw how confusing this could get for them, expressed their concerns. And I don’t think that the Minister has allayed those concerns for us about how confusing this actually could get, particularly for those small businesses and employers that are trying to motivate and get the right information through to small groups of employees who might feel quite disenfranchised from a process where there is a number of quite large groups of employees. So I just think that this is a really meaty part of the legislation that caused a lot of concerns, and I don’t feel that we’ve heard the Minister address those concerns in such a way that it will be allaying the fears of the confusion that’s going to arise both for the employees and the employers. And so I would be keen for the Minister to, perhaps, try and give us a greater level of clarification and a greater level of comfort that this isn’t going to bring about an enormous amount of confusion and disarray and people feeling disenfranchised from the process. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I can provide some clarification and correction to one of the points the member raised, which might assist with her question. It would not be the responsibility of employers to round up and organise the employees to vote; it will be the responsibility of unions to run a voting process for employees, and it will be the responsibility of the employer bargaining side to run the voting process for employers. The voting process, as is the case for collective agreement processes, will be about those who vote, not the overall number of workers in that area.

In respect to the member’s assertion that through this part, employers might get “pulled into the process”, that is not accurate. Employers will be covered by fair pay agreements, based on the coverage provisions in Part 3 of the bill, which we have already debated.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I make the next call, just a reminder that we have a maiden statement soon, so this won’t be a very long time.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Accepting the point that the Minister made that clause 139 was a belts and braces approach, at least as it applied to coverage overlap, and pointing me in the direction of Part 3, I thank him for that, but I’m none the wiser in respect of which clause in Part 3 that is. I think it would allay concerns to know that whereas Part 3 does go through a long process description of how bargaining parties can join and unjoin, there is, as far as I can tell, no reference to an ability by the authority to reduce the scope of bargaining between parties because of coverage overlap—I may be wrong; it may be here, but I can’t see it. It would certainly help me and those who are going to have to negotiate the various sections of the Act when it is passed to know that, to the degree possible, coverage overlap can be avoided earlier in the process.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to focus on Subpart 2 of Part 7, which is around ratification, where the Minister has, sort of, made this claim that employer groups will all have a chance to be involved in the process, and if not actually part of the discussions, at least they’ll get to have a vote. But the striking thing about it, the farcical thing about it, is that what happens is, if an agreement is hammered together between the two bargaining sides, it then has to go (a) to the unions, and (b) to the employers to ratify, agree at 50 percent or more. For some reason, the unions have 40 days, and the employers have 10 days to do that. I would be interested for the Minister to explain why the two are different. But, of course, the big problem is that if, say, the employer group was not to ratify it, and they didn’t get the vote, and less than half the people—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order, and my humble apologies to the member. Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.

Progress to be reported

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: Members, I will indicate that at the conclusion of Soraya Peke-Mason’s maiden statement to the House, the House will suspend for the dinner break and will resume in committee at 7 p.m.

In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Soraya Peke-Mason to make her maiden statement.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Kia whai korōria hareruia ki a Ihoā o ngā mano ko te Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā anahera pono me te Mangāi, tatū iho ki ngā tuakana wairua, Ārepa, Ōmeka, Piri Wiri Tua, Hāmuera o te Māngai kei roto āianei āke nei āe.

Otirā kia mihi ki ngā mate, nō reira hui tahi ngā mate ki runga a koutou, mātou, a tātou katoa otirā tō tātou kuini o Ingarangi, ko Irihāpeti, pērā i tō mātou tumuaki o te Hāhi o te Morehu, ko Harerangi Meihana kia mihia, kia tangia i roto i tēnei rā. Nō reira koutou te hunga mate, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Nō reira, tātou te hunga ora, tēnei koutou, tēnā tātou.

E te Mana Whakawā o te Whare, te Pirīmia, koutou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei, me ngā kaimahi, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ngā rangatira mā, ngā kaumātua, kuia, pakeke, hoa, rangatahi, tamariki me ngā mokopuna, tēnā koutou, tātou katoa.

[Glory and hallelujah to the Lord God of the countless multitudes, to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the faithful angels and the mouthpiece. I bow before the spiritual mentors of the mouthpiece, Alpha, Omega, Piri Wiri Tua, Hāmuera, now and for evermore.

I also acknowledge those who have passed, all those being carried by you, by us, by all of us, including those such as the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth, and leader of the Rātana Church, Harerangi Meihana. We acknowledge them and mourn them today. Therefore, to you who have passed, may you rest in peace. And to us, the living, greetings one and all.

To the Speaker of the House, to the Prime Minister, to all the Members of the House and the staff, greetings one and all.

To the chiefs, to the male and female elders, adults, friends, young people, children, and grandchildren, greetings to you all.]

To the members of the Labour electorate for the mighty Rangitīkei, greetings to each and every one of you.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I acknowledge you as my whanaunga not just through my marriage to your cousin but also my Waretini side, to Nanny Iriaka. I was proud to stand before you today to be the first member of Parliament to be sworn in to the House, in your role as te Mana Whakawā hou o te Whare nei. Tēnā koe.

[the new Speaker of the House. I acknowledge you.]

Secondly, I wish to acknowledge my whakapapa and affiliation to iwi. On my mother’s side: Delphina Te Oraiti Taiaroa-Waretini, Te Awa Tupua, Ngāti Rangi, Uenuku, Tamahaki, Hinengākau, Ngāti Hauā, Tama Upoko, Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa, Tūwharetoa, Te Iwi Mōrehu, Kōtirana, Scottish side. And my father’s side: Joseph Peke, Ngāti Tamaterā, Hauraki Waikato, and my pāpā, John Hemi, Ngāpuhi.

This has been a long-game political journey, one paved by those around me, one of strategy, loyalty, hard work, sacrifices, and perseverance. Politics was not my chosen path; it was encouraged by others and circumstances—others such as my father- and mother-in-law, the late Harry and Betty Mason. It was paved by the Komiti o Ngā Rahui, the Rātana Community Board, the secular division of the Rātana morehu movement, the late Alf and Mere Williams, Uncle Nakata Taiaroa, Uncle Jack Smith, and te Iwi Morehu o te motu me Ahitereiria [the followers of the Rātana Faith of this country and Australia], who I served for over 13 years as their national secretary.

I grew up in the little coastal suburb called Kokohuia, also known as Castlecliffe, Wanganui, on the west coast of the North Island. Widowed in her early 20s, my mother was left to raise six children. She worked hard to keep us together in the house my father built, knowing it was critical; we had a roof over our head, somewhere we could always return to. Life was a struggle. We had little money. My mother worked nights cleaning to supplement her widows benefit, and would take her line and sinker to fish through the cracks of the Castlecliffe Wharf railway lines to feed us when kai was limited. Our whānau expanded after she met my pāpā, John Hemi, We lived week to week. Everyone worked at the local abattoirs, now known as AFFCO.

After spending time overseas, I returned to Aotearoa to see the world had changed. I grew up in a time before kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori, a time when Nanna and Koro only spoke te reo to each other, a time when we only saw tinges of our identity through tangihanga; a time when some were ashamed to be Māori. I watched my mother struggling to learn te reo Māori; I knew I had to find out who I am as wahine Māori. I knew then that this was a big hole I’d lived with my whole life, not knowing my true identity. It has been a struggle learning te reo. I still grieve for that loss, like many others; it’s a challenge we will take to our graves.

I married into the small village of Rātana and, as a result of my speaking out about the quality of the drinking water, I was encouraged towards local government. This was the beginning of my political journey. The town supply was discoloured, ugly to drink, yucky to bathe my baby boy in, corrosive and leaving clothing worse for wear. We need to be able to turn on the taps in the 21st century and get clean water. Rangitīkei is the third-largest general electorate in the country. Its soil is rich, ideal for agriculture. To have agriculture, we need water. We must protect this asset at all costs. Water is a taonga. Without water, the human race will not survive. I am reminded of Ruruku Whakatupua, Tupua te Kawa, Te Awa Tupua values, “Ko te mātāpuna o te ora”—the river is the source of spiritual and physical sustenance. Aotearoa, we would die without it. We treat it like a commodity and allow it to be flogged off for peanuts through permits. That cannot continue. The taking of water under the Resource Management Act must be changed. Its management for drinking must be taken seriously, be timely, and be accurate. It must meet the standards at all times.

I applaud and admire the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for having the courage, for having the endurance, and for having the resilience to initiate transformative three waters change in the management of this precious, life-sustaining resource.

After spending two terms as a community board member, I was elected to the Rangitīkei District Council for 12 years. It took 10 years of continuous work and battling for a new town water supply to Rātana. It opened in 2016.

At the front end of local government, it was a lonely journey being the first elected Māori wahine to council. Times have changed; we celebrate diversity, inclusiveness, and a mind shift that local government has today for the better.

While I was on council, I banged on about the biggest potential for economic growth: partnering, working together, and combining our strengths with iwi. We all have similar aspirations for our whānau, for our communities, and for our future generations. This reminds me of the wawata, of the aspiration of my tribe, Ngāti Rangi, “Kia mura ai te ora o Ngāti Rangi ki tua o te kotahi mano tau.”—to vibrantly exist in a thousand years. Te aronga, the “how”: e kōkiri taha ana a Ngāti Rangi i ngā kaupapa hei oranga mō te katoa—together, we grow, and our communities.

Settlements are said to be some 2 percent of what was taken. They are meaningless if they are not put into action. We must uphold the mana of this House and ensure that, as the Crown, we meet the obligations of settlements, have common courtesy, and find ways to navigate existing legislation and push back from ministries and departments that get in the way.

The Rangitīkei means “heavenly bound”. How appropriate this is, where the heart of the legacy left by T.W. Rātana beats, where 40,000-plus Morehu across the motu and Australia come to fill up their cups. The only place where nine waka sit, including the Endeavour and the Heemskerck. A symbol—a great symbol—of kotahitanga, of unity, a value and a vision of a great leader who pulled Māori out of the darkness, into the light, when their lands were confiscated and alienated because of this very House. In 1936, the alliance between T.W. Rātana and Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage was cemented at a historic meeting. Rātana favoured the Labour Party because it had consulted his supporters when devising Māori policy at the time. We must continue to rise up and find a way to forgive. Times are changing. We are being swallowed up by globalisation, ever-changing technology, and climate change. It is this kind of leadership the world is seeking. I think of T.W. Rātana’s 1932 petition that exudes the value of unity at a national level. By bringing two nations together, we have one great nation.

Recently, I came off Te Aka Whai Ora, te Iwi Māori Partnership Board for our region, Te Matuku.

The health reform was long overdue. It makes common sense to abolish district health boards. It makes sense to put the needs of the communities first. At home, we call it wellness, not illness. This is an opportunity for our communities together—no matter where you are in the country, no matter who you are in the country—to create a service that meets your needs, fills your gaps, where it counts for your communities and your family, together. There is so much work to do, including working on immigration to sustain our medical workforce. It will take time. It will take effort. Let’s all grab this opportunity, put our best foot forward, and allow it the time it deserves and needs.

I am humbled to be part of the 53rd Government, led by leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. I stand to acknowledge the significant events over the last four years: 2019, the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque shootings; the handling of the COVID-19 response throughout 2020. Our Government and Prime Minister Ardern has been praised for being one of the few Western nations to successfully contain this virus. Hindsight is a great thing. There are always improvements and lessons to be learnt. The endurance of this Government in handling such matters must never be forgotten. We must never lose sight of how we saved many lives during the outbreak and developed a framework we can all follow to keep our whānau, our most vulnerable, and our communities together safe.

There are many firsts today. Firstly, my swearing in. Secondly, at the same time, we reached, for the very first time in the history of Government, gender equity. And, possibly, the first member of Parliament in the Commonwealth to swear allegiance to King Charles III—hopeful! It’s not just a special day for me; it’s a significant, historic day for Aotearoa New Zealand. The reality of coming in at this time is there is not a lot of time left in the term. The hard work has been done. My aim is to work across the electorate and advocate for the people of Aotearoa.

The Labour whānau has been responsible for honing my political skills. I spent several years serving on the New Zealand Labour Party council. During that time, the late Rudy Taylor and I represented Te Kaunihera Māori, where we worked alongside the late Ngareta Jones; Matua Haare Williams, Arena’s pāpā—all of whom mentored, inspired, and nurtured my political journey.

We cannot do our job without the help and belief of those behind us. To my passionate, committed, loyal, political Rangitīkei Labour electorate committee, who have never had a Labour MP in the House: we did it. So excited for you all. My campaign manager, Elayne Johnston; the chair, Hilary Humphrey; and the hard-working team, including region 3 rep Mark Andrew, Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian, Gaylene, and the whānau: your commitment and your generosity to the Labour whānau is beyond words. Thank you—thank you for all you do.

Just as important are those who have shaped who I am today as wahine Māori: ngā iwi, including Mōkai Pātea, Ngāti Hinemanu, who were always there, quietly observing, guiding, and nurturing, and clipping my ears when I didn’t listen.

Remembering those who have passed on, too: uncles Archie Taiaroa, John Tahuparae, who served in this very House; Barney Haami, Koro George Waretini, our dear kuia Nanna Biddy Mareikura, who walked beside me when I chaired Ngāti Rangi post-settlement governance entity. Her korowai I wear now as a symbol of whakapapa, aroha, gentleness, and strength. Thank you, our Maungārongo whānau.

And those here today in the gallery, who still tune me up: Uncle Joseph, who would travel to hui with me. Now it’s Bro Hoani. All my aunties—you know who you are. Auntie Lynette, who gifted the maro I wore at swearing-in, that carries the mauri of this journey. My brothers and sisters, Kaumatua Kaunihera o te Awa Tupua and Nanna Piki Pongā-Waretini. I love you all.

My backbone, who keeps me grounded: my humble, most loving husband, Andre, and kids—now adults—Che, Levi, our beautiful late Tia, Tara-Eve, Arama, and their partners, who endure the most, having to put up with my workaholic, spontaneous, adventurous, un-boring personality: I love you infinitely.

To our mokopuna, this servant is for you. To those yet to come, for our communities together, and for this beautiful country we are blessed to live in, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, Māngai rāua Piri Wiri Tua tautoko āe.

[greetings, greetings, greetings one all, with the mouthpiece and Piri Wiri Tua in support.]

Waiata

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

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 7 Finalisation of proposed agreement (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were considering Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 130 to 163, “Finalisation of proposed agreement”, and Schedule 2, “Ratification process: number of votes for covered employers”. The question is that Part 7 stand part. The Hon Paul Goldsmith had the call. I see that he’s not here, so I’ll give the call—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: He said he was not in a position to take the call—that would be a better way of saying it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): He’s not in the position to take a call—so Erica Stanford.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move forward to a clause we haven’t discussed, but is in relation to what we have been talking about—151: “Chief executive to check whether coverage overlap exists”. Now, I want to ask the Minister four specific questions about this. The chief executive, in this clause, must take the fair pay agreement (FPA) that’s been concluded and one that is still under way and determine whether or not there is overlap.

My first question is: in this part, why—actually, in 153(2), there are two different time frames for making that decision: under subclause (1)(a) no later than 10 working days after the proposed agreement is submitted, or going back to clause 137, in accordance with that time frame, which is 20 working days. So I’m keen to know why there’s a difference there in terms of the time frames.

But specifically about this idea of overlap, as it relates to clause 151, the only thing that the bill ever talks about is there being a potential overlap of two FPAs: one that’s been concluded and one that’s under way. It doesn’t allow for any instances where that might be more than two. As we know, at the moment, the unions already are gearing up for this bill to be passed and getting under way, and so I think that the Minister might be surprised at the number of these that come through. I’m wondering what happens when there are more than two that have potential overlaps. It’s not talked about in these particular clauses. Will there be a different process than what’s outlined in this bill if there are more than two FPAs that are being negotiated or finalised that may have some form of overlap?

The other question I’ve got is around the very, very early stages of a negotiation between the parties. I guess the question there is: in order for the chief executive to determine whether or not there is overlap, how far down the negotiation would the parties have to be for the chief executive to determine that there is, in fact, an overlap? Is it something that she or he will be able to determine very early on in the process, or will it be something that comes as a result of the negotiations? I note in clause 151 here that the chief executive can request from the parties their proposed agreements that haven’t been finalised yet but are still under way. So at what point in the process would the chief executive be able to be aware that, in fact, there is an overlap? And if you do have, in the case that I was explaining before, a potential for three different agreements to have potential overlaps—they could all be at quite different parts of the process: one that was only just beginning; one that was halfway down, or close to being finalised; and one that, in fact, had been finalised. So how would the process then work in terms of identifying the potential overlaps? So those are my questions, but also around the difference in time frame.

Also, just before I finish, I wanted to go back to something I mentioned earlier, but I missed actually asking about it, and that is in terms of the exceptional circumstances. We talked about this earlier, Minister, around if there are exceptional circumstances, then the 20 working day time frame under clause 136 and clause 137 can be extended out. I understand that—the Minister made it clear as to what those exceptional circumstances might be—but then the question that I want to ask is: why is there no time frame given? Every other part of this bill has a time frame attached to it, whether it’s 10 working days, 20 working days, or five working days. This particular clause here has no time frame attached to the exceptional circumstances that might exist once there has been determined to be an overlap. I guess that that that decision could go on for an extraordinarily long amount of time, given that there’s no time frame in the bill—so if the Minister could explain why he hasn’t set a time frame in the bill for that.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to take a short call on this, to speak primarily to the tabled amendment in my name to make an amendment to clause 160A.

But first up, when we’ve been hearing a bit of discussion from some members—from the National Party, in particular—around the danger of unions, I want to take a quick second to celebrate the successes of the unions today. Winning against Uber and clarifying that Uber drivers are employees, which is a life-changing decision for people here as well as around the world. Power to the union, I say. And also for the Public Service Association’s win for social workers in the community towards pay equity. Evidence of the brilliance and benefit to our communities of collective organising, which is related to this bill.

Simeon Brown: I hear the 1970s calling.

JAN LOGIE: Cheer before your eyebrows go any higher. So back to the amendment to clause 160A. In the select committee process, we had a bit of discussion around application and effect of the fair pay agreement. And some of the discussion that was raised earlier around: how do you know which one—if there are two—to apply to?

The committee made some amendments to ensure that where at least 25 percent of an employee’s work is covered by a fair pay agreement (FPA), that employee is covered by that FPA. If two or more FPAs meet this 25 percent threshold, the FPA that covers the largest portion of the employee’s work should apply.

And the third point being assessments about which FPA applies to employees should be based on work done within a reasonable period of the date of the assessment, taking into account the employee’s particular circumstances.

We kind of went through a bit of interrogation on that in the committee, and I was alright with it. But on further reflection, I actually worry—and which is the point of the amendment that I’ve put up—that this may create a bonanza for our courts as we debate: actually, is it 25 percent of the job or not, and is it covering the largest portion of somebody’s job, as well as the point of the assessment being done within a reasonable period but then that assessment is made and then a few weeks later the employer makes some changes to the job.

And, actually, it could be quite easy for the employer to set this up to target their advantage, and that would require the employee to take the case to court to be able to ensure that they get the best possible outcome. So what my amendment is proposing is—and this has the support of the Council of Trade Unions and the collective voice of workers because they shared those and brought those concerns to me. So the proposal is: an employee meets the threshold to be covered in relation to a fair pay agreement if the employee performs work, or a type of work, that is within the coverage of the fair pay agreement, and if an employee performs work for the same employer that could be covered by more than one FPA, the employee may elect which FPA applies to their role.

So, in some ways, this is an echoing of what happens in Australia where their law is, basically, set up so that it’s what’s best for the employee and the best overall outcome. And the assessment of that overall outcome is from the perspective of the employee, so it really is giving them the power to make that assessment. It’ll keep it out of the courts, it’ll keep it simple, and it’ll ensure that the goal of this legislation—which is for us to raise the collective outcomes for working people in this country—is most easily achieved, I would argue.

And like, there are these examples of crossover, where supermarket staff may be stacking shelves and driving. And the assessment of 25 percent of their time could be quite difficult, particularly as that moves across time. An assessment may be done to benefit an employer at one point in time, and a few weeks later subtly, slowly the job changes and the cost to the employer is reduced.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be able to rise here, and what I would say to my colleague Jan Logie over the way, who was just speaking then, is that you’ve raised some good points—though I wouldn’t often say that—around the issues that are going to happen in the modern workforce where the fact is that people don’t do just one job.

My colleague next to me—Maureen Pugh—noted that she’s got some friends who are hoteliers, and they had three cleaning staff come down with COVID. Now, under this arrangement, they would be covered by what is likely to be a cleaning fair pay agreement. Well, they had a maintenance man up the top and they called him up and they said, “Look, would you be able to bring some linen down?”, and he would, obviously, as a mechanic or a maintenance person, be under something completely different. So I fear that, through this, we are being too blunt, and I don’t think we’re taking into consideration all the different aspects—especially in smaller businesses—that people may do. I addressed this a little bit earlier, and I’m not sure if I got the answer back on it.

I move to clause 138. When you’re looking at assessing which agreement with overlapping terms, when considered overall, “provides the better terms for the majority of the covered employees”, why is it that the authority is determining this? Why can you not give flexibility and choice to the people who are directly impacted—that being the employees—to determine which agreement they want to fall under? I think people deserve the respect of being able to choose which agreement they want to fall under. I cannot understand why the Government would move that decision back to the authority, Minister, and I would like you to answer why that decision was made.

Erica Stanford touched on this a little bit earlier, but it was more around the framework. I would like to know more about what checks and balances are in place, because I feel that people are being put into this pretty blindly. So what options for review are there and what options for appeal are there? Minister, if you are able to come back on that, I would appreciate it.

On clause 139(2)(a)(i), where it talks about “of the need to change” into an agreement, what if they protest? What if they kick back? That goes back to my checks and balances piece before, and what I also mentioned earlier was: why can’t we just let them choose? So those are my points on that.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. Running through a number of questions that have been asked by members both before and after the dinner break, we do have a number of questions relating to the overlap issue. I did explain to Mr Woodhouse previously that a number of the provisions around avoiding overlap as much as possible at an earlier stage had been dealt with in a previous part, so I will apologise to him. I think I might have referenced Part 3—actually, in Part 5 there are some of the operative parts. I do apologise. Clauses 104 and 105 provide some guidance there, but also at the initiation stage, there are also incentives through the consolidation process to avoid overlap as much as possible.

Mr Goldsmith asked about the ratification process and why there are different time frames for employees and employers. The reason there is more time allowed for unions is that there’s an additional opt-out process that is built in for employees at that stage. I think members of the committee will be aware that there is an opt-out stage at the beginning. After initiation, there’s another opt-out stage that occurs at this point, so a little bit more time is allowed there for unions to run that process.

Erica Stanford had a number of questions there. She asked, effectively, the same question about when an overlap is determined, which I’ve responded to in my response to Mr Woodhouse.

In respect of Jan Logie’s tabled amendment and the issues that she raised, I do hear what she is saying, but we have tried to strike a balance here to try and have a system that is as simple to administer as possible, and also that avoids absurdity. So, as I hear it, under the amendment that she is proposing, an employee could potentially choose a fair pay agreement (FPA) that was significantly beneficial to them even if that FPA only covered a very, very small component of the work that they did. We think that it is better and fairer and more balanced to have a relatively simple and objective test that focuses on the most work that the employee does as being the key criteria for which FPA they are covered by.

Mr Uffindell’s points, which he has made on a number of occasions, I think come back to a general debating point around the merits of having industry- or sector-based standards. There is just a disagreement between the Government and the Opposition in respect of that. He asked: why does the Employment Relations Act (ERA) have the role of determining these matters in respect of the better-off overall test? I think it’s important to note conceptually these are not employment agreements in the way that individual or collective employment agreements are employment agreements. Fair pay agreements are the establishment of a minimum standard, and so the function of the ERA here is to determine, for a group of employees overall, which is the better minimum standard to apply to them.

There was a fair bit in there, so I hope I haven’t missed anything there, but I think that probably responds to most of the points—there was one other point, sorry, that Erica Stanford raised and that related to the different time frames between clauses 137 and 153. This is because, in clause 137, the authority is undertaking two functions both for assessing compliance and for assessing the coverage overlaps. They have to do both of those things there; whereas, in clause 153, the compliance assessment has already been done. This is after the agreement is moving into the ratification phase. So it’s, effectively, a smaller task that the authority is undertaking at that stage.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the Minister—cognisant of the question coming before the maiden speech of our new member—coming back and clarifying that. It’s why I couldn’t find it in Part 3, I suppose. And that’s good. Now, the Minister says “belts and braces”; I’m not so sure. I think it certainly highlights the possibility that there would be coverage overlap, but I don’t know that that’s then going to prevent quite occasional instances where the chief executive then has to adjudicate on the impact of that and this dizzyingly complex process that then follows. And in the spirit of dizzyingly complex processes, I want to talk about ratification of the vote—clauses 143, 144, 145, and 146.

Now, I thought the overlap stuff was complex. The way in which one assesses the number of people who get to vote and the number of votes there are is absolutely ridiculous. If one looks at Schedule 2—now, I’m a big fan of universal franchise, and I know my colleague and friend Paul Goldsmith, who’s spoken a lot about this in his justice role, is a big fan of one person, one vote. Why on earth would there be 15 votes for 10 people or 17 votes for 12 people? That’s, essentially, what we’ve got for employers of small business in the ratification process. And my question is simply this: why did we make this so difficult? Why do we make it as if we need a degree—

Simeon Brown: Well, we’re not making it, Michael.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Touché, Mr Brown. I accept. I withdraw that comment.

Because one would need to have a very good scientific calculator and a degree in mathematics from the University of Otago to actually work out how many votes constitute the ratification, at least by employers, of this process. The employee ratification does appear to be somewhat more straightforward, but the ratification process for the number of votes for covered employers ranges from two votes for one employee; 13.2—so they’re not even integers; we now are into real numbers for the voting process—if one has eight employees; right up to 20.9 votes for 19 employees. It just completely underscores what a ridiculously complex process this ratification will be.

And while I’m on my feet, I wanted to just address the comment that Jan Logie made about this being a great day for unions. When this bill is passed, this will be a crushing admission of defeat by unions: despite the fact that people are free to engage with a union and bargain collectively and have done so forever in this country, they chose not to. Union membership in this country is despairingly low—not because the unions are not valuable. I certainly in my employment value the contribution of the collective employment agreement negotiations and the relationships that I had with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and what was then the Service and Food Workers Union and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. But very few private sector organisations have union membership, and this side would have you believe that it’s because of some kind of punitive employer and bad legislation. It’s not. It’s bad marketing by the unions of the value that they provide to employees. So instead of marketing their services and the value that they can add, they impose this ridiculous legislation—not even for collective bargaining at an individual level; it’s now a nationwide bargaining and arbitration system that takes us right back to the 1970s. So my main question—speech over, now—is: why on earth is the ratification process so incredibly complex? Why did we not just stick to one person, one vote?

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from that and just in regards to what Jan Logie did say earlier on as well, I regularly catch Ubers, and I ask every one of them, “What do you think about this stuff going on involving you guys?”, and they don’t want a bar of it. Everyone that I’ve spoken to doesn’t want a bar of it. “Stay out of my life.”, they say. But you know best—you know best.

I just want to look back at it, clause 139 Consequences of Authority’s determination. I just want the Minister to consider those employees who are actually really happy at the moment. Take the hospitality industry, which was mentioned earlier on. If we’ve got someone doing some bar work on the weekends, they do some cleaning during the week, and even when the manager of the place wants them to drive down to Mitre 10 and pick something up, they hop in their car and they do it, no problem at all, and they are really happy. Then we look at this clause 139 and it’s: “If a fair pay agreement (agreement A) and a proposed agreement (agreement B) have [a] coverage overlap … as a result, the Authority determines ….”, it is so complicated. Even the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment admitted that it was so complicated. I just, sort of, want an acknowledgment from the Minister that many—many—in fact, I would suggest most, employees actually don’t want this.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In amongst the previous two speeches, there are a couple of specific questions that I will respond to. First, from Mr Woodhouse, which relates to why there is a voting formula for smaller employees. To do this, it takes, I think, an Excel spreadsheet with a small formula in it rather than a degree in mathematics, to be quite honest. But the reason for this is that we think that it is important and we have received representations and, indeed, calls from the Opposition in the course of this debate for smaller employers to have a reasonable voice in this process, and one way that we can do that is to give a little bit more weighting to them in the ratification process. The Opposition can’t really have it both ways; they can’t criticise the Government for supposedly not having a reasonable role for small employees and then criticise us when we give them a slightly outsized vote in the process to ensure that their voice is heard.

In respect of Mr Baillie’s comments, again, the member significantly over-eggs the complexity here. It’s comparing one agreement with another and determining under which employees will be better-off.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to discuss clause 160A in a slightly different way than my colleague Jan Logie has talked about it. This came up in the Education and Workforce Committee, and I was one of the people sort of scratching my head early on around how this could possibly work when these days you have employees who can often fulfil many tasks in their role. So I think I remember at select committee taking the example of someone who works in the hospitality industry, maybe for a hotel chain. They may be on the bar, they might be doing laundry, they might be changing rooms, they might be on the front desk; they’ve got a variety of different roles, and their employer is able to be flexible depending on the season, how full they are, sickness, and move people around. So we had this quite lengthy discussion at select committee around how much of a role you would need to do in order to be covered by a fair pay agreement (FPA). The result is, in this bill, in clause 160A(1)(b), 25 percent or more of your role. So, in effect, a quarter of your role, if it’s covered by an FPA, will require you to be under that FPA.

Now, in a workplace where most employers value flexibility, I have similar concerns. This is where my questions intersect with Jan Logie’s, in that you are, essentially, driving employers to become less flexible, in a time when we need flexibility in order to work their way around this, if they choose to do so, by not having employees cover multiple roles; instead having certain employees do certain roles to have them covered and the others not. So I can totally understand Jan’s point where there might be a workaround there for employers.

My question, which is different than Jan’s—she’s talking about her tabled amendment. My question is: why the 25 percent? Why is it that the majority of someone’s role, if it’s covered by an FPA, so 50 percent or 51 percent of that role, then it’s covered by the FPA—25 percent or a quarter of what someone does to be then drawn into the FPA and eventually covered by it seems like a very, very low threshold, and I would like the Minister to answer as to where he came up with 25 percent and why it wasn’t the majority of a role.

The other question that I’ve got is around determining that 25 percent. So it’s a little bit of a sort of grey area in the bill under clause 160A(2)(b), where it talks about the percentage of the work that must be assessed based on the work that they’ve done in a reasonable period prior to the date of the assessment. Now, I guess I want to ask the Minister what a reasonable period is, because if you think about the example I was using earlier of an employee at a hospitality business, it’s extremely seasonal. So in the summer months, for example, in some areas when they’re very busy and very full in that particular hotel, then it’s more likely that those employees who have flexible working arrangements and do a number of tasks are more likely to be doing one task than others, whereas if you go back, say, eight months or 12 months, that could be completely different. So my question is: what is reasonable? Would the Minister consider that period to be an entire year, given the seasonal nature of the tourism sector, in that particular case, or are we just talking about the last three months? Because if it was the last three months, I could imagine that an employee would have very different work split between jobs; if you took it over a year, they may have been doing lots and lots of other jobs.

So two questions there: why are we taking 25 percent rather than the majority of the role, which would have seemed to be the sensible thing to do? And then around the reasonable period and what he expects that to be, and could that, in fact, go back an entire year, and on what basis would you be able to argue for a whole year? So if the Minister could address that, it would be useful.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. We’re looking here at—for people who are just tuning in for this debate—Part 7 of the 11 parts in the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, misnamed “fair pay agreements” because, it actually is around about mandatory union deals.

One of the mandatory elements about it is in Subpart 2 of Part 7, which deals with the ratification process. So what happens is the unions and the employers—going back a little bit, you know, it only takes a tiny fraction of the potential workforce to start this process. Once this process starts, the unions and the employers have to get together, bargain, and come up with a proposed agreement. Then, that proposed agreement needs to be taken to (a) the employees and (b) the employers to ratify.

Now, if it doesn’t pass that test, and if 50 percent of the employers, for example, don’t agree—and I can think of all sorts of reasons why they wouldn’t agree. In fact, I just got an email from Bernie in Te Awamutu, for example, who said, on fair pay, “At no time I’ve had anyone refer to the pay gap between tradespeople and unskilled workers. I do not think the living wage should be close to a trained person’s pay and living wage.” And the point he’s making, of course—and this might be one reason why an employee group wouldn’t support this is—is that it’s all very well for the Minister to say, “It’s all just about lifting the floor”, and we lift the floor so everybody earns a certain amount and the minimum wage is what the country has, which they’ve been lifting enormously—they’re going to lift the floor even more.

The problem is, if the business is trying to operate in an internationally competitive environment and you raise the floor, it means that the company has nothing extra to pay people, who have spent a lot of time developing and learning and practising particular skills, more. So the gap between people who have just rocked up—you know, 18-year-old kids who have just rocked up to work—and somebody who might have spent 15 years working on the skills specific to the industry is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller. That is causing all sorts of tension within the workforce, and it’s something that’s not acknowledged by this Government. It’s one of the reasons why many employers might not be keen on this idea.

So, anyway, we get to the point that you come along, you’ve got the agreement, and 50 percent of the people don’t vote for it. Then, what happens? Well, then we go through and the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has to go through that, and if he’s not pleased with the ratification that hasn’t been met, he goes and does it again. And so the whole process starts again and you have a revote—a bit like the Scottish nationalists; if you don’t like it, you have it again. But, then, if you still don’t get the 50 percent, then what happens? Well, what happens is that it just goes off to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and they decide what the agreement is. So the whole thing is a farce because the employers are asked whether they agree with it, they say, “No, we don’t agree with it. We don’t like it.” “But you’re going to get it anyway”, says the Minister, “I don’t care.”

At that point, the thing doesn’t die. There’s no freedom about this, it’s all mandatory in the sense that you go in, you’re forced into a process, you have the process, you develop a fair pay agreement in negotiation between the unions and employers, then the employers vote against it, they say, “We don’t want a bar of this. We don’t want a bar of it.” And then they go off to the chief executive of MBIE and he says, “Yes, they’ve voted that they don’t want a bar of it. That’s not good enough; do it again.” If they vote again and they don’t want a bar of it, then what happens? It doesn’t stop. It doesn’t go away. There’s no, sort of, point to the vote. What happens is that then it goes off to the ERA—a bunch of appointed judicial officers, as it were, in Auckland—and they decide what’s going to happen, and so the thing happens. So the point is: what is the point of this vote? Because it doesn’t really mean anything. Because you can vote against it and you still get it. No—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did you not know democracy’s changed?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No does not mean no. And, yes, perhaps it’s possible that this Minister, Michael Wood, has been talking too much to Willie Jackson, who thinks that democracy has changed and, you know, there’s this old-fashioned notion of people voting for things and having equal voting rights, and all that sort of stuff is not relevant.

Then we come to the question—Mr Chair, I’ve got two seconds to go—[Time expired]

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): To be honest, there was very, very little in that address that actually was related to this part—most of it was about the determination functions of the authority, which are not covered by this part. I assume that if the member is outraged by the idea that employment agreements can be reached without the true agreement of both parties, he’s also utterly outraged by the fact that under the individual employment agreement bargaining situation, for many workers it’s a “take it or leave it deal”, but I’ve never heard him be particularly concerned about that previously.

In respect of Erica Stanford’s question—she did at least ask a genuine question about this part. The question that she asked related to the “reasonable period”. It could vary depending on the particular circumstance, and she raised seasonality, for example. Ultimately, in this case, that would be for the employee and employer to determine between themselves. Ultimately, if that was not successful, they would have recourse to the labour inspectorate.

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

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister just got up and answered part of my question but ignored the rest of it, and that is around the 25 percent. I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask why it is that only 25 percent of the work means that someone falls within the coverage of the fair pay agreement.

Dr Duncan Webb: This was your last speech.

ERICA STANFORD: I asked this question and I’ll ask it again because it’s not been answered, Mr Duncan Webb. Why is it that it’s not 50 percent, or the majority, of the work that somebody does?

It’s caused such a problem that the Green Party have acknowledged that this is going to be a problem—that employers will try and shift around their work—so the Green Party have lodged a tabled amendment in Jan Logie’s name. It doesn’t have a number on it, so I’m not sure, but it was lodged at 12.24 p.m. The Green Party way of getting around it is just to have no threshold. If you just do any part of the job, then you get to pick which fair pay agreement (FPA) you come under. But it’s not something that we would support, because it means that if you just did it for an hour or a week, you could fall under that if you chose to, as I understand it.

But the question for the Minister—and the one that he hasn’t answered—is why is it only 25 percent? That’s a minority of the work that someone might actually do. Surely it makes more sense that most of what you do—over a reasonable time frame and I get that; that can be negotiated. But 25 percent is only one-quarter of someone’s full week and they will be pulled into an FPA and paid at a higher rate when the majority of the work that they do—75 percent, in fact—is not included in this FPA.

So I want the Minister to answer where he came up with only 25 percent, and would he consider an amendment to that—if I were to put a Supplementary Order Paper through—to change clause 160A(1)(b) to 50 percent, and then that would have to flow through into 160A(2)(a) as well. So if you did 50 percent of one job and 50 percent another job, then you got to choose. But if the Minister could explain to the committee why only 25 percent rather than the majority of the role that you do?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The 25 percent threshold is in response to submissions we received, actually, from both employees and employers who wanted some clarity built into the legislation to assess when a fair pay agreement (FPA) applied and when it did not apply to an employee’s work. And so that’s been recommend by the committee. The 25 percent figure is about striking a reasonable balance between—as I described it before—if it was just, for example, up to the employee or you had a very low threshold, you’d have situations where a tiny amount of a person’s work brought them within the ambit of an FPA. Equally, if you had a very high threshold, potentially, you would open it up more easily to gaming and people’s work duties being reduced in order to avoid coverage of the FPA. And we thought that, in the end, a 25 percent threshold—bearing in mind that is the minimum threshold—is a reasonable balance to strike, all things considered.

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

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to follow on, and I think the part it’s going to relate to is clause 144, and it follows on from what my colleague Erica Stanford was talking about, the 25 percent threshold. But also in relation to the contribution that Sam Uffindell made earlier on, around the scenario that he talked about with the hotel worker. So can the Minister clarify, if that worker is employed 25 percent of the time as maintenance, 25 percent of his time as housekeeping, 25 percent of his time in reception, and 25 percent as a chef in the kitchen, how then do they manage which fair pay agreement (FPA) he will come under? And is that a complication in terms of any voting that he might have, and where will he be able to cast his vote in terms of his entitlement for whatever FPA that he may be assigned? So how does he choose which FPA he will come under? Will there be several FPAs that he will have to align himself with? And how does that impact on his entitlement to vote when it comes to the holding of that ratification vote in his workplace?

So I can see that for some employers this may be a way that they will have to operate in order to ensure that there is flexibility within their workplace so that they can have employees doing jobs that are probably not their primary job, but that they can employ them on a part-time basis for several jobs so that they can actually be more flexible within the workplace. Is that something that the Minister has anticipated and has a solution for? Thank you.

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

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Jan Logie’s tabled amendment replacing clause 160A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Part 7 as amended be agreed to.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Part 8 Variation, renewal, and replacement of fair pay agreements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Part 8. This is the debate on clauses 164 to 195, “Variation, renewal, and replacement of fair pay agreements”. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We’re well into this debate and, in the earlier parts, the Minister would stand up and give a bit of an introduction to the part and talk about it—he seems to have lost enthusiasm and is wilting under the pressure. But at least he’s here; he’s not in Antarctica or Scott Base or anything like that, having time off when the House is sitting—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Christchurch Airport.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and there’s work to be done. Christchurch Airport; yeah, that’s true. But here we are on Part 8, which I suppose encapsulates the madness of this whole thing, because when the misnamed “fair pay agreements”, the “mandatory union deals”, were introduced, the Prime Minister stood up, was at great pains to say, “Oh, look, there’ll only be one or two of these—there’ll only be one or two of these.”, which was a very odd way to, sort of, defend and describe a piece of legislation. They’re bringing in this great triumph, but “We recognise that it’s probably not a good idea, but there will only be one or two of them.” That’s what she said.

But the reality is there’s going to be lots of them if they get a chance, once this goes through. Everybody’s lining up. So we’ve got the Unite Union or I think it is, or it might be E tū, that’s collecting signatures or votes, as we speak, trying to get to the minuscule threshold that earlier on we got to. Because anyway, once you’ve got an agreement in place, what happens? Well, then somebody wants to change it. You want to vary it or we want to renew it or we want to replace it.

So the poor little small business that’s just trying to make a buck—they’re dodging the ram-raids every second night, there are smash and grabs every other night, and then there’s all the other trouble and strife that they’ve got. They’ve just got over COVID; they can’t find any workers because the Government is competing for all the workers with their “make work” schemes like Jobs for Nature and so forth; and they’re struggling to make ends meet and keep the business going, and every week the Government passes some new regulation or legislation which makes them do other things—things that they don’t want to do, things that aren’t a focus of their business, the things that aren’t actually helping them get the products to the customers, which is how you make a living.

And this part, Part 8, goes through the long, tedious, convoluted process of how each of these fair pay agreements, once they’ve been brought in—the good news, however, is if we do get a chance to form the Government this time next year, there may well not ever be any such agreements, because we have committed to repeal this legislation forthwith. Given all the convoluted nature of all these things, notwithstanding the efforts of Unite or E tū or whichever it is, which is gathering the numbers and the signatures to try and start this ball rolling before the legislation is even passed—it seems very unlikely to me that a fair pay agreement will be concluded before the next election, and people will have to have a chance to have a say about it.

But, nevertheless, there is the slight possibility that it might. And then there is even less a slight—well, who knows what would happen? But the reality is that before long, we’d be into the process of having gone through the whole process of having a fair pay agreement—the undemocratic start where only a tiny minority can get into it; then the bargaining where they’re not talking about things like productivity or the issues that really matter; then the ratification process that doesn’t matter. Even if the majority of the employers don’t want it, they don’t ratify it, it still happens because it goes off to the Employment Relations Authority.

Once it’s all gone through and applies to everybody, whether they like it or not—you happen to be a 25 percent salesman. If you think of a member of Parliament, we’re 25 percent salesman, 25 percent researcher, 25 percent policy analyst, 25 percent social worker, I suppose—we’d be involved in all four of those fair pay agreements if they went through, and then you have to decide which one’s which. Am I more a social worker than a marketer, or am I more a researcher than a policy person? It’s hard to work out. I don’t know. And all the people, everybody will be scratching their heads around the country trying to work out what’s what, and where it all fits in. It’s all part of this bizarre kind of regimented 19th century view of the world that you are this and you are that, and never the twain shall meet, and it’s all opposed to the basic agility and flexibility that we have.

Anyway, getting through to the questions to the Minister as my time races off: why is it, Minister, that when it comes to applying to have one of these agreements, in clause 190, “Test for initiating bargaining to renew or replace fair pay agreement”, we still only require these tiny, small 10 percent, or 1,000 people? It should be 50 percent. And why has he not considered having a more democratic basis to decide whether or not you’re going to have one?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Happy to start this new part. And here we are—I’m talking about clause 172—back to giving out information. We’ve gone through this in earlier parts of the bill, but we’re back to it again where if there is a new employee, then the employer has to, unless the employee disagrees, hand over their information, their personal information, to the union or whoever is the person on the employee’s side of the bargaining table.

My question here is in terms of that information that’s held by the bargaining party on the employee side, especially when they are one of the unions. Now, my question is around the length of time that they are permitted to hold that information, because we are in the part that’s talking about the variations and potential renewal of fair pay agreements (FPAs). So is there a time frame that the union, or the bargaining party on the employee side, is allowed to hold on to that information for, if that person is not a member of that union especially? So if you’ve handed over your personal details because you are part of an FPA and you’ve agreed to that, what is the length of time? Because it’s not laid out anywhere here.

So because it’s personal information, I’m keen to know from the Minister how long he expects that that union would be able to hold on to that information for. Given that there may be variations or renewals of FPAs into the future, does that allow the union to hold on to that information for the purposes of contacting people who are part of the FPA for future variations and renewals, or do they have to get that information anew every single time? The reason that I’m asking that question, of course, is because people are entitled to know for how long someone holds on to their personal information and then also for what purposes they are to use that information for.

So I’ve already talked about the renewing of FPAs or variations of FPAs, but, in earlier sections, we’ve also talked about the potential of the unions to sell benefits to potential union members in that their fees might be offset—if they are part of a union then they might get their fees back in the FPA, which is a nice little sales pitch that the employer has to pay for. That’s in an earlier part, but it’s relevant here because here we are again requiring the employer to pass over details of a new employee under this Part 172. So here, in this part, I’m keen to hear from the Minister around how long that personal information will be held by the bargaining party, the lead bargaining party—potentially, probably, most likely a union—into the future. Are they allowed to hold on to it for a renewal? Are they allowed to hold on to it to get in touch for a variation, or, under renewal and variation, will they have to get those details again, anew, every single time?

Also, what are the restrictions of use—under 172—for this particular information? Is it only for the purposes of the FPA or is there a line in which it’s not able to be used, especially in the instances where a union is trying to say to potential new union members who aren’t yet signed up to that union—are they allowed to then use that? For example, in this case, under section 172, could they use that to say, “Hey, if you actually join the union”—and, you know—“you will be able to get your union fees back under the agreement that we will negotiate, because we’re going to negotiate those extra fees back for union members.” therefore enticing them into the union. Is the information allowed to be used in that manner under this particular clause, 172 in Part 8—the part that we’re on?

So three questions there: How long can they hold on to it for? Can they hold on to it for the renewal, for the variation? And are they allowed to use it in instances where they are trying to sell union membership?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): For the benefit of the member who’s just resumed her seat, Erica Stanford, clause 172 doesn’t actually specifically relate to employees providing their information to a union; 172 is about is about the information that the employer must provide to the employee when a variation has been initiated, and that specifically links back to clause 171(6). That is the information that the employer must provide.

But to respond in good faith to the member, whenever a union, under the legislation, collects information about the employee, firstly, the employee has the ability to opt out of that; secondly, once the information has been provided, it is for the particular purpose. So at the time of the initial negotiation of a fair pay agreement, it is for the purpose and the duration of that period, and the same will apply in respect of the variation.

Mr Goldsmith got a question in in the last 20 seconds of his five minutes—well done there. In respect of the 10 percent or 1,000 representation test for a variation, as we’ve canvassed at length, that was a proposal that goes back to the excellent work of the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. That was the representation test for the initiation of a fair pay agreement that establishes a level of support that is possible to reach, but none the less ensures that there is a level of support before an agreement has been initiated, and we believed it was appropriate to keep that level consistent for a variation.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Strident though Mr Goldsmith’s critique of Part 8 was, I don’t think he went far enough, because this is the most confusing and concerning part of the bill so far. I want to just touch on a scenario of parties to an agreement that is being varied. The coverage clause in the interpretation section talks about variations, including variations on the work or the type of work, and, if applicable, the industry. So, effectively, what we have here is once an agreement has been reached—I don’t know, let’s say with the trucking industry—and then some employee decides that it would be good to have the agreement varied to include courier companies that weren’t previously in it. Now, the employees and the unions are quite happy with that because they want a growth strategy, they want to increase the union base, and the employers probably don’t care so much. They’ve already gone through that and the costs of bargaining could be spread if there were more employers joining the agreement by amendment.

The problem is it doesn’t appear to me that Part 8 provides for that new part of the freight sector to be even consulted on whether they want to join it. The only people that need to agree to a variation to the agreement are the existing parties to the agreement, and that’s in clause 166(1). If they both agree, they can do it; if they don’t agree, they can discontinue it. And there is a possibility at clause 168(1) for a new bargaining party to join it, but there is no requirement for them if they are affected by the variation.

Now, I’d also point out clause 61—we are going slightly back, but this is all relevant to Part 8 variations. Clause 61 requires the chief executive to approve an eligible employer joining the bargaining party but it is not required to amend its inter-party side agreement. So not only is it not able automatically to join, it doesn’t appear able to stay out. And if there is an inter-party side agreement, it has no choice but to agree to it.

So we’ve now got this long tentacle of one fair pay agreement having been agreed in an industry or part of an industry drawing in other parties without any approval by them. And my question to the Minister is: what part of that scenario is wrong? Because it’s pretty clear that variations can include extending the coverage clause into other types of work, and potentially other industries. If that’s the case, we come back to the problem that I raised in Part 6, which is that fundamental principle of privity in contract law being breached once again, where contracts are binding on parties that aren’t a party to the agreement. They might get pulled into it, incredibly unwillingly, but they weren’t part of the initial negotiations. So my question, Minister, is: what part of that scenario is incorrect? Reassure the committee that that scenario could not happen, because of my reading of Part 8, that’s exactly what could happen. And not only could it happen, I believe that’s the intent.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Very happy to provide a quick response, which I hope puts the member’s mind at ease. Clause 169(3)(b) ensures that “(3) A variation of a fair pay agreement may relate to any term of the agreement, except for a term that specifies—(b) the coverage of the agreement;”. So that scenario could not occur.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I suppose I’ll start with a question rather than finish with a question here. Part 8 talks about the variation, the renewal, and the replacement of fair pay agreements. What’s the thing that’s missing as an option? The elimination or the termination of a fair pay agreement. There is no such thing. And that is the fundamental part of this bill, which we call “mandatory union deals”, because not only are the employers drawn into something which they don’t necessarily want to be drawn into—and the workers as well—freedom has gone out the window; you could be working away happily in your workforce and without your intention or will or desire, you’re suddenly drawn in to an agreement that you don’t necessarily want to get drawn into because a very small minority of a workforce decides that they want to be part of something.

Everybody’s drawn in and then it happens. Regardless of who votes for what—the employers vote against it—it still happens. Then once they’ve got the fair pay agreement, you would have thought this Government, in its wisdom, would say, “OK, well you’ve got a fair pay agreement, here are some options: you can overtime, you can vary it, you can renew it, you can replace it, but we’ll never ever let you terminate it.”

You will never be able to get out of this, ever, according to the way that they go about this. And that’s just the way they think. Once you’re in, it’s like, what is it—

Hon Member: Hotel California.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Hotel California. That’s right, you can never leave. You join the fair pay agreement unwillingly and there is no provision anywhere for anybody to ever get out. You can’t. Unless, presumably, if you quit your job—you might be let go, I don’t know whether they extend that beyond that. They certainly will hold on to your details and wait for you to come back.

So why, Minister, are there not sections in here outlining how the parties can get out of a fair pay agreement if they don’t think it’s doing the job that it does? Let’s think of what some examples of that could be. I was ruminating on this, actually, yesterday—on labour weekend. We’re driving past and I noticed that most of the cafes, for example, don’t open anymore on public holidays—just don’t open. They used to in days gone by; they don’t now. I presume that’s an outcome of the combination of the penal rates that have been around for a while and the very substantial increases in the minimum wage that has increased significantly to the point where it no longer makes sense to open up.

Now, if a fair pay agreement for hospitality comes through, and they ramp that up even further—and they bring in things such as unsociable hours or they want to have even a higher penal rates—it might come to the point that very few places are open on public holidays, and on weekends there might be fewer things open.

We’ve seen a real example of this in Sydney in recent times, in some places where you just get less choice—and that’s something that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in the regulatory impact statement raised as a potential risk of this legislation. So it may well be that a few years down the line, people will look and say, “Well actually, all these things that used to be open at all hours and people who used to enjoy hospitality at all hours aren’t anymore. And maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all.” But there is no way out, unless I’m missing something.

So the question I have for the Minister: is there a way out? Am I missing it? Is it in Part 10 or 11 that workers and employers can take stock after two years and say, “Actually, this was a bad idea. It was not a fair pay agreement but a flop. It’s made the industry worse, it’s made us less productive, it’s meant that we’re not able to meet the desires and hopes of our customers and consumers—it’s not working.” What happens then?

Now, they could sort of vary it, I suppose. That’s very gracious of the Minister; he’s allowed a variation, but I don’t know what that will do. They could renew it or they could join up with another one, or they could replace it with another one, but they can’t ever have the opportunity to get rid of it.

So I say to the Minister, why not? Why not? What good reason has he got to offer to the people of New Zealand on this particular topic? Thank you, Mr Chair.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to reiterate my support for comments from my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith then. I was looking at clause 169 where a bargaining party must not request agreement to bargain for a variation of a fair pay agreement before the fair pay agreement is commenced. I’m not sure that that’s the right approach. I think we should be allowing people to suggest changes, ideally, before it’s implemented, right? I mean, that is a lot easier for everyone if you know where you are before the agreement is established. I mean, you could look at what your Government is currently doing around the agricultural space, with when and how. There will be a bit of push and shove—we had DairyNZ in tonight, and we’re talking about where you guys have moved to and where they’re likely to push back to. Just throughout all agreements, there is typically push back and forward. So, Minister, I’d ask you to reconsider that bit there. I think it’s probably in everyone’s interests, especially the workers, to make sure that there is clarity around what they can do and what is in the agreement so that the variations can be put in before it is implemented.

I also wanted to raise a question around what this means for existing employment agreements. I think I know what it means, because, effectively, what the fair pay agreement—

Marja Lubeck: Why are you asking the question, then?

SAM UFFINDELL: —is going to do is going to come over the top of it. My question is around—and you will hear it; you just need to hear me out, because there needs to be some context. Because what happens, if you have agreements in place, people enter into these of their own volition, of their own free will, and they think they’ve got some stability, and business owners think that they have got fixed costs and conditions that they have to meet going forward, and employees who enter into it, they have the pay and the conditions that they thought they were going to obtain as a result of going into it. You’ve, effectively, then, got a fair pay agreement put across New Zealand, put across the sector or an industry or whatever it may be, capturing people that we have continually reiterated will be captured, whether or not they want to, because 1,000 people, or 10 percent, have been wanting to say, “This is what we want to do.” You are, effectively, creating almost some sort of sovereign risk in the employment market where people are having employment contracts that they’ve entered into retrospectively removed and replaced by a sector-wide agreement. I think that creates a real risk, and I think, Minister, what you need to consider is the real risk that businesses here in New Zealand, employers, will move offshore where they can get a lot more certainty around this.

So, Minister, I want to know what engagement you have done with employers around this—Business New Zealand; I know they were quite critical of this. I wonder what feedback they gave you around the retrospective ability of employment agreements, as they exist today, to be replaced by a fair pay agreement. Thank you, Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Sam Uffindell’s, the member who’s resumed his seat’s, comments were almost exclusively, in principle, points of objection to the fair pay agreements system and, indeed, any kind of minimum standards that might be implemented through any means. They don’t particularly relate to this part. The one specific point that he raised was in relation to clause 169 where bizarrely he has suggested that after the parties have agreed an agreement and ratified it but before it’s started—maybe in the period of one or two months before it has commenced—they should be able to engage in a variation process. Well, given that his side of the House has complained about there being too much complexity, his suggestion to change that would simply introduce more and doesn’t have any merit at all. Mr Goldsmith mainly spent his contribution talking about something that, by his own definition, is not in this part—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, it should be.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, there we go. He’s just answered it. What he spoke about is not in this part.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. The point I was making to the Minister, who seems very pleased with himself not to have to answer it, is just because something is not in a part doesn’t mean that the point can’t be made that it should be in the part. And the part which deals with what to do with a fair pay agreement (FPA) that isn’t up to scratch in some way or does need to be changed in some way—a part that deals with that doesn’t have the option of actually eliminating it or repealing it in any way, shape, or form. The Minister can sort of hide behind some technicality to not answer it, but I don’t think he serves himself well. He doesn’t serve himself well or this Parliament by not doing so.

And then it struck me as highly amusing that he would attack our newest MP, Mr Uffindell, for suggesting that it would be a terrible thing or a ridiculous notion to try and vary an agreement before it had come into place. This was the very same Minister who introduced this bill into the House and on the very same day brought in a variation to the bill that he brought in. Before the bill had been passed he was changing it, which goes to show he didn’t—

Simeon Brown: A pothole in the process.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, he’s ignoring the pothole in his own eye rather than dealing with the issues that he faces.

Marja Lubeck: Taking cheap shots now—talk about the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you for the encouragement on the other side of the Chamber. This has been a long debate; there’s no question about that. And the reason why it is a long debate is because it’s a very long, complicated piece of legislation that is going to fundamentally complicate our working environments. And so what we’re left trying to work out is how this works. And the question that I raised, and I have an amendment which amends clause 190, which I have referred to in passing but I want to go into a little bit more detail now, which again raises this issue of why there is such a weak and low threshold for these changes—I suppose I’m answering my own question as to why the Minister did not include the ability to repeal a fair pay agreement under this part, because the hurdle to starting that process of repeal is so ridiculously low; you only need a thousand workers. And so if there are 200,000 workers in an industry, you only need a thousand of them to start a process to vary or renew or replace the agreement. That’s all you need. You just need a handful to get together and then you can change it all and uproot everybody’s lives and take them through a long, expensive, detailed, distracting process when people are trying to compete in their businesses against the rest of the world and do well, and instead they’re mucking around with these complicated processes. So a low threshold is fine for doing that.

But you would never see the Minister coming in and saying, “Well, only a thousand of you and then you can start the process to repeal it.”, because there is no process to repeal it and that is a fundamental flaw in this legislation. Once you’re in, you’re in; you can’t get out. And once you’re in, you’ll never get a chance to vote on whether you’re in, because it just happened regardless. Once you’re in, you’re in and you can’t get out. That, to me, is a disgrace and is one of the many reasons why this bill needs to be repealed.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ve already responded on numerous occasions to the questions and points that have been raised around the representation test of a thousand employees—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Not effectively.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and 10 percent. I did so about five minutes ago. The member is wrong when he indicates that there can never be an end to an FPA. FPAs, as described in this part, have a span of three to five years. If the party that initiated the FPA does not reinitiate it and if there’s not a renewal, then the FPA will cease to exist.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Chris Baillie’s amendments to Part 8, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 266 and 270, are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendments to clause 190 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 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 8 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 8 as amended agreed to.

Part 9 Penalties and enforcement

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 196 to 203, “Penalties and enforcement”. The question is that Part 9 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We come to the punitive side of the legislation, which is very much in keeping with many of the things going on. The keen observers of this debate will have noticed that Labour, I think, started off at the start of this committee stage—but it might have been the second reading—with 65 votes in favour. They are now down to 64, following the exit of one Dr Sharma, who I don’t feel would think he had a fair pay process—

Hon Member: Irrelevant.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: You’re quite right; it is irrelevant and so I won’t go any further.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m just not sure whether you’re commenting on a member who is out of the House or not, but we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: OK. Now, the point I’d make around the penalties is what happens here is so we’ve got this mandatory union deal in place—or a fair pay agreement, as the Government would call it. Now, they bring in penalties, and the penalties for an individual are $20,000 and, in the case of any other person, $40,000. So what can lead to these penalties? And then if you look at that in clause 201: “Any action … at the suit of one of the following parties”: any employee, any employer, and any bargaining party. And that starts the process that leads to these penalties and a big sort of process.

And I suppose it doesn’t take much imagination to see that this creates an open book for individuals and groups of workers to initiate proceedings against their employer and create merry hell. You might say, “Well, that would never happen.” Well, it very well might happen on many occasions. Just think about it. So what would be a breach against the fair pay agreements? Well, it’s who’s included. It’s a 25 percent threshold. So one day, you’ve got workers merrily working away in your small business, your people have said—I’ve referred to Hokianga too many times, but you’ve got a Four Square up in Whangaroa or something like that, you’ve got three or four employees happily working away, and one of them has been sort of working apparently 20 percent of their time on an issue covered by an occupation—it may be cleaning; it might be 20 percent of their time cleaning—and he’s only doing eight hours a week or whatever, so that’s not very much. It might be two hours, or one day he does two and a half hours. Woompha! He’s over the 25 percent; he’s done two hours and 40 minutes. He’s over 25 percent and, lo and behold, he’s breached the agreement, and the employer is dragged before this process. It’s another process.

The only point I’d make is that the small-business operators who are, you know, juggling ram raids and smash-and-grabs and trouble and strife wherever they look and are worried about how they’re going to pay their interest rates, are worried about their prices going up, and are worried about the fact they can’t find any workers because there’s no immigration. They’re worried about all these things, and, now, thanks to this Government, they’ve got another thing to worry about: that they might get their ratios wrong and that they might have somebody who they think is 20 percent there who turns out to be 26 percent there and—woompha!—they’ve broken the agreement and they’re in trouble. All it takes is somebody who is of a mind to cause trouble to cause trouble, and they’ll be going through this long, drawn-out process.

And so the question I have to the Minister is: can he really assure the House that this is tightly focused enough? Is there any sort of threshold in terms of the severity of anything that can start a procedure? Is there a threshold or any case of a breach of the fair pay agreement? That’s all that’s required; it could be a technical breach, but there’s a lot of things that could be not quite got right because we don’t live in a perfect world. It’s fine if you’ve got 10,000 employees and a huge team in your human resources department, but if you’re a small business, you haven’t got that. It’s easy to make mistakes in this area. So it just joins the long list of things that business owners have to worry about. And I’m sure they won’t be grateful for this new addition.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Right, the penalties part. In a similar vein to my colleague Paul Goldsmith, it’s interesting to go back and look at some of the clauses that will fall into these penalty clauses, and one of those is clause 16 right back at the beginning, the “Undue influence” clause, which could see a penalty of up to $20,000.

So, in this instance, I want to talk to the Minister about the ability for a bargaining party lead on the employee’s side, in the case of most likely, it would usually be a union, to be fined under this fining section when it comes to undue influence. Under clause 16(1)(a), undue influence is said to be, for the purposes of bargaining, “to become or remain a member of a union, [or] a particular union”, right? So that then relates back to the fining regime. Yet there is the possibility in this legislation, earlier on in this bill, for a union to be able to bargain for their union fees to be covered. Does that mean, in this particular instance, that if a union, prior to going into bargaining or during bargaining, were to ask or tell potential members that, “Hey, if you join up, we’re going to negotiate your fees back so it’s basically free to join the union for the purposes of this bargaining.”, would that then fall under this penalty regime, and could, then, the union, in that case, be liable for a penalty not exceeding $20,000 or $40,000? So particularly around the unions and their ability to try and gain membership by using that particular clause, would they fall under this penalty regime?

The other question I’ve got around the penalty regime is: is it possible for an employer who restructures their affairs prior to or during bargaining to avoid having their staff covered under the fair pay agreement (FPA)? I take the example of the Four Square in Whangaroa where you’ve got four workers, each of them share four different tasks, rather than paying them all under—let’s say one of the things that they do, 25 percent each, is cleaning, there is a cleaning FPA going on, if the employer was to restructure so that only one of them did cleaning full time and the rest of them didn’t, so to have to avoid paying all of them under the new FPA, is it possible under these penalty clauses for the business to be fined or attract a penalty for restructuring their affairs during or before or even after an FPA, if their workforce was flexible and they then made it less flexible?

So I’m keen to get answers on those—that last part around the employer restricting their affairs. But also in the case of a union who’s offering membership and using the fact that there will be the ability to have the person’s fees covered in the agreement as part of the coaxing into the union—would that, then, fall under these fees as well. So just those two parts.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think we’re into about the ninth hour of this committee stage, and all of it is happily emblazoned on my memory. So I do recall that on Thursday afternoon at some point, I did explain very clearly that a union advocating to employees about what improvements they might be able to make to terms and conditions, including the negotiation of the union recognition payment, would not constitute undue influence.

Secondly, in respect of an employer who engaged in restructuring, employers are not prevented from engaging in restructuring under the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. They would, of course, under the Employment Relations Act be required to engage in that process in good faith, and provided they did that for genuine business reasons and in good faith, there is no reason to expect that they would be liable for any penalties under this section.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from both of my colleagues on the matter of the penalties—and, look, I do note, in clause 200, that the authority would give regard to the matters that are listed there, the nature and the extent of the breach. But throughout the whole process of the submissions, employers expressed their concerns with how heavily weighted against employers this legislation is. I suspect most employers have not had terribly happy dealings with the Employment Relations Authority over a number of years and so I’m just not sure that this will be giving employers a great deal of comfort in terms of thinking that if they found themselves unwittingly in breach of the legislation, the authority might take matters into account particularly favourably for the employers.

I think about a number of bits of legislation that this Government has brought in in the last wee while and how much is putting the emphasis back on the employer to know the details of the legislation. I think it was last week we were talking about immigration and how it was an expectation that the employers would intimately know changes that occurred in the Immigration Act so that they weren’t in breach of the Immigration Act. But I just feel, Minister, that this is not recognising the situation that businesses and employers are in at the moment, in terms of incredibly short of skilled employees so many employers are working 16-plus hours a day in their business.

In fact, I spoke to a hospitality business over the weekend. They had taken note of the discussion that had been going on around the immigration legislation and they were just despairing that they were expected to have that level of detailed knowledge, as well as running their own business, coping with skills shortages, coping with paying higher interest rates and all the inflationary pressures on their business. So now, again, this legislation has very high expectations on the employer in terms of the level of detail that they have to know; about how many days they’ve got to let employees know about things and how many days they’ve got to be consulting. So there’s constantly information in here that would be putting pressure on an employer to be spending time, and as my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith said, that’s fine if you’ve got a big HR department; it’s not fine if the HR department is you spending a couple of hours each week trying to keep up with all the legislation, the health and safety, the immigration, the fair pay agreements.

This is putting another burden on employers to be able to have time to keep up with this, as well as running their business—which is what we want them to be doing—but, also, them having faith in the authority taking into account whether they were unwittingly or knowingly breaching the obligations. And I was interested to see, too—and it’s an area that we canvassed earlier about the privacy issues around the information that the unions will hold on employees—that there doesn’t seem to be any reference to penalties on the unions perhaps breaching obligations that they have, of using the information and what might happen if they use it in an inappropriate manner, or whether they are lax with their security on the information. So I think that’s a whole area, Minister, that seems to be missing, but perhaps it is implicit here, and perhaps you can clarify that for us. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I accept from the member’s comments that she does not support the legislation as a whole and believes that it imposes a regime that she does not think is necessary. But to the extent that the legislation is passed by the House, it is not unreasonable that there are penalties for all parties if those parties are in breach of the law, and that is what this part deals with. I do note that while the focus of the member’s comments were on the effect of penalties on employers who might be in breach of the legislation, in nearly all respects, across the bill, penalties apply equally to all parties who might be in breach of the legislation, including unions and including employees. Specifically in respect of the member’s last question, I can’t recall which part it is in precisely, but I can assure the member that there is indeed a penalty in the legislation if a union improperly uses employee information.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I suppose at the last reply, the Minister did make the point that where I was worried—or, you know, there didn’t appear to be much of a threshold before any employee could lodge a claim under a breach of the fair pay agreement. He points to clause 200, which does the things that the authority must take into account in determining the amount of penalty, and paragraph (c) was “whether the breach was intentional, inadvertent, or negligent …”. Now, I think most people in this House would have some sympathy with some sort of penalty for a breach that was intentional, you know, that an employer went out and intentionally tried to diddle the system and get around and pay less. So, yip, we can understand that. Negligent, if you’re just—well I don’t know what is—well, it comes to the point that the previous National Party speaker, Penny Simmonds, was saying. The Government seems to think that business owners have nothing else to do all day but to sit around studying the latest effusions and emanations from this Parliament as to a hundreds and hundreds of pages of stuff that they’re supposed to keep on top of.

I was driving on the weekend, and once you get out of town, you actually have to pay a hang of a lot of attention because the speed limit keeps changing all the time. It goes from 50 to 60 to 30 to 70 to 80, and then, next minute, it’s 100, and then it’s back down. That’s no excuse if you happen to be going along thinking that you’re in a 100-kilometre zone and it turns out you’re in a 70-kilometre zone. The police officer doesn’t say, “Oh well, yes, you didn’t understand, poor chap.” No. They give you a ticket. That’s the sort of thing—it’s the same notion that we’re dealing with here, not having, sort of, spent the last three weeks studying the legislation, the poor business owner has made a mistake, and it may well, indeed, be inadvertent. But this legislation doesn’t say, “Oh, if it isn’t an inadvertent mistake, there will be no penalty.”; it just says that—well, it implies—it may be slightly less of a penalty if it’s inadvertent than if it was intentional.

If it was negligent, well, tough luck. You’re going to have to pay up because you’re expected to know everything about everything. When it comes to immigration law, when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of all the employment law, when it comes to whether or not you’re fixing up with the Commerce Act, and then not to mention the IRD and whether you’ve done all that right. So there’s so many things to worry about. It is a small wonder that the backbone of our economy, the small entrepreneurs, are starting businesses, taking the risk, having a go, that part of the economy is spluttering at the moment. One of the reasons is because it is so risky and so difficult. I’ll make this point once more, and I won’t make it again I promise, but this legislation is just another example of every week this Parliament passing more legislation—under Labour, with the support of the Greens—to make life more difficult.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! We are considering Part 9, which, on my reading of clauses 196 to 203, is very specific to penalties. I am looking for targeted debate. If members care to stray in to general comments, more in the nature of a third reading speech, then it’s up to them, but I am looking for targeted debate.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I appreciate your admonition, Madam Speaker. The only point is that we’re dealing with the penalties, we’re dealing with the punitive side of the bill and the punitive side of this Government when it comes to businesses that don’t get it perfect when it comes to all the regulations that are passed. That’s the only point I’m making—it’s punitive.

Yes, of course, the Minister will say “Well, if you’re going to pass a bill you need to have penalties to ensure people do that.”, and it’s quite right. But the piece of logic that he’s missing is perhaps you don’t need to pass the bill in the first place in order to pass the penalties. It is the addition of regulation requirements, fish hooks, and potential areas for mistake that inevitably require the penalties; otherwise there’s no point. So, yes, you’ve got to have the penalties—but do we need to have the whole rigmarole that leads to the penalties in the first place? And that’s where I would’ve thought a very good guiding principle for any Government should be regulatory restraint.

The first question that any good Minister should ask when a proposal is put in front of him or her by enthusiastic party members, by officials, by people coming up with bright ideas, is: is this really necessary? Is it really going to make it easier for people to make a living?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In as far as the member’s comments relate to the penalties covered in this part of the bill, again I draw the member’s attention to clause 200, which provides clear guidance to the authority to adopt a reasonable approach to any party, be it an employer, a union, an individual employee, who does end up in that situation, the authority is guided to consider whether the breach was intentional, inadvertent, or negligent, and a range of other factors. Bearing in mind this process will usually unfold after lower-level dispute resolution processes have already played out, which is usually where things actually get resolved before they get to the authority.

Furthermore, I note that the wording in clause 200 is almost a direct lift from the wording in clause 133A of the Employment Relations Act, which has been in place for the best part of 20 years, and, I think, has, generally speaking, provided pretty good guidance to the Employment Relations Authority to act in a proportionate way in these matters.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not quite yet. I will say to the House, while it’s not the longest part, it is a substantial part of the bill, but thank you. I am looking for targeted interventions.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like clarification on what the Minister talked about before with regards to the union getting membership through maybe offering to pay union fees or something along those lines or sending them letters. Can you confirm if that’s OK for the union but if an employer, say, might have a philosophical reason for not wanting unions involved, said to an employee, “No need for you to join the union, we’ll all be good. That’s all OK and don’t bother.” Can you confirm one is OK—the union it’s OK for them—but it’s not OK for the employer? I just want to seek clarification if that’s the intent.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I can confirm that the provisions relating to undue influence were covered off in the debate in Part 3. We had a good debate on that. And as far as if any party breaches those, then there potentially is application in Part 9 for a penalty.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could talk to us a little bit more about the penalties and whether they are cumulative or whether, if there is a fair pay agreement being negotiated and the employer misses several obligations in that, that is counted as one, or whether that will be cumulative, as in non-compliance or breaching, or whether it’s going to be each time there is a fair pay agreement being negotiated—whether you can be penalised more than once during that time?

I’m thinking of some poor employer who’s having a particularly difficult time with their small business: they’ve lost a number of staff, they’ve had some personal issues with death in the family, and they might have missed the whole process, or they might have missed part of the process—just how would the penalty system work? Do you get one breach because you’ve missed everything, or are you going to get some sort of cumulative $20,000 for missing this deadline and $20,000 for missing not letting your employees know about something—just how would it work? It doesn’t seem to have that level of detail here.

You can imagine, in a small-business situation, where there could be quite a lot going wrong for that business at one time—they might have lost a big contract; as I said, they might have had a family bereavement; they might have lost some particularly critical staff—all of a sudden, they realise they’ve missed a whole lot of obligations and they don’t know where they’re going to be with this: whether they are going to be hit with a whole series of breaches or whether there is some way in which they can put their hands up and say, “I’ve got this wrong. Things were going badly for me in my business at this time.” I think it does make a big difference, in terms of how willing people are to put their hands up and admit where they’ve got something wrong—if they think there’s going to be a reasonableness around how they’re going to be treated—but not if they feel that there won’t be any ability, I guess, to negotiate the situation they were in and ask for some way forward in terms of trying to catch up with meeting their obligations without being hit with penalty after penalty after penalty.

Then, in terms of the recovery of the penalties, I was trying to look and find where there might be some ability for someone who’s founded a business who has found themselves in that situation where this could be the brink for them if they find they’ve got a penalty of $20,000, or maybe more than one of $20,000—just is there some ability for employers to be negotiating how the recovery of these penalties might occur? I can’t see anything in here that gives an indication that there will be any leniency. There’s a little bit about penalty by instalments, but that’s only if the financial position of the person paying the penalty requires it, which actually then means the employer has to divulge quite a lot of commercially sensitive information about their financial situation.

So I am just interested to know how this might be handled, in terms of whether the penalties can be cumulative; whether it’s one set of penalties only per negotiations that occur; and what level of flexibility around the recovery of those penalties there might be. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In the employment relations system, disputes about the breaches of parties are generally dealt with at the lowest level possible. Usually this occurs through direct engagement between the parties in the first instance. That might occur at the bargaining table. It might also occur with the assistance of mediation. It is generally only after there have been significant other efforts to resolve those issues at a lower level that they might advance to the authority, where these penalties take effect.

In response to the member’s specific question about whether there could be multiple penalties, the answer, in theory, is yes. Any enforcement action will be considered on the basis of the facts that come before the authority. So, if a person breaches an obligation at a certain point in the process, it is possible that a further breach could occur later, and they will need to be accountable for that. I know that clause 201(2) in particular enables a claim for two or more penalties against the same person to be joined in the same action. And again I note this applies to anyone who is engaged in the process, not just employers.

I also note two things in respect to the reasonableness. I’ve spoken at some length on a couple of occasions about the fact that clause 200 specifically provides the guidance about the authority acting in a reasonable and proportionate way. That is exactly how the authority sets penalties under the existing Employment Relations Act, which has been in place for over 20 years. So it’s, effectively, the same framework that will apply here. I also note that the financial penalties listed in the bill are maximums; they are not set penalties for particular offences, and that’s where the proportionality that is allowed under clause 200 comes into effect.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I almost lost my bit there—anyway, that was lucky. So, on clause 196, I was reading through this and it says “Penalty for non-compliance with obligation when bargaining”, and I thought to myself, hold on a minute, are you actually subjected to potential penalties when bargaining—so when you’re not actually a party to the agreement? If you are, that raises concerns—so that’s just a direct question there, Minister. Under clause 196, it looks as if you are open to be penalised—is that the case?—during the bargaining process, when you’re not yet a party to it and you’ve been forced into it.

I was also quite curious around the penalties for clauses 196 and 197, because for clause 196, when you’re not actually a party to it, the penalties are higher there than they are when the fair pay agreement is in force. Is that an effort just to push people into it, and why is there that inconsistency? I would have thought that the penalties under the so-called fair pay agreement would occur when it’s actually in force. I thought that they would be higher than when it’s not in force. So those are my two specific questions in relation to that.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is correct that obligations apply to parties right throughout the process from the point of initiation, and it’s a basic and not novel principle in law that when obligations apply to parties and those parties do not meet those obligations to the detriment of others, there can be penalties in place to encourage compliance. So, yes, the member is correct in observing that enforcement and penalties can and do apply during bargaining.

Then, in respect of his question about the fact that the penalties are, in fact, slightly higher during the bargaining period, that is correct. That is because the impact of any party breaching their obligations—perhaps their good-faith obligations—during the bargaining period actually might have a more serious and profound impact because it potentially disrupts the bargaining process, which affects wide range of parties, versus a breach of an obligation once an agreement is in place, which is probably actually likely to affect a smaller number of parties in those particular circumstances.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Sometimes when you’re sitting down the back, you wonder whether—well, you take these opportunities when they come, and I’m looking forward to asking three questions in particular about this bill. It’s been hard to get a word in from this side. We’ve got a lot of contribution.

But it’s interesting, in clause 201 that the Minister referred to previously when he was referring to the enforcement action—the question I have for the Minister in regards to that is: what, if any, assessments of cost have been undertaken in regards to the enforcement action that will flow as a result of clause 201? I had a quick skim of the departmental disclosure statement and also a quick skim of the regulatory impact statement—particularly the regulatory impact statement, I think, is probably the most relevant. I didn’t see anything there in regards to the costs in regards to enforcement, which—maybe I missed it, but I’m pretty reasonable at reviewing; I didn’t see it. So just a question there in regards to what the quantum of it could be.

The second point that I raise is in regards to clause 197(2), and this is in regards to the differentiation between the penalty for the individual and the penalty for the other person. The question that I have for the Minister is in regards to the process that’s been undertaken in regards to the setting of those two different penalty levels. I’m assuming the “other person” categorisation refers to businesses, which makes sense. I know that there is some potential precedent in regards to that in other aspects of employment legislation, but I’m just seeking clarity in regards to the basis on which “other person” was set at $20,000 versus “individual” at $10,000, and what consideration around ensuring that that was appropriate and consistent was undertaken.

And the last question, if I may, relates to more of a macro question around Part 9, “Penalties and enforcement”, and, in particular, what engagement, if any, has been undertaken with the Ministry of Justice in regards to these provisions. I’m just looking for a little bit more detail in regards to the dialogue that has occurred—which I assume has occurred—in regards to assuring the appropriateness of these clauses, and, in particular, any issues that were raised through that dialogue with the Ministry of Justice in terms of actions that potentially resulted in any changes or highlighted areas of risk that came as a result of that engagement process. So those are the three questions I’ve got, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the member’s first question about there being an assessment of the overall system-level impact of enforcement and penalties, it’s very difficult to assess what the nature of non-compliance might be at a system level, but I would expect its overall impact will, in fact, be very low. If we look, broadly speaking, at the level of non-compliance that makes its way through to enforcement and penalties being issued across the entire Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) regime, it’s actually very low year to year, so I do not expect there would be any significant impact, but it’s very difficult to tell exactly what it would be.

In respect of clause 197(2), which identifies the difference in a penalty between an individual and any other person, “any other person”, yes, would include businesses, but also unions and any other corporate organisation, including employer associations that are within the ambit of the legislation. The $10,000 and $20,000 figures for those groups, respectively, are just taken straight from the Employment Relations Act. As we have in many parts of the legislative design, we’ve tried to keep as much consistency with the broader employment relations system. Those penalty figures, as far as I can recall, have been in place since the early days of the ERA, back in the early 2000s.

In terms of engagement with the Ministry of Justice in respect of Part 9, “Enforcement and penalties”, the Ministry of Justice, of course, is involved in the overall New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance vet with the legislation. They do always look at these matters, including the appropriateness and proportionality of penalties, and I do not believe that they had any particular comment to offer in respect to the penalties in this legislation.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 9 be agreed to.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 9 agreed to.

Part 10 Institutions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come now to Part 10, the debate on clauses 204 to 228, “Institutions”, and also Schedule 3, “Application of provisions in Employment Relations Act 2000 relating to Employment Relations Authority”. The question is that Part 10 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We now come to a particularly iniquitous part of the legislation, clause 218, where we find that the authority may fix terms of the proposed agreement—in fact, they must. So this lays out the legislation where—let’s just run through the logic of it. People are minding their own business, working away either as an employee or owning a small business—an employer minding their own business—and happy with their work, happy with the agility and flexibility that it brings, and lo and behold, a small, tiny group can start a process for this misnamed fair pay agreement process which, once it starts, it never stops. The two sides are forced to engage. If the employers and the employees come up with an agreement, and then the employers, for example, don’t vote for it, they don’t support it, or they decide that they’re not going to engage, they don’t want to engage, what happens?

Well, what happens is, under clause 218, it goes to the authority—the Employment Relations Authority—who are, no doubt, good-spirited Kiwi people doing their best but I don’t think possess unique wisdom and the ability to make correct decisions at every moment. This authority will fix the terms of the proposed agreement. So what we’ve got is an extraordinary circumstance where they will have the power not currently available to courts to fix the terms of large numbers of employees, without input from employers. So what happens is they just decide what it’s going to be, and, if you don’t like it, tough luck, that’s how it’s going to be. And they’re given enormous powers—Eastern European - sized powers—to decide what is going to be in the agreements. And so that’s why we call this bill the “Mandatory Union Deals Bill”, because it is mandatory, you don’t get a choice; it happens.

I mean, just think about the practicalities of this. I mean, retail, for example, there’s an organisation called Retail New Zealand. They’re not employment negotiators. Their role up until now has been to sort of give input into legislation that’s going on. They sort of lobby on behalf of the organisation, they help inform them of what’s going on, they give advice from time to time, but now they might want to set up a whole new agency to negotiate fair pay agreements. They might decide it’s not worth it. And they might only represent half the retailers or some of the retailers, and there are thousands of little retailers out there. I don’t know how far it goes—whether it includes the poor kids who are sort of running a lemon squeeze stall on the street; they’re retailers, but I presume they’re not incorporated. I don’t know about all the dozens and tens of dozens of little caravan people at the farmer’s markets on the weekends—I don’t know whether they’re included, but there are lots of them and they’re selling their little sort of mandarins and things on a Sunday—whether they’re included.

But certainly anybody that has a store—whether it’s Michael Hill, if they’re not getting ram-raided or smashed-and-grabbed—they’re retailers. So all of these disparate groups of people minding their own business, doing their own thing, suddenly have to decide to join forces into an employer’s side of a debate. And they might decide, quite rightly, that they don’t want to; they’ve got better things to do with their life and they’re not going to and they’re not going to be bullied by this Government to do it. But then, the Government comes along and says, “Well, tough luck. We’re going to have the authority set the terms and conditions: what you’re going to pay, how much you’re going to pay.” And the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will turn around and say, “Oh, well, what are you worried about? There’s a minimum wage in place now, they have to do it. This is no different.” Well, it is different. It’s in addition—it’s on top—and it takes it to another level. It raises the level, raises the base higher. And it includes a whole lot of different areas: whether it’s health and safety briefings, whether it’s research and development, whether it’s superannuation; a whole bunch of things. It lifts up—that’s the purpose of it all is to increase, fundamentally, the pay to workers and their conditions, and inevitably the costs to employers.

Now, when you get back to the fundamentals of all this, we want to see our employees paid more—of course we want New Zealanders to be paid more—but it can’t be based on legislative fiat or just simply the decisions of judges. Ultimately, if it wants to be sustainable, it has to be based on productivity and in competitiveness. And so I suppose the fundamental question I have for the Minister is: why does he think it’s appropriate that the Employment Relations Authority has these new powers currently not available to the courts to fix the terms of large numbers of employees without input from the employers? And is this not an overreach in any judicial terms? And I believe it is, but he might have a better argument, and I’d love to hear it if he does. I think I’ll leave it at that for the time being.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m happy to address the couple of points the member the Hon Paul Goldsmith makes in respect of clause 218. There are a couple of points in which he is, point of fact, wrong.

The member claims that the Employment Relations Authority—firstly, the authority rather than the court—does not currently have these abilities. The Employment Relations Authority does currently have the ability to determine collective agreements. It has not been exercised often, but it is a power they have and has recently been exercised. In respect of the ability and capabilities to undertake these duties, the Government has provided specific resourcing the Employment Relations Authority to be able to do so.

The member also claims that clause 218 will function “without the input of employers”. That is not accurate; clause 218 will occur when there has been, effectively, a breakdown—some sort of a stalemate—within the bargaining process. The authority, in determining terms, will take representation from both bargaining sides in this process.

When the member claims that this is “Eastern European”, I’d suggest it’s more like something out of East Sydney. This process is, if anything, comparable to the Fair Work Commission in Australia, which, actually, in some respects, has greater powers in which it determines the minimum terms and conditions across whole sectors without there haven’t been the proceeding bargaining process, as we have proposed.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in at which stage the authority might be brought in. I didn’t feel that there was a lot of indication given on this other than the bargaining sides having exhausted all other reasonable alternatives for reaching agreement or for a reasonable period using their best endeavours to identify.

I think back to some of the negotiations that I had over the 23 years that I was negotiating with what was originally the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education and then the Tertiary Education Union. They can be very long and drawn out; I think, in one instance, we went on for two years. And so I’m just interested to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: will the authority tell the parties to go back again if the authority doesn’t feel it has been long enough? What sort of examples could the Minister give of having exhausted all other reasonable alternatives? What length of time might the Minister expect? And, I guess, what sort of incentives and disincentives this might give to either hurry along the negotiations or, conversely, to draw them out if people feel that if they keep refusing to come to any sort of an agreement, then the authority might come in. I guess that there’ll be some precedents set over time, and then each party will get a feel for whether it’s advantageous for them to drag the negotiations on or not.

So I could see the terms that the authority may fix. I could see that they can only make it if they make the determination if they’re satisfied that this impasse had been reached. But I didn’t get any real sense of what would be the threshold. And also, obviously, if there’s been a deliberate or serious breach in the duties of good-faith bargaining—although, good-faith bargaining has been notoriously difficult to actually quantify and decide what is good and what isn’t good-faith bargaining.

So, yeah, I think it would just be useful if we could get a sense from the Minister when he thinks that the authority being involved in making a determination might be triggered, if he has a sense of the timing. Bearing in mind that these now are agreements that are going across the country and across a wide range of employers and employees, and so going backwards and forth, those that are negotiating might think that they are going down the track that is reasonable. And then when they have to go back to their respective constituents might find that that is not found acceptable by the majority of them. So, you know, I can see this being a much longer process.

Thinking back again to the processes I’ve been involved in, it was relatively straightforward but not that straightforward—the union having to go back to the staff in the local polytechnic—but then, as you’ve got different branches across the country, it got more difficult. And so I can see this becoming very convoluted, trying to go back and get, in a timely way, feedback from so many different employees and so many different employers. So, surely, this sort of length of time that might have traditionally been considered that you’ve got to an impasse might actually be considerably longer under a fair pay agreement negotiation, because there are just so many more moving parts and so many more people to consult with and get feedback from. So perhaps if the Minister could give a bit more clarity on how he sees that playing out.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m very happy to respond to some of the questions from the member Penny Simmonds. In respect of her last question, she is correct that a fair pay agreement process, with all things being equal, is likely to take longer than a single-employer collective employment agreement bargaining process. That is one of the reasons why we have set the term of a fair pay agreement to be between three and five years, as compared to collective agreements which are between one and three years under the Employment Relations Act, to acknowledge that there is a bit more time involved in the bargaining process.

I do note, in respect of the member’s questions more generally, that “fixing” under clause 218 is a step that will only really occur after quite a lot has already happened: after the parties have been involved in good-faith bargaining for a reasonable time, after reasonable efforts have been made to try and work through the issues themselves, and after one of the parties themselves makes an application to the authority.

There are a couple of important parts within that that go to questions the member asked. As to what is a reasonable time, that will always be fact-specific, dependent on the particular nature of that bargaining, its complexity, the relationships between the parties, and a judgment that the authority will make. I note that this clause 218 is only triggered if a party applies for it, so, by definition, things have got to a point where a party believe that they are just not going to make any further headway by engaging in direct bargaining. That is quite a high threshold. Any party that wants to trigger that is, effectively, themselves recognising that they will no longer have the direct role in helping to set the terms and conditions. So I think a party on either side is only likely to undertake that step if they genuinely believe that the current bargaining process has become relatively fruitless and non-constructive.

The member asks whether the authority can, effectively, make the parties go back and try and work it out further. I direct the member to clause 216, which identifies that the authority must direct use of mediation before making determination of recommendation. So the authority, as it does under the existing Employment Relations Act, has the ability to say to the parties, “Go back to mediation.”, or “Go back to other dispute resolution mechanisms before we will take this issue further.” That’s set out fairly comprehensively in clause 216.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was 11 May, last year, when the Prime Minister said that “We anticipate we may have three or four of these fair pay agreements”, and it’s become quite obvious, through the debate and over the last wee while, that the unions are gearing up for—quite a few of them are, and so we’re going to have a real influx. At this stage, if I can get the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to have a look at the tabled amendment 228BI(2), restriction on applying for determination, and the authority may not make any determination on any issue that is currently before the authority—the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), an independent body determining fair pay agreement—where there is, effectively, only one bargaining party that may make decisions on employment matters that are otherwise being heard in other cases. And this clause would remove the likelihood of parties using fair pay agreements in other industries to try and force decisions on other cases that are currently going on before the ERA—if you consider that, thanks.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to get the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s view on a number of questions in regard to clauses 208 and 209 under Subpart 2, “Bargaining support services”, as part of Part 10.

My questions—there are about three questions, actually—are in regards to those clauses, and the first aspect is in regards to clause 208, which notes that “A person who wishes to access bargaining support services must contact an office of the department that deals with employment relations issues.” I guess, just building on the comments from my colleague from the ACT Party previously, I think the reality is that we’re going to see a significant increase in volumes in this space. I mean, it’s pretty hard to envisage a scenario where we’re going to get—what was it?—three or four. I think that was reasonably wishful thinking.

But on the basis that we’re going to see a significant increase in volume in regards to this—particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand, where we’ve got a large number of our small businesses that do not have access, potentially, to the support available in urban areas—my question, really, is in regards to what consideration, in regards to clauses 208 and 209, the Minister and officials have given in regards to the provision of support to enable access to those bargaining support services over and above what is currently available. What assessment, if any, has been undertaken in order to quantify, potentially, where they deem the volume and the complexity of those queries to arise geographically and in contrast to the complexities, I think, that are going to evolve from businesses that haven’t been part of this process previously.

You’re going to have a large number of businesses that will be entering into this arrangement that previously would not have been captured because of the legislation and, therefore, that’s going to have a change impact in regards to volume on the departmental services. So a little bit of understanding and clarity in regards to that assessment would be useful.

I guess, the question that logically follows from the conversation around the capacity of the system to be able to deal with an increase in volume is in regards to, you know, the good old thing—and, no surprise, I’ll be raising it—of what are the costs, right? I mean, what’s the implication for the taxpayer in regards to that? Has any assessment been undertaken? Again, I’ve had a review so as not to waste time: is there any assessment for that in the documentation? There isn’t, so hence the question.

Lastly, my question relates to individuals. When I talk about access to those services in particular, the reality of this legislation is we’re going to capture a huge number, or a much wider overview in terms of individuals that are impacted by the legislation. I’m particularly interested for those individuals that have disabilities and those who have intellectual disabilities. I know that my colleague Penny Simmonds noted earlier on in the conversation today around her visit to Abilities Group, which is a disabilities employer on Auckland’s North Shore which employs nearly 200 individuals with intellectual disabilities. They do an absolutely sterling job both for people with disabilities but also for the provision of sustainable employment. My concern about legislation such as this is that while the intent is what it is, the unintended consequences of such legislation in regards to people that are particularly at risk and don’t have the capability that, potentially, other individuals would have in regards to their advocacy under clause 208 in regards to the provision or to obtaining support services—I mean, how is that going to be factored in? You are going to be dealing with a different cohort and a much broader cohort of individuals in regards to this legislation, and I’m really keen to understand what is the depth of thinking that has gone on in regards to that.

Madam Chair, I’ve got a couple more questions, but I think I’ll do those three at the moment, and I’ll come back again. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Clause 209 is an important part of Part 10 relating to institutions, because it is about providing proactive support to parties to navigate what is a new process for everyone.

I can provide assurance to all members of the committee that, through decisions taken by the Government in Budget 2021 and Budget 2022, t the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has been provided with resourcing to be able to provide good support. That is via information and education, via specialist support services to ensure that there will be active support and advice available to people before they enter into the fair pay agreement (FPA) process, but also to be able to provide support to people who are actively involved in the bargaining process as well. That is described in clause 209(2), which talks about the different ways in which MBIE will provide that support.

I’m not entirely sure that I do agree with the member Simon Watts that they’ll be a broader cohort than MBIE currently provides support to. MBIE currently provides—through its Employment New Zealand services—support to a very, very wide cross-section of society across both employers and employees, dealing with issues in collective and individual employment relationships. I don’t know if it’ll necessarily be wider, but it will be very important and will need to be specific to FPAs under the terms of clause 209.

Those services are provided quite flexibly, so I’m comfortable that they will work for people in different locales around New Zealand. The services provided by MBIE—including mediation; Employment Relations Authority services—do work on a circuit basis but also increasingly be flexible in terms of phone-based service and the use of Zoom to provide support to people as well.

So, yes, in respect of clauses 208 and 209, I agree with the member that those services will be important for the relatively smooth roll-out of this new process. But I am confident that the range of services that are described in this part, and then have them backed with support from the Government, will considerably assist parties.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates both to my last question and also to my colleague Simon Watts’ question. Minister, I’m still trying to get my head around the scale of this, and, no doubt, with your union experience, you will be similarly trying to get your head around the scale. So, therefore, the question I asked last time was very genuine, around what sort of time-scale you thought might elapse before the Employment Relations Authority was brought in by the parties to fix terms. I keep looking back to the times of negotiations and having to deal with perhaps 300-odd staff and the length of time it could take to ensure that the feedback had been received, and that particularly as negotiations go on and people within the negotiating room feel that they’ve sort of traversed all the issues, but then having to go back and sell it to the constituents of each of the respective parties.

I just am really struggling with the sort of time frame that is going to occur here, particularly, as you’ve said, the new processes, the supports, the information, and the education. I recall one of the submissions actually referred to the amount of money that was put aside in the Budget for it, and it seemed a really minor amount in comparison to the numbers that might need to access that support and whether the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in fact, would have the capacity to provide that support. Because we’ve spent weeks and months going through this, but when this finally is thrust upon employers and employees, that’s when the rubber is going to hit the road and they really will want to know the details of it.

So I didn’t feel that in your answer to my previous question, you gave a real indication of the time frames that we might be looking at for these negotiations to take place, but I wonder if you could just give a little bit more thought to that so that when employers and employees are looking at this process, they understand. Because I think it would be very unfortunate if they go in thinking, “Oh, negotiations will take place, and six months or a year later it might all be done and dusted.”, when, in fact, everything, in terms of the complexity, the newness, the scale of this legislation, and this intent, points to it going on for years, and they may be bitterly disappointed with it. I think back to the Tertiary Education Union and how bitterly disappointed they are after three years and the Reform of Vocational Education process and the Te Pūkenga process. So they went in with very high expectations of everything being wonderful and are now realising that it’s not nearly as wonderful as they thought.

The other part that I wanted to have a wee look at was the effect of the authority fixing the terms. So having gone through the big process, everyone’s had time to be educated and supported and got the information and maybe it’s sort of four years down the track and the negotiations have hit an impasse and most of the employers and employees have forgotten that the process even started back four years ago—although, hopefully, this won’t happen, because we’ll come in and repeal the legislation. However, hypothetically looking at this, four years down the track, the authority is fixing the terms. And they aren’t required, obviously, to submit to the authority for a compliance assessment, but they must be assessed for coverage overlap under clause 135(2). So I look back to clause 135(2) and the assessment for coverage overlap is done by the authority, so the authority will fix the terms and then the authority will assess the terms the authority has fixed to see whether there is coverage overlap. What’s the check and balance around that if the authority’s actually setting fixing the terms and then doing the assessment as well?

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this pernicious bill. On clause 207, in Part 10 Subpart 2: “Bargaining support services”, I have to admit I’m confused. When I first looked at this, and I had a chat with my colleague Simon Watts here, I couldn’t really believe this—207(1): “The chief executive must employ or engage persons to provide bargaining support services to support the following parties: (a) a union”. I thought that’s what unions did. I thought they were bargaining support. Why do they need support to do that? I find that extraordinary. If I were a union member, I’d be pretty annoyed that I was paying a fee to belong to a union to provide bargaining support and they have to have support services to provide that service. I think it’s extraordinary. It would be very poor value for money.

I think this really highlights one of the issues with this bill: it’s almost cartel-esque. You’re setting up an organisation that has extraordinary powers. It’s kind of rent seeking, really. It doesn’t have to actually earn its living, because it’s prescribed in legislation. It doesn’t have to perform that well and have the people that are capable of carrying out that task professionally and at a high level, because, actually, they don’t need to, because they’re going to get support anyway. I can understand a bargaining party—is that to provide support services for people who have someone who’s bargaining for them, to ensure that they are getting good value for money? Are they actually getting what they want out of it? I think there’s a lot of explanation that’s required here.

It goes on, in clause 207(2), to say “Bargaining support services may include services that—(aa) help a union or employer association to understand the requirements to become a bargaining party”—extraordinary. It’s even more confusing the more you read into this bill.

Hon Member: Keep reading.

STUART SMITH: Well, I will keep reading. It goes on to say—that was (aa)—“(a) help bargaining sides to understand the process for bargaining”. Well, that’s going to take a while—isn’t it?—a professional union being helped to understand the process for bargaining. I think that’s a doozy. It must have taken a lot of research to put this clause together. Then clause 207(2)(b) is “support bargaining sides throughout the process of bargaining”. Why don’t they just do it for them? Why have the union in the first place, if you’ve got this chief executive providing bargaining support services that are going to support the bargaining sides throughout the process of bargaining? It is quite extraordinary.

Clause 207(2)(c): “Support bargaining sides to ensure that bargaining is constructive and efficient”. Well, this is very prescriptive, isn’t it? And then clause 207(2)(d): “assist bargaining sides to understand the content requirements for a proposed agreement or a proposed variation”. Well, that would be helpful, I suppose. If you’re going to be bargaining on something, you would want to understand what you’re bargaining for. I guess that would be the case. Perhaps the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety might like to explain that. But it really is quite strange. I thought I’d heard everything in this debate, but that’s not the case. And clause 207(2)(e) is “assist in resolving any conflict within or between bargaining sides that are bargaining.” Well, I wouldn’t be surprised, after all that, if they’re not totally confused and they’ll need a lot of help to understand what’s going on.

And then clause 207(3): “A person employed or engaged to provide bargaining support services under this section may also be employed or engaged to provide mediation services under section 204 of this Act or under section 144 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.” So, essentially, what we find from clause 207 is there’s probably very little need for any unions, because it’s all going to be provided by the chief executive, who will appoint someone to do it for them.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): If I can respond to comments from Penny Simmonds and Stuart Smith. I have already responded to a number of her questions around the phrase “reasonable time frame” that is used here. I’ll just, I guess, restate that the reason that “reasonable time frame” is used rather than “a fixed period of time” is for exactly the reason that she states: that there will be a variety of different fair pay agreements (FPAs) that are negotiated that will include different numbers of parties and different levels of complexity, and so it seems to us that the most appropriate thing to do is to give the Employment Relation Authority some flexibility to consider what a reasonable time frame is, and that will potentially differ depending on the circumstances at play. So that is the reason that that is in there. I note there are a number of other factors upon which a determination can occur, as well.

I do note her comment that the resources provided by the Government to support bargaining is “a minor amount”. I will remember that the next time some of her colleagues criticise us for spending too much on the policy. We think it’s a reasonable and balanced amount to provide for the support services that are here.

In respect of clause 135(2) that she raises, there are two discreet functions that we’re talking about here. Firstly is the authority having the role of determining the terms of an FPA, if it comes to that. That is its own role within the legislation. The role of assessing for any overlap then occurs a little bit later. They’re both two discrete roles but they both do have to occur.

Mr Smith goes by the old parliamentary maxim in a debate: “when in doubt, read it out.” It served him pretty well for a couple of minutes there, I must say! When it comes to clause 207, I’d encourage the member, and all others interested in this legislation—and I seriously recommend this—to go back and read the report of the original Fair Pay Agreement Working Group chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. It identified that fair pay agreements will be most effective where there is a good-faith process that is undertaken, that is interspaced, and which the parties spend a decent amount of time trying to find the areas in which they can constructively work and solve problems together. That is a process which actually takes a lot of skill and a lot of capability. I’ve got no doubt that there’s a lot of that skill and capability in both employer associations and unions. But for anyone who seriously understands and appreciates those sorts of processes, you shouldn’t be too proud to accept that actually having the assistance of professionals in these areas that help parties with different perspectives get into a common place is actually a pretty good way of approaching these things. That’s why we think that it is appropriate for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to provide those services.

We do also note that this is a new process. It does have some complexities associated with it. As members on this side of the House have pointed out: if people get it wrong, there could be penalties that apply to them. So providing the support services is about trying to guide the parties to get it right and get to good outcomes, which is what we’re focused on.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for his thoughtful responses to the questions that we’ve asked this evening. I think he’s been very diligent in terms of his responses, and, on that basis, I’ll ask a few more because I’ve been thinking about the clause 207 that my colleague Stuart Smith articulated previously.

The three questions that I have in regards to this are as follows. I think, as the Minister has just clearly articulated, there is a need for these support services. We may agree or disagree around the actual genuine need of that, but that’s OK; we’ll take it on the basis that they are required and that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment CEO is going to appoint them. Looking at the reality of—and I’m aware of some of the workforce shortages particularly in the Auckland region around mediators in the employment space, and this is not necessarily just a COVID issue but I am conscious that, actually, there has been a significant reduction in the number of professional mediators, particularly those that for whatever reason chose early retirement post-COVID. A number of those individuals are genuinely highly experienced, have a degree of background, but were at a tender age that retirement seemed to be more appropriate than continuing on to work. And lucky them, I say. But the reality is, Minister, this legislation is going to—going back to what I raised before—increase the volume and demand on that workforce for the exact services that are articulated in clause 207 in regards to providing bargaining support services.

And I like the term, actually, in the departmental disclosure statement on page 8 in—we used to call it—“finance font”. Finance font’s a font that only the finance people can read, and you generally put the technical stuff that you don’t want anyone to read in really small writing because most people can’t read it. But I can read it, luckily. And it says, for example, the provision of a bargaining support person—so I think that’s the role title you are looking at; it’s the bargaining support person. And we’re not having a game of bingo here on how many different times we can mention the word “bargaining”, but that’s the role. So the question, really, is genuinely around the workforce crisis and the shortages we have with the skill set and capability.

What assessment has the Minister undertaken in regards to, actually, the practical implications of clause 207, the implications of that in practice, in terms of actually being able to provide and obtain that resource? Because it’s all nice having legislation and rules and regulations and all that, but if you can’t simply put that into practice and effect that in practice—you know, what’s the consideration around that? What’s the consideration in regards to—you know, on the basis that we haven’t got a large workforce that’s going to increase in volume as a result of this legislation. What’s the options in terms of being able to actually fill that void in terms of resource and capability? What is that going to cost, Minister, in terms of additional resources? Because you just can’t turn the tap on and create this skill set. It does require training and experience, capability and competence, which is in short supply across the board.

I guess the last question I’ve got is in regards to what, if any, estimate in terms of the total numbers of people that the chief executive will need to employ or engage—what is the scale of that number over and above, I guess, what is currently already engaged in the market? Because I think, really, that goes to a question around: well, actually, is this section actually practically able to be implemented? I know that’s an operational conversation for the department, but I’m sure the Minister’s probably thinking a couple of steps ahead of where we are this evening, of when this will be in law and actually how this is going to work in practice. So I’d appreciate some insight in terms of those three questions in regards to clause 207. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The member Simon Watts is right that, to a large degree, these are operational questions that would be for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), once the legislation is in place. But, just in order to provide some level of comfort to the member, support has been provided, through Budgets 2021 and 2022, for MBIE to be able to resource the implementation of fair pay agreements (FPAs). As is appropriate, I believe we have provided MBIE with some flexibility to determine how that support should be allocated across the organisation. There is additional support that be applied—for additional members of the Employment Relations Authority, to mediation services, to bargaining support people, and to the production of resources for parties to use. That information is in Budget documents, and I don’t have that to hand for the purposes of this debate, but I do have real confidence that there is an appropriate level of resources which is put in here.

I do note, of course, that it is likely that FPAs will take a little bit of time to commence. So once the legislation takes effect from December, there’ll be an initial step whereby unions need to initiate for fair pay agreements. There’ll then be a process of them being considered, before bargaining gets under way. So we won’t go straight from zero to 100 overnight once the bill has passed the House; there’ll be time for things to ramp up. I know that MBIE are very focused on trying to front-load good support, information, and education so that parties know what their obligations are and know how these steps work before they start engaging in these processes. So, yes, I acknowledge there will be some increased demand, but we have resourced that. I do also note, though, that it could well be that a range of employment relationship issues get worked through as a result of fair pay agreements that then don’t need to get worked through in other parts of the employment relations system. So there may be some meting out, but, overall, yes, we have provided additional resourcing, and I think it will be appropriate.

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

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 10 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris Baillie’s amendment to clause 213 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Part 10 as amended agreed to.

Part 10A Determinations in absence of bargaining side

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come now to Part 10A. This is the debate on clauses 228BA to 228Q, “Determinations in absence of bargaining side”. The question is that Part 10A stand part.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to focus on clause 228Q, “Access to workplaces”. I was having a bit of a look through this while we were all talking away, and a lot of my colleagues were making some very good points and putting some very good questions through to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who I thought answered most of them pretty well as well. And we are winding up to the final part of the night, so I will walk us through the access to workplaces. I note that “A representative of an employee bargaining party”—bargaining—“is entitled, in accordance with this Part, to enter a workplace without the employer’s consent if the primary purpose of entering the workforce is to discuss with a covered employee, or an employee who may be affected by, an application for determination” in terms of such determination. What you’re, effectively, doing there is saying that you can enter a workplace—there only needs to be one employee covered—if you want to go there to communicate, to seek feedback or discuss the terms.

Now, that might sound good if you’ve got a big factory—and I assume that’s probably what it was tabled for—or a big retail shop, or whatever it may be. But the fact is that we’ve got a lot of small businesses in New Zealand, and a lot of them are on private property. You know, they’re not out there in a big factory or in a shop on a mall. It may be someone’s home; they may live above it. It may be a person’s place.

Joseph Mooney: That’s right. Very good point.

SAM UFFINDELL: Excellent point. But I am very concerned that this will enable people just to come through, so I want to say to the Minister and ask him: what provisions have been put there to ensure that the privacy of people is protected in relation to clause 228Q? Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The ability for union representatives to enter workplaces to engage with the employees is well established in the Employment Relations Act 2000, which has been in place since 2000, and its core provisions have been broadly consistent over that period. It is important, in terms of the generally recognised right for people to be able to access union representation, that union representatives do have that ability. It is subject to reasonable constraints and always has been. This particular clause specifically rules out access to a workplace allowing access to a dwelling house—that covers off, I think, some of the privacy concerns that the member has alluded to where there might be a small workplace, where a home and a workplace are joined together. But, fundamentally, if there’s not a basic right of union access to workplaces, then (a) New Zealand would be in breach of many core International Labour Organisation conventions that we are signed up to, and (b) it would be not possible for those employees to access reasonable support and assistance and collective bargaining rights.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in clause 228O, “Entitlement to attend FPA meetings”, and the requirements for arranging meetings. I note that “if [an] employee has attended 2 or more FPA meetings in relation to the proposed agreement”, then “no additional … meetings [are] under this Part.” But, indeed, attendance at two meetings and then the meeting’s to “last no longer than 2 hours”. Again, I said in my last question, I’m struggling to get my head around the scale of this and the logistics of how this will all take place if we’re talking from Stewart Island up to the Far North—just the logistics of having these meetings and how they are going to only be for two hours.

Not every workplace is going to have access to audiovisual equipment. And is it going to be suggested that these might be Zoom meetings, what is the logistics of holding meetings with potentially hundreds or thousands of employees across the country to get buy-in and feedback and for people to feel that they are being taken on the journey of negotiations, and just how are the logistics of this going to work? And if an employee chooses to go to a meeting in person, is the employer going to be obligated to allow them to take half a day’s travel to go to the meeting in person? There’s nothing here that stipulates that an employee has to join it through a virtual meeting, so, presumably, someone in Invercargill could ask to attend a meeting in Auckland, even though the actual duration of the meeting might only be for two hours—it would, in fact, take a day either side of that to be able to get to the meeting.

So I am really struggling with the logistics of how this is all going to work, and I note that an employer who fails to comply with the clause is liable to a penalty. We’ve discussed those applicable amounts back from clause 196 when we were debating that section. So it’s real for the employers. They are not wanting to be in a position where they might be subject to an imposition of a significant penalty—up to $20,000—if they get this wrong. So just what might the logistics of this look like? And I know we sit here in Parliament, and we’ve got access to all the latest audiovisual equipment, but if you are a small cafe out in Orepuki in Western Southland, you probably haven’t got great coverage out there in terms of being able to get internet coverage to be able to have Zoom meetings etc., so I’m perplexed by the scale of this and just how it logistically is going to work and how people are going to be able to go to a meeting for two hours. It said that an employee who’s absent from work for more than two hours is entitled to their ordinary pay for a maximum of two hours, but then if an employee still chooses to go to that meeting in person, the employer might only have to pay for them for the two hours they’re away, but then it’s that loss of productivity in their business if, in fact, they take the whole day to get up to a meeting and a day to get back. I know the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety feels that perhaps we are overcomplicating it, but he has himself said it’s a new process, it’s a complicated process, the scale of it can be significant, and I’m interested.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I would not want the member Penny Simmonds to leave this committee feeling perplexed about this matter, so allow me to assist. The important thing, I think, for the member to be aware of here is that these provisions are not know to the employment relations system. They’re more or less lifted from the existing Employment Relations Act, where these provisions have been used for about 22 years to organise paid union meetings across New Zealand.

I remember when I was, for example, an organiser with the finance sector union and we were responsible for bargaining with Westpac, which had about 220 branches across the country. We would sit down with the employer, we would work out a schedule of meetings over a period of a couple of weeks. We would do that in such a way to enable the business to continue operating, and we would work out times that were manageable for everyone. It is something that can be done with a bit of goodwill and a bit of organisation.

The member specifically asks: could the member travel for half the day or all of the day to get to one of these meetings? The obligation in the Act is for two hours to be paid; no more than that. If an employer wanted to release someone for more than that, then they could, but the obligation is only for two hours. In my experience, these things are generally organised to be one-hour meetings that would usually allow for travel time either side to keep it neatly within those two hours. So, as I say, this is a well-known provision. It is one that is generally able to be organised in a reasonably efficient way, it allows businesses to continue operating, and it is strictly for two hours only.

I do also note that this particular provision, clause 228O, that we’re talking about is not an additional entitlement over and above paid union meetings earlier in the legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, I can guarantee that this is going to be the most popular speech of the evening: the committee is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting. Good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).

TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2022

(continued on Wednesday, 26 October 2022)

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 10A Determinations in absence of bargaining side (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good morning, members. The committee has resumed for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were debating this bill only last evening, we were considering Part 10A, which is the debate on clauses 228BA to 228Q, “Determinations in absence of bargaining side”. The question is that Part 10A stand part.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It’s great to be back here this morning at 9 o’clock on what is a fantastic opportunity for us to go through this piece of legislation, and I think we’re doing reasonably well to get into the detail.

Minister Wood, thank you very much for your contribution to date. I want to get into detail around clause 228BF, “Notification requirements: employers”. It links back to a conversation and a point we were raising last evening in terms of the fact that a significant increase in the volume of businesses that will be captured by this legislation is driving a significant amount of demand on those individuals. And this point relates to the notification requirements. My question to the Minister quite simply is: what does that notification protocol and process look like? This clause specifically refers to the fact that an employer must provide that notification to each of the employer’s employees, so every single one of them is covered by the proposed renewal.

That sounds all nice when it’s written down but what’s the practicality of that, and, I guess, the assurance process to ensure that that notification actually has occurred and has been received, particularly in businesses—and I’m not talking about the large-scale businesses which have very clear and concise protocols around contact information for their employees. I’m thinking about the dairy owners. I’m thinking about the small businesses across the country and in rural New Zealand where some of this may be a little bit more difficult. So that’s the aspect of information where I’d appreciate some clarity from the Minister, and then we’ll pick up another clause after that. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr Watts, for your question. Many of the provisions in Part 10A are effectively repeat provisions from earlier on in the bill. This part, as members are well acquainted with, in particular deals with arrangements around backstops, so it repeats many of the provisions from earlier on, and those arrangements are in place, and this relates to a proposed replacement of a fair pay agreement.

I think the answer is relatively simple. The way that notification works is that it is the responsibility of the union who is either initiating or renewing to provide notification through to employers. Employers then need to provide that to employees. Most commonly, I would imagine, that will happen through employees being emailed, a relatively simple thing to do. In a very small workplace—for example, a small business that’s a dairy has been used several times in this debate—it could be emailed directly to that employee or it could simply be shown to the employee. I don’t think it’s going to be a particularly burdensome or difficult process.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chris Baillie’s tabled amendment to clause 228BI 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 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris Baillie’s amendment to clause 228KA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 10A be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 10A agreed to.

Part 11 Miscellaneous provisions, and Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come now to Part 11. Part 11 is the debate on clauses 229 to 244, “Miscellaneous provisions”, and Schedule 4, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 11 stand part.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am, to the delight of the Minister, really keen to go back to the personal information. So under Part 11, there are clauses around what can and can’t be done with personal information that is given by the employer to the bargaining—the other side, the employee side—and it sets out here around what can and can’t be done with that information. My question to the Minister is, there’s nothing in here that says what the bargaining side for the employee, most likely the union, needs to do with that information once the fair pay agreement (FPA) is concluded. So it talks about, in clause 234A under “Employee contact details”, using the information by the initiating union for initiating the FPA. It talks about a proposed variation, but it doesn’t talk about a renewal. So my question is: what are the Minister’s expectations around the data once the FPA is concluded? What happens to that information for those employees who have elected not to become a member of the union? Is that information that’s held by the union then required to be destroyed? Or are they able, in fact, to hold on to it and use it three to five years down the track for the purposes of a renewal? It’s not clear here whether or not it’s allowed under this proposed Act.

The reason that I’ve got some concerns is that’s a long time to hold on to someone’s details. I understand, and here it is very clear that it says at the time it’s only able to be used for those—for initiating bargaining, the variation, or talking about an FPA as it’s under way. My question to the Minister is what happens once an FPA is concluded and that information is—what happens to that information; does it have to be destroyed? Or is it able to be used in three to five years’ time to initiate a renewal of that agreement? Or will the union be required to get new contact details at that time of the people who are covered? Or are they, in fact, able to use the information that they already have from three to five years ago, assuming, maybe, that many of those people are still in the industries that they’re in? I guess that the point is that because we have a workforce that moves between jobs quite a lot, you will probably be in a position where three to five years down the track, in fact, many of those employees who were covered by the initial FPA have moved on, don’t work in that sector any more, and potentially won’t be included in any renewal. So the question is: can the union use that detail to say to all of the prospective people who were part of that FPA five years ago, “Hey, we’re doing this again, it’s going to be renewed. Would you like to take part?”, or, in fact, is it a requirement that they get new information at that time?

Secondly, what happens to that information once an FPA is concluded, if it’s not required for a renewal? There’s nothing in here that I can find, and the Minister can point me to it if I’ve missed it, around destroying those details once the process is finished and the variations have been concluded in a reasonable period of time. I guess the question there is: how long can those variations go on for? Can they happen over the whole five-year period before we get into a renewal phase? So can that information be used on an ongoing basis, for variations up to how long, and at what point would that information be required to if, in fact, it is required to be destroyed? If it’s not required to be destroyed, I guess, the point is why not? I’ll leave it at that. But I’ve got further questions around privacy to carry on with. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): For the purpose of these provisions and all of the other provisions that relate to the use of employee information in the bill, it’s important to note that the provisions of the Privacy Act apply across all of the information that is collected, and the primary thing for members to be aware of there is that the information that is collected needs to primarily be used for the purposes for which it was collected. So in this case, the purposes for which it is collected relate to the fair pay agreement that is being negotiated. That means that the information can be retained for the duration of that fair pay agreement, including variations that might occur during the term of a fair pay agreement, but it cannot be kept beyond that period.

When it gets to the point of renewal, the process of collecting information will have to, effectively, start again and go forward on that basis, so it can’t be kept beyond the expiry date of the fair pay agreement. At the point at which the information can no longer be validly used under the Privacy Act, my understanding is that the party would have to dispose of it.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a brief call on—particularly speaking to and seeking the Government’s support for Supplementary Order Paper 272 in my name, which is looking to make an amendment to create a review of coverage of the Act. To give some context to this, this is about the fact that our current labour market—a visible feature of it is fragmentation and employers seeking to reduce their costs through contracting people rather than employing them. It has been a concern for the Green Party, right from the beginning of this process, that the fair pay agreements are only providing coverage for employees and that there’s a potential risk of employers deciding to contract people instead of employ them, to reduce their costs.

I want to acknowledge that the Government has had a working group looking at how we can, as a country, create more stability and certainty and reduce that fragmentation. That has been the Tripartite Working Group on Better Protections for Contractors, and there are recommendations that have come out of that group and that reported at December last year. The Greens were hoping that some of those recommendations, the work from that, would have been able to be integrated into this piece of legislation to protect against that concern of increased fragmentation. What we’ve got in the bill is Subpart 3, which has already been covered, about where there are penalties—there’s a specific part in the Fair Pay Agreements Bill that says, “An employer must not engage a person under contract for services if—(a) the real nature of the relationship is that the person is the employer’s employee; and (b) the employer engages the person under a contract for services, rather than as an employee, to prevent the person being, in relation to a fair pay agreement, a covered employee.” So it’s a specific prohibition against doing that, and there are penalties that have been established in the bill. I acknowledge that. However, that’s—in effect, my understanding is that is a restatement of our current law, as people should not be doing that, and it’s making that specific to the fair pay agreements.

However, we know that we have widespread problems of employers contracting out already. I think the Uber decision yesterday, which is so fantastic—and I do note that, you know, at the heart of this, and while I heard from a member from the ACT Party yesterday saying every Uber driver he’s ever spoken to has wanted things to remain the same, the fact is these Uber drivers went to court because their arrangement denies them the minimum wage, holiday pay, protection from unjust dismissal, KiwiSaver contributions, and the right to unionise and collectively bargain. Sounds like a great deal to me! Not. And that’s why we want to protect against more people being put in those precarious situations, rather than having the protection of employment law and the protection of fair pay agreements.

If we want us to be lifting everybody up, we actually want to make sure that we are getting the right people under the cover. So our Supplementary Order Paper is kind of a midway point, really. We haven’t got the ability to do all the policy work to integrate the tripartite working group into this piece of legislation, but what we’re suggesting is that the department, after three years, do a review to consider the effect the fair pay agreements have had on sectors where there is a significant proportion of employees that are under contract for services. So it’s a specific commitment to look at the impact of this and make sure that that concern has not been realised.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the member’s comments and proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP): as has been outlined, earlier parts of the bill do partly address this issue about the possibility of misclassification as a contractor, and, as the member points out, the Government has a broader work programme under way which I do expect us to make progress on in the coming months.

The reason why the Government won’t be agreeing to the SOP put forward by the member—it’s the same reason that I have not agreed to other changes that have been proposed at various changes of the bill’s passage—is I think it would be a mistake to look to address the employee contractor classification issue specifically within the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. This is quite a fundamental issue about how workers are classified across our economy. It’s a very significant and technical issue that needs to be worked through carefully, and when we get to a conclusion on that, I think it needs to be applied consistently across the employment relations system. I think it would be an odd outcome for us to end up with particular provisions in the fair pay agreement legislation that might change the landscape for classification for people who are covered by fair pay agreements but not change things for other workers who are not covered by fair pay agreements. So my view is that we need to get the fundamental questions around classification right across the whole employment relations system, and that will then flow through to all workers regardless of whether they are covered by fair pay agreements or not.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. As I mentioned, I wanted to carry on a bit more with this privacy stuff around “Employee contact details”, clause 234A. I’d like to get an answer from the Minister—we’ve talked about this in previous sections where it related, and this is around the unions’ ability to contact non-members to advise them that if they join the union, their union fees are likely to be paid back if—once the bargaining is complete and the fair pay agreement (FPA) is in place, that they will negotiate for a provision in the FPA that allows those union fees to be paid back. So we’ve talked about this earlier but this is under this particular clause. Clause 234A(1)(b) says you’re not allowed to “use the contact details for [purposes] that is not related to the relevant proposed agreement”.

So my question to the Minister is: is it relevant to the proposed agreement for a union to write and use the contact details of the employees—to write to them all to say—this is in the very early stages of bargaining—“If you join the union, it’s going to cost you, you know, 300 bucks, however much it costs to join a union”—I don’t know, I’ve never joined one, but if that’s how much it costs—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: More than that.

ERICA STANFORD: —more than that; could be—“if you join the union and pay your fees, we will negotiate to have those fees paid back to you.” So, in effect, you get the free benefit of being part of a union. So my question to the Minister is: is that appropriate use of employee contact details under clause 234A(1)(b) for the purpose that is related to the relevant proposed agreement?

Hon Judith Collins: I would have thought so.

ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, it probably is, but I want to check that because, in effect, it’s relevant to every single proposed agreement, because he’s allowed that ability for unions to do that.

As we talked about earlier, we had this discussion in earlier parts around the fact that you are able to entice people into the unions by talking about this potential free union membership as part of the FPA deal, and you won’t fall into those penalty clauses by enticing people into a union. You can’t do anything else, as I understand it, but you can use that.

So the question here is, under this clause, is it an appropriate use of employee contact details to use them to write to all of those or email or phone up or whatever you decide or even walk into a premises of an employer and pitch yourself to the potential union members to say, “Well, yep, you’ll have to pay up but we might even defer your fees, potentially, so you don’t have to pay anything, because we will make sure that it’s paid back in the FPA that we can include.” So the question is: is that allowed?

It seems to be under this clause 234A(1)(b) specifically about that FPA. But my question is that this would apply to every single FPA because that’s allowed to be bargained for under every single FPA. So I just want to be very clear that that is something that is allowed. We know there aren’t any penalties for doing it. But are the contact details specifically allowed to be used for the purposes of attracting people into the unions by saying to them that you won’t have to pay any fees and, basically, your fees will be free?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The purpose of the provision of the employee contact details is for unions who form the bargaining side and are the bargaining parties to be able to communicate in a two-way fashion with people who they are representing. It is a—

Hon Judith Collins: But they’re not. They’re not representing.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: A member over there says “They’re not”; the member needs to read the legislation. The unions who represent employees in bargaining represent all covered employees regardless of their membership.

Hon Judith Collins: But what if they don’t want to be represented by them?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the member just needs to read the legislation. That is how it is written.

In respect of the provision of employees’ information, they have to be able to communicate with those employees. That communication will be two-way. So traditionally in the way that employees are represented in these processes, there will need to be a process of asking them what sorts of issues they want to bring forward into the bargaining, of confirming what those claims will be, of going back to those employees and saying, “Here’s where we’re at in bargaining.”, at the end of the process, and of going back to them and saying, “Here is the proposed deal for you to be able to vote on.” So, by definition, that does need to be able to include any of the claims or the issues that the union intends to pursue within the bargaining process. That could include seeking for there to be the payment as described by the member, which we have covered in previous parts and that I have affirmed can be part of bargaining processes. A union cannot guarantee that that will happen, because it will be a part of the bargaining process.

Sam Uffindell: Can you seek to not be represented by the union?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I hear the great chagrin of members opposite about this point. They forget, again, that this provision is one that is in the existing Employment Relations Act that happily sat there for the entire nine years of which time they were in Government.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not wanting to drag this out, but I just do want to explore the issue in terms of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) a little bit more with the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood. As I heard him say, the Government can’t support the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is addressing an SOP which should have been debated as part of Part 1.

JAN LOGIE: Sorry, Madam Chair—so SOP 272, which is part of Schedule 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yep, yep—Schedule 1 was debated as part of Part 1.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to have a further conversation in regards to section 234B subclause (1)(a) and (b), and it is the same clause in which my colleague Erica Stanford just asked some questions. But I’m taking a different angle on this because I think the points that my good colleague from East Coast Bays, Erica Stanford, noted is around—you know, the reality is there’s going to be some individuals captured who don’t want to be captured by this process.

But my specific questions relate to the requirements under 234B(1)(a) that “the contact details are stored separately from any other information held by the union;”. The question for the Minister, particularly, is: how does he envisage that that will occur in practice? Because the majority of this information, no doubt, will be held electronically. The requirement under the legislation, here, is that it is stored separately from any other information held by the union, so one would take from that that there would be an expectation on unions to establish a new contact database system, separate systems from their existing contact systems that they hold. Obviously, that’s going to result in, I guess, quite a high degree of additional requirement for resource, but also around the duplication of system processes. So that’s the first question around, practically, is that what the Minister’s envisaging from paragraph (a).

The second question I’ve got relates to 234C(1)(a), and this is around personal information. I’m specifically looking at paragraph (b) of that 234C—hopefully, for those at home, they’re following all of these references to the legislation; I appreciate it is a bit challenging because there’s a number of numbers here. But this point is in regards to—so that information can be used for the purposes of bargaining, and it can’t be disclosed to any person except in a form that does not identify the individual. So, particularly, (a) is where I’m trying to link that back to the point above, because what are the checks and balances that give someone, particularly the individual that doesn’t want to be captured by this—what are the checks and balances that are within the system that ensures that their personal information is, firstly, stored separately. Secondly, what is the ability for an individual to be able to seek assurance that that is the case? Is there a process that’s going to be put in place in order to be able to request information in regards to that? What is the monitoring and review process that will be in place to provide assurance and substantiation in regards to the fact that this is occurring? Because the legislation refers to 234B(3), where a union intentionally or recklessly fails to comply with subsection (1), which I discussed at the start. I mean, they’re going to be liable to penalties.

So what I’m interested in—and that’s my third question—I didn’t think under privacy you had to meet a threshold of being reckless. Actually, I’m looking at the Rt Hon Judith Collins in regards to privacy. I mean, I think the disclosure of personal information is very much black and white: you either disclose it or you don’t. It’s not that you have to be reckless or that you’re intentionally doing that. So that’s applying—I mean, I’m not a lawyer, and I would never presume to be one, but just as a simple accountant, I would think that—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Never just a simple accountant.

SIMON WATTS: —crikey—thank you very much, Hon Michael Woodhouse; from one accountant to another. You know, why are we putting this additional layer that you actually have to meet a higher threshold in regards to that disclosure of information? So I’m wanting to get—I mean, I think this is quite a concern. I want to see what their processes are around assurance in regards to that, particularly around that threshold, because a penalty will be applied.

And the last question that I’ve got, and I know I am linking a number of clauses, but I think it is important, is around 234(2)(a)—right, follow that through, hopefully, no problem—“A record must be kept—(a) in written form;”. So going back to my first point—[Bell rung] Madam Chair. Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I didn’t think it was going to go on so long, but it’s obviously getting a little bit more complex than what I originally envisaged. But the point I made at the start around the fact that this information needs to be stored separately—you know, you’ve now got a case that some employers will be able to keep this information in a written form. Let’s just think about the practicality of how this is going to happen: is that going to be a separate storage cabinet? You know, all of that stuff. What consideration has been done in terms of—I’m sure there’s been a huge amount of thinking around practical implications of legislation, but what I’ve, hopefully, just identified is a number of issues, so I’m interested for the Minister to just comment on those four questions. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to answer some of the member’s questions here. The first point that might just be useful by way of clarification is that clause 234C is dealing with a slightly different area, in respect of personal information. It covers information that is provided to the bargaining side. That is not about the contact details of employees, which is primarily where our focus of our discussion around these issues has been previously. So, for example, it could be that bargaining sides request from each other details about—I don’t know—salary levels across that particular sector, or that kind of thing, but it’s not dealing with contact details of individual employees, which is primarily what we’ve been focused on in this area.

Important to note that when it does come to employee contact details, which is captured in clause 234B, that, as is the case right across the system, there’s an opt-out provision. So employees who do not want their details passed on can, through a simple mechanism, choose for that to be the case. So, in respect of Mr Watts’ concern that some might be captured who don’t want to be, there will be a clear choice for people if they don’t want their contact details included there.

There are, then, obligations that are built in in respect of how unions do manage that information, and Mr Watts points to one of those obligations, which is the obligation to store those details separately to other information. That is important. Unions will likely have databases of information that they send information out to their members and other interested workers about a range of different things that the union does. These provisions require the information is stored separately so that it can only be used for the purposes relating to fair pay agreements. So, yes, it will be up to the union exactly how they do that, but they will have to store that information in a separable way so that it is only used in relation to fair pay agreements. I think that’s important.

The member raises a concern and a question about whether there’s a higher standard that’s been put in place there in respect of people who might have concerns about privacy and use of personal information. I can confirm for the member, if we go to clause 234C(2), that, in the first instance, “Nothing in this Act limits the rights of an individual under the Privacy Act”. So individuals continue to have recourse to the Privacy Act in the way that they would in any other area of law.

What we’re talking about in respect of clause 234B(3), which is the intentional or reckless tests, is potentially an additional penalty that could be applied to a union, over and above remedies that will be available through the Privacy Act if they meet that test and do breach the requirements of the bill. So it’s not softening the test or the requirements on the union; it’s adding in, effectively, another test which can open up to another penalty if they’re not in compliance.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 11 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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 107

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 11 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Jan Logie’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

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 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 and in the tabled amendment be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): This is the section of the legislation that I have been looking forward to this morning because I’ve got a pretty serious contribution to make in regards to the title of this bill. I don’t think it’s going to come as any surprise to the Minister, in terms of what my suggestion potentially might be for the title.

But before I give a hint of what that is, I want to just look at the title, which is the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. And, of course, the definition of “fair”, which is one of the significant words in the title of the bill in clause 1, is treating people equally. I think, as we have traversed over the past what is nearly three days, it is very clear from the conversation that the word “fair” in the title does not correlate with the definition of the word “fair”, and that is a great shame.

So on that basis, I wanted to make a suggestion to the Minister in regards to the title, and the suggestion that I wish to propose today, which I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider, is the title of “Mandatory Union Deal Bill”. I think that has quite a nice ring to it. As we’ve traversed before—[Interruption] As my colleague Erica Stanford has just said, it is an accurate description of what is actually included within the contents of this bill. I think is very important, from a legislative point of view, that we have a title that is reflective of the content of what the bill will actually deliver, and that is mandatory union deals. The detail behind that suggestion—I mean, I’m happy if the Minister wants to acronym that within brackets, so “mandatory union deal (MUD)”. So we can call that “MUD”, just for simplicity—because we like acronyms, don’t we, down here—and then, quite simply, we can just refer to this as the “MUD bill”.

So the reason why I think that title is very sensible and appropriate, if you may just let me go through it, is that, actually, the legislation that we’ve been reviewing is fundamentally unfair to employers and employees—bottom line. This legislation removes the choices and the rights of employees, particularly in regards to these agreement deals, and on that basis it is, in effect, forcing individuals in regards to undertaking a deal with the unions, hence the use of the words “mandatory union deal”, or “MUD” to keep it short. So that is pretty much my first suggestion.

I’ve actually a couple of other suggestions, if the Minister doesn’t think that that is appropriate, but I do think, to date, he’s shown a genuine interest in providing good contributions in terms of the questions that we have discussed. We have thought about this; it’s not something I’ve just come up with off the cuff. I think it has a nice ring to it, but, most importantly, it is actually descriptive of the legislation that this Government is ramming through this House in regards to agreements which are fundamentally not treating people equally, that are fundamentally unfair to employers and employees, and are removing choice for employers, particularly around their rights. That is completely mud, in my opinion, hence why it should be called the “Mandatory Union Deal Bill”.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): Point of order. I was wondering if you could please explain or outline to the committee whether you believe that contribution was consistent with Speaker’s ruling 122/2.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. I’ll have a look at that. In the meantime we will carry on, and I’ll come back to the member.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Simon Watts for a truly profound contribution to this committee stage debate about the Fair Pay Agreements Bill! If I can paraphrase a well-known quote from the early 2000s pop cultural phenomenon film Mean Girls, and I think there might be about three members on the opposite benches who will be familiar with this: stop trying to make mandatory union deals happen—it’s not going to happen. Despite the Hon Paul Goldsmith using that phrase with repetitive monotony about 794 times during the course of this debate, the only people who have been using it are members on that side of the Chamber.

This is a piece of legislation which is founded on basic principles of fairness. It is about the recognition that people who do enormously important work in our society deserve fair recognition for that through fair terms and conditions, and a cessation of the race to the bottom, which has meant that people like cleaners, security guards, supermarket workers, orderlies, aged-care workers, and others who we all rely on for the functioning of our economy and our society don’t have to live on poverty wages with insecure terms and conditions. So I think the title of the bill is a very accurate and appropriate one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the next call, I’ll just reply to the member—I did say I’d get back to the member who raised a point of order with regards to Speakers’ ruling 122/2. I find that the contribution of the member was entirely within the scope of the bill.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with the topic that’s going on at the moment, it would be appropriate to bring my Supplementary Order Paper into the mix. While I agree entirely with Simon Watts’ contribution, I won’t even attempt to be as verbose and just go through it. Fair pay agreements—they aren’t fair pay agreements. “Fair” is such a subjective term, and it denies all of the fantastic work going on at the moment with most—most, by far—businesses. Pay—it’s not about pay. It’s not just about pay; there are all of those other conditions. To call it “fair pay” is just a cynical use of words, and it brings out the emotion of people who are criticising it. If you disagree with it, you obviously disagree with fair pay, which is just a load of nonsense. “Agreement”—they aren’t agreements if one party can decide what the outcome is. It’s not an agreement.

So my amendment would replace “fair pay agreements” with “industrial awards”, because that’s what they are. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There was one comment that the Minister made in his previous contribution that I wholeheartedly agree with, and that is that mandatory union deals will not be taking place. But we might have a different reason for agreeing with that statement, and that is because this bill will be thrown out at its first opportunity by the incoming National-led Government because it’s not fair. It’s not fair to workers. It’s certainly not fair to the 80 percent of small businesses that make up our productive economy. And it’s not fair to be wasting this House’s time with a very complicated piece of legislation.

It’s in the commencement of that, that I wonder if the Minister could explain the complex correlation between the three commencement dates. I’ve looked—so the power to make regulations and approve forms comes into existence on the day after Royal assent. The rest of the bill comes in in a month’s time, with the exception of sections 32A(3) and (4), which comes into effect seven months after the date of Royal assent. But part of those sections expires six months after the bill becomes law. So it kind of almost extinguishes itself at the time that it comes into being. So I wonder if the Minister could explain to the committee what the logic is behind the staggered commencement dates and, in particular, clauses 32A(3) and (4)?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chris Baillie’s tabled amendment to clause 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 265 be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 1, changing the title of the bill to “Mandatory Union Deals Bill”, 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 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill improves the way chemicals are assessed or reassessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The bill will improve efficiency, for example by enabling better use of information from international regulators, and it will increase transparency, such as by requiring the EPA to publish a work plan for reassessments. We rely on thousands of chemicals and industrial processes in agriculture and many other aspects of modern life. It is important that the EPA is able to effectively and efficiently manage these chemicals so that their benefits are realised while not compromising the health and welfare of our citizens or the environment.

As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted earlier this year in a report about chemicals’ management in New Zealand, the rules about how the chemical can be used shouldn’t be static. We need to be able to adapt as new information comes to light. This bill will help the EPA to speed up both assessments and reassessments, for example, by making it easier for the EPA to make use of information from international regulators.

The bill has had broad cross-party support at all stages, including through the select committee process and during the committee of the whole House. On behalf of the Minister, I again thank the chair of the Environment Committee the Hon Eugenie Sage and all members of the committee and of this House, who have made thoughtful contributions to the consideration of this bill. I also thank the members of the public who took the time to make helpful submissions to the Environment Committee. I also want to acknowledge the advice of the Ministry for the Environment and the EPA, the advice from the Office of the Clerk, and the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

To conclude, this bill will improve the efficiency and speed of assessments and reassessments of hazardous substances. This is important so we can quickly get safer and more environmentally friendly chemicals in use in this country and better control the use of older, less safe substances. The bill will also improve transparency, in particular by requiring the EPA to publish a work plan for reassessments. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I have not been part of the process that the Minister Kieran McAnulty has just described, but National does support this bill. In our estimate, it is a bill worth supporting, because it’s really important that hazard classifications are accurate and up to date, and it’s equally as important for new substances as it is for substances that have been around for a while, for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to take another look at those. So National understands the rationale for what on the face of it seems to be a really practical bill. Anything that speeds up regulatory processes, albeit with due checks and balances and safety, has to be a good thing. It’s estimated that the Environmental Protection Authority is responsible for managing more than 150,000 hazardous substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, so it’s quite a significant role that they undertake.

I think the important thing that I have seen in terms of looking through the discussions that have been had on the bill, and the bill itself, is that, really, it enables better use of information from international regulators. This is important for the reason that, you know, if I actually think across, a lot of things that people are now starting to ask to be regulated to use fall into the environmental, climate change areas of where we operate with our agricultural systems. You know, we need to make sure that those substances are safe for our environment, safe for our country. But there’s something that always seems to come into question every time we discuss this: that if international regulators have had a look at some of these substances and they consider them safe for human use, its’s really good that our EPA is going to start taking some notice of those things as they cross borders. Actually, humans are humans wherever they may live, and if there is a safe human factor, then I think it’s hugely important that some of the background work that’s been done in other countries, if deemed to be safe across international regulators—that we are able to take account of it. We’re quite good in this country, at times, at reinventing the wheel, and, actually, we’re a small population compared to the rest of the world and we have other regulators that are much bigger and have much more resource in terms of being able to assess some of these products.

There are other improvements to the reassessment process, and it seems from reading this that some of the chemicals and substances that are being reassessed—it’s taking a very long time to be able to reassess those. We know from history that if we think about some of the chemicals and substances that have been used in the past and the issues that we’ve had with those, we certainly don’t want any more hold-up in terms of making sure that these are safe and environmentally friendly, and if the continued use of those is going on and we don’t have the ability to speed up the processes to assess them, then we certainly have a problem.

The EPA, for those who are listening out in New Zealand today, is the regulator that’s responsible for making decisions on whether to improve new hazardous substances. I’ve had a few conversations with people over the last little while about some substances that may be very useful for eliminating things such as—or lowering methane emissions from agricultural ruminant animals. You know, I think that speeding up the process and taking into account the human factors around those sorts of things is very important if we want to stay ahead of the world as a nation in terms of how we produce and how we are very climate effective now. If we have a regulator that is slow and unable to follow due process in a meaningful and timely manner compared to other parts of the world, we certainly risk getting left behind.

So those, really, I think, are the key points in this bill, and I don’t really see any point in labouring out another five minutes on it, because I think it’s very clear: let’s pass this bill. We don’t want to be the hold-up to any processes that might give us the opportunity to get some products in this country that might solve some of our other issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill amending the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the HASNO Act. The primary legislation, the HASNO Act, has an environmental purpose to it, and that, at section 4, is to protect the environment and the health and safety of people in communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.

What this amendment bill—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—does is it just deals with that part of hazardous substances; it’s not dealing with new organisms at all. And it is, as the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, just said, to improve those processes—the regulatory processes—that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) administers. So they have approval processes for hazardous substances, and that is what this bill addresses.

I was on the select committee and I am on the select committee that addressed this bill. We did hear submissions on the bill about a year ago, so I’m very thankful for those people who took the time to make submissions, and to our advisers, and to the rest of the select committee that made a unanimous report. There were no differing views or anything like that.

So what the bill does is it enables the EPA to rely on international regulators. Those regulators have to meet some criteria that are spelt out in the bill, and it improves the reassessment process. And there are some technical improvements as well.

So I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House. It improves and it does some maintenance to an important piece of environmental legislation. Thank you.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Absolute pleasure to stand as a member of Parliament for North Shore and as a member of the National Party on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill at its third reading.

Simon O’Connor: Is that plain English?

SIMON WATTS: Well, that’s a very good question Simon O’Connor, but not the purpose of this bill; we should stay on track, which I will endeavour to do. So as we’ve traversed already, and Barbara Kuriger has opened up our position on this, National continue to support this bill. It is an important bill in regards to improving the assessment of hazardous substances, as the prior speaker Rachel Brooking has acknowledged, and I recognise that she is a member of the mighty Environment Committee. I do want to acknowledge the members on that group, the Hon Eugenie Sage who is chair, Scott Simpson obviously on our side—he’s sad he can’t be here, I’m sure, in regards to this, but I said I’d carry on and make sure I raise that—and the other members, of course, for their hard work.

It was interesting when the prior speaker acknowledged—it was nearly a year ago, I think, that the select committee went through that process of public submissions, and gee, time flies, does it what when we’re doing what we do. Nearly a year has gone by, and I do want to acknowledge all of those members of the public who made submissions in regards to this to the Environment Committee and also the officials in the background that have worked so diligently in regards to the support and the preparation of an important bill. As Barbara Kuriger has noted, this looks to be—and obviously I’m not a member of this select committee but it does look to be a sensible piece of legislation dealing with important aspects in regards to hazardous substances.

It’s interesting that the prior speaker referred to the environmental purpose of that. It takes me back to when I was a young fella. I grew up on an orchard and my father is a horticulturalist, and you could imagine on an orchard you’d use a lot of pesticides and a lot of insecticides, a lot of chemicals such as that, a lot of hazardous substances, actually. So it did bring me back to the good old days of—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bit of an explanation.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much to the Hon Gerry Brownlee—good little snippet there; thank you. But it did take me back, and it does remind me of why it’s very important—Mr Speaker, you’re laughing and I’m laughing now too—that we’re reviewing such legislation and we’re continually looking at opportunities to improve it because, you know, those pesticides and chemicals do have issues. But I think the other aspect is the work that is in the linkage there in terms of the biodiversity of our waterways, and obviously the flow-through of those chemicals going into our waterways, the impact of that on plant life and animal species and the flow-through of that is important.

I also just want to, while I’m there, acknowledge the community groups out there that do a lot of work in regards to protecting the biodiversity of our waterways, and no doubt this legislation will help in terms of improvement around reducing the risks and issues that evolve in regards to that point.

The other aspect I want to cover in the short amount of time that I’ve got left is in regards to members of the chemical industry that are involved. I actually had the privilege to visit Chemfreight, a significant chemical and hazardous substance business in Auckland, actually near Botany, and I had the pleasure to visit there with Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party. We had a tour around this chemical freight business. They’re dealing with exactly the types of chemicals that are included within this legislation, and I just want to acknowledge the work that those individuals do to ensure that they maintain a high degree of standards and processes—and geez they’re fastidious in terms of the detail. And I think we would respect why they are so fastidious, because, you know, those chemicals are pretty dangerous and pretty serious if they are not managed appropriately.

But businesses such as that, I think, do operate under a significant regulatory burden and regulatory framework. And I say burden just for the point that I think there is an element—and this is maybe something for the Minister to consider in terms of the consistent application of enforcement around such legislation, because a number of those significant chemical businesses are absolutely complying with the legislation in the way in which they should, but there is a number of players out there that aren’t necessarily as professional, that are potentially not.

I think this legislation, in regards to an amendment, is to try and improve. I think we should be continuously assessing the opportunities that we have available in terms of making sure that everyone, particularly our business community, are playing on a level playing field. Often the legislation, such as the bill we’re discussing now, is all good, but where the rubber hits the road is in regards to the way in which that is monitored and enforced, and making sure that that is consistent. If that’s the one takeaway I could take from that business, and, I’m sure, many others, it is that that would be an area that would be sensible for the Government to review.

I think what is good also, and I won’t get into the detail of the prior bill that we are talking about, but in this case we’ve actually got broad cross-party support for a piece of legislation, which is good. I think that reflects the fact that the legislation in terms of the substance and its form—with the exception of the title, as was acknowledged right at the start—should deliver the requirements in terms of what is required.

The last aspect I want to talk on is just in terms of the overall amendments that we’re seeing within this bill driving a greater degree of efficiency in terms of the assessment and reassessment of processes for hazardous substances. I think, you know, that when we get the opportunity to stand up in this House, it’s often in regards to the increasing of regulatory burden and roadblocks and things that are slowing down and blocking our business community. And when we see amendments that actually bring greater efficiency to that process, I don’t know, it’s like when you go through a very long, cold winter and the sun comes out in spring. You know, it’s a bit like that. And I think in regards to this, it is good to see cross-party support in regards to initiatives that will bring greater efficiency around an area which, as we’ve noted, has significant positive impacts in terms of not only the health and safety of hard-working Kiwis but also in regards to our environment and our waterways.

So I’m very pleased that National, along with other parties, understands the rationale of what seem to be very much practical proposals within this legislation. We’re very much in support of the intent of this legislation on this third reading and want to ensure that when we look back on this in periods to come, it will be noted that we strongly support this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’m really pleased to be standing and taking a short call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—a long name but a really good, useful little bill that does some really practical things.

I want to congratulate the Minister, the Hon David Parker, for bringing this legislation to us, and I also want to thank our submitters; the select committee, who were very unanimously in support of this bill; our officials, including the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Ministry for the Environment, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. These things take time to pull together but it’s a really good little bill that will do some real, real useful changes.

So it basically amends our primary legislation and it enables better information from similar international regulators, and that’s really important because it doesn’t duplicate the assessments already undertaken by those comparable international regulators. But it doesn’t say that we can just take any rules; it just says they have to be a comparable regulatory framework and the information needs to be readily accessible. That’s really important because we want it to be really transparent as to what assessments have been used.

There’s also a strict liability offence for $50,000 for a natural person or $100,000 for a company, and it also enables the EPA to temporarily restrict certain uses of hazardous substances, and this where there’s actual or likely danger to human health, safety, or to the environment.

So there are really practical, useful changes. It’s going to mean that the EPA are going to be able to get through their work a lot faster. We know there’s a backlog and they’re working at pace, but this helps. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—what a name. I just wanted to acknowledge my colleague Eugenie Sage, who I’m sure would have been delighted to deliver this third reading speech. She’s the chair of the Environment Committee and someone technological, so are the other members across the House who I understand have worked in a very collegial and constructive manner to get to this place where we can celebrate in some time the passing of this bill.

The intention of this bill is to reduce time, cost, and complexity of assessment and reassessment that can delay the introduction of safer chemicals as well as delay reassessment of chemicals in use that may not be fit for purpose. I think for a lot of us when we read the term “hazardous substance”, I think it can be quite nebulous, but there is a definition to it, which is basically chemicals, mixes of chemicals that can be explosive, flammable, corrosive, have the capacity to oxidise, and/or to be toxic to people and the environment. When we see the definition so clearly laid out it is why this bill has such a key role in ensuring that the assessment of the substances is fit for purpose. There are over 200,000 substances across the region that are considered to fit this definition.

There are several elements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—HASNO Act—that are supposed to protect the environment and the health and safety of people. This bill focuses specifically on the assessment of these substances. While we do really support this bill, I did want to note a couple of points around some of the areas that we need to continue working on in order to have a really good regime. So one of those is around the need for more work in other areas to improve regulation and management of hazardous substances in the region. In order for this bill to be effective, what we say is that we need more funding and Ministry for the Environment (MFE) staff time too, and prioritise to simplify the regime, ensure agencies are clear about their roles and bridge major gaps, such as lack of track and trace systems, because sometimes one element is having a really good piece of legislation and the other one is then what needs to happen to ensure that the purpose of this legislation is met. The Environmental Protection Authority, the EPA, will play a key role.

There’s heaps of things to like about this bill. One of them is about enabling the EPA to make better use of information from what its counterparts overseas are doing and other trusted regulators in other jurisdictions. There’s other elements that we quite like, such as making it easier to update hazard classifications when the EPA has done a recent reassessment of a related hazardous substance, and also to have a simpler process for the EPA to update hazard classifications for substances and controls on them using information from international regulators, as well as, basically, allowing the EPA to temporarily restrict certain uses of hazardous substances.

These are all really important measures that we need to take. While we welcome the use of overseas data in order for us to have a good regime, I think that we also need to ensure that we are taking a very Aotearoa-specific context when these decisions are being made. We have a very unique ecology and so, therefore, decisions being made around what is hazardous and not needs to be made in the context of our own region.

It’s also important that we’re not relying on data and research that is produced by chemical companies themselves as a basis for assessing impact. I think it’s important that we also use independent and robust sources that have come through rigorous scientific methods. I mean, we can’t rely on, basically, the industry itself to tell us what is hazardous or otherwise. This is why we must continue using a broader range of information. Also, it’s important that we continue demanding more transparency from applicants and agrichemical companies. We should only be accessing data that is used by trusted regulators overseas.

So with that, we’re pretty pleased to support this bill. Again, we’re really calling on the Government to make sure this bill is as effective as possible. I know that the previous National speaker talked about how there is broad consensus on this bill. So now’s the time to ensure that our environment and our people are protected from substances that could cause them harm. Kia ora.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House. Today, it is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, so I’m happy to make a contribution. What we’ve heard in the overview of this bill is that there are three amendments in this bill that it covers: one, it is about enabling the better use of information from international regulators; two, there are other improvements to the reassessment process; and, three, there are technical amendments.

Earlier this year, as the Minister has alerted us to, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted that our rules around chemicals shouldn’t be static and that we needed to adopt new information as it comes to light. So the regulator, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—this will make it easier for them. If there is a new hazardous drug that overseas regulators have deemed to be dangerous, then what the regulators here can do—the EPA—is actually makes changes in their assessment process so that dangerous hazardous substances are not used in New Zealand. So these amendments will modernise and make the Act agile enough for technology—new information—to be adopted by the EPA in approving hazardous substances or chemicals.

In that name, I just want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister and the chair of the Environment Committee. This has been an example of where we can all come together and agree on something that’s useful and valuable for the country. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hey, look, pleased to take a call on this rather long-titled bill, but an important one. Because everyone starts their speeches this way, I will: it’s called the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, in its third reading.

Despite the tone, we are very supportive of this bill; I had better assure Minister Parker of that. Humour aside, this is actually a good example of a Government bill which attracts the support, by the sound of it, of everyone across the House. For those watching, and certainly locals in my electorate, I often will point out that about 80 percent of legislation goes through this Parliament certainly with the support of the two major parties, National and Labour, and this is a really good example of that.

The third reading, of course—we are bringing this to a conclusion. As others have rightly noted, the select committee, led by Eugenie Sage, has done a very good job teasing this out, and it’s a very practical example of a select committee, I’d suggest, working strongly, confidently, and producing a piece of legislation that is pretty straightforward. And what it’s doing, fundamentally, is updating New Zealand’s legislation to allow the classification of hazardous substances to be done much more quickly and efficiently.

I’m not a chemist; in fact, I’m not a lawyer, not a doctor—not a whole lot of things. I can, in fact, fill out 3½ minutes telling you what I’m not. However, importantly, around hazardous substances, we’re talking things that are explosive, things which are flammable, things which are toxic, things which are eco-toxic, corrosive, and oxidising. And unbeknownst to me, the likes of hydrogen peroxide is actually an oxidising agent.

So long and short—which is possibly a little bit long, Mr Speaker—fundamentally, we are talking a grade of chemicals that are used day to day in New Zealand, or explosives, of course. I think that’s mainly in the mining and quarrying side, but it’ll also have elements within our defence forces. These are substances used each and every day to make our lives easier, and what this bill seeks to do is to speed up the process of how they’re assessed. And the fundamental change is to actually look overseas and see what other jurisdictions do, and, importantly, this bill makes it clear that those have to be, if you will, nominated countries, nominated agencies that we have trust in. And I think that makes a lot of sense. I would make the suggestion to the Government, and it’s been a policy idea of mine—and certainly discussed with my own colleagues on this side—that we should apply this thinking also into the health sector when it comes to the likes of pharmaceutical products or therapeutics.

I’m always amazed; with no offence to the likes of Pharmac and Medsafe, it would also be good to look at overseas jurisdictions and take a bit of a lead for what they do—you know, a drug in Afghanistan, America, or Algeria works just as good as it does in New Zealand, in my opinion, and we should take heed of what other countries do, in other words, to speed up the process, and that’s fundamentally what this one is doing here.

So people wanting to import or use hazardous substances—as I say, those which are explosive or oxidising, eco-toxic—will now be able to look overseas and provide that information to the EPA or the Environmental Protection Authority here in New Zealand. So I think it’s actually just a very pragmatic idea. It’ll be interesting to see how this beds in, I suppose. Like anything, it looks good and it is good, I think; the little rub could potentially be who or which countries, which agencies, get nominated. It would be my hope that New Zealand’s relatively generous in those interpretations. I would hate to see that the legislation, which is intending to make this more—I don’t know—malleable; is that a bad chemical-type pun? It could be, I don’t know—I’ll have to ponder that. Sorry—it’s one of those mornings! But, hopefully, this makes the system more malleable. I wouldn’t like to see it run down bureaucratically where all of a sudden in terms of jurisdictions like, I don’t know, the United States or Canada or the United Kingdom, we say, “Well, actually, even though we respect these authorities, we shouldn’t use them.” I would hope we’ll be quite generous in that space.

So, again, very pleased to recommend this bill to the House—good to see it moving through the third reading and look forward to seeing it implemented practically soon.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a short call on this third reading. For those of us who live in rural communities, this is a really important piece of legislation because we not only live in a beautiful part of the world—wherever we are in rural New Zealand—but we’re very aware that we live in a working environment. We’ve heard from across this House that recognising this bill enables more nimble and responsive decisions to be made, not just about better protections for hazardous substances but also for new technology to be recognised and brought into play to assist us to make a just transition and make our primary industries more sustainable in the long term.

We have some significant legacy pollution sites around the country that this Government has committed to cleaning up. Ideally, this bill will help to minimise those legacy sites from appearing in the future. So I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. As we have heard from other speakers in the third reading debate on this bill, the main purpose of the principal Act is to protect our environment and the health and safety of our people and communities by preventing and managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.

This is very important because of the speed of the industry—we don’t know what we don’t know, and it is really important in the kōrero and the mahi of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that they are kept up to speed, and that is true of WorkSafe as well. As we have heard, the bill is to amend the original Act, and, more to the point, to improve the assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances, and specifically to enable better use of information from international regulators. We are reliant in Aotearoa on that information and the comparative analysis by our international partners, but also to make those improvements to the reassessment process around the technicality of those amendments. The improvements will enable the efficiency by enabling better use of that information, and, where possible, increasing transparency.

This amendment bill will enable stronger decision-making about whether the controls do need to be updated and whether the substances that are currently used should no longer be used, and it will ensure we have the technical information that is appropriate.

At the moment, as we know, the current system can be time-consuming, resource-intensive, and lengthy, which has a cost in the long run. In terms of chemicals, we need to understand that the Government needs to have safer alternatives to existing chemicals, so we are reliant on the information that is enforced by the EPA. Delayed reassessments could mean that safety in the controls are not kept up to speed and may be unsafe for our citizens and can no longer be used. So it’s really important that the information is clear and concise and is evidenced-based, as per the international regulators.

Therefore, we need the bill to be passed, and I thank members across the House for their support to improve processes for assessing and reassessing particular hazardous substances. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the select committee members, submitters, and officials from the various agencies. I commend this bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be able to rise and speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill at the third reading. As noted, this is something that we do support. It makes sense to be able to do this, as some of my colleagues and people across the House have commented on this morning.

We noted that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for managing a significant number of hazardous substances, and whether they go through the agriculture or horticulture area, construction, right across the many areas of New Zealand industry, there will be hazardous substances that are used, and, as a result of that, there will be potentially negative externalities for people who have to deal with those, for the environment, for animals, for our health. So being able to respond dynamically and quickly is something that’s very important.

We note that the EPA needs some amendments to enable quicker uptake of what is being used overseas to assess hazardous substances and make decisions about what should be approved and what should no longer be approved as new information comes to light. However, currently, the way of doing this is quite cumbersome, it’s quite time-consuming, and, as a result, it’s also costly. So you have there a mix of inefficiencies, you have expenses, and, at the end of the line, you have people, you have the environment, and you have businesses taking on costs, losing time, and exposing themselves to potentially more hazardous situations than they otherwise should have to. So amending the regulatory framework to be able to allow New Zealand to be more dynamic in that area is very important, and, as a result, we will be commending this.

It makes sense, as science progresses, that we will see an increase in new chemicals being produced and manufactured and available for use. So having a regime that enables them to be brought into the New Zealand environment is important. There is a lot of good information out there and a lot of good regulators out there, as well, that have done a lot of background work on stuff, and to be able to leverage that, I think, is definitely in New Zealand’s best interest. I think this bill understands that and goes a fair way to addressing that.

My colleague Simon O’Connor did raise a point around what other regimes we would view as comparable or like-minded or want to utilise in order to progress certain hazardous substances. I think that’s a fairly good point from him. Ideally they would be jurisdictions that have similar regimes to us, similar tests and controls to enable us to have that reassurance that the chemicals and substances that we are allowing for use in New Zealand are of a standard that we would expect. I think we’ve probably got a fair bit of literature and also commonality over previous or other arrangements where we can look to leverage off that.

There has been some concern raised about the current environment and how it can delay our responsiveness. I think that’s really important because we do live in a dynamic world, and we do live in an environment where other countries are also understanding that and they will have amended their regimes. So to see New Zealand now in that mould is very pleasing. I think it’s a good idea and we should be looking to apply this beyond what we’re doing here, to allow us to leverage off what other people have done in this space, not just when it comes to hazardous substances but you could look across other medical devices. We only need to cast our minds back to the COVID environment where we probably weren’t as nimble as we should have been to utilise what other healthcare regulators overseas were doing in regards to testing and different equipment that could be used. You could also apply it to what is happening with Gib board and whether some standards that are being used overseas could also be applicable here.

But it is good to see that that is happening in this space. So, on that note, I have reiterated, and I will continue to, that I think this is a good way to utilise the expertise that exists overseas to help save New Zealand time and resources that, frankly, we don’t have, and to create a more dynamic hazardous substances regime. It will benefit industry. It will benefit the public. It will support timely and appropriate hazardous substances management for all communities to effectively derive greater benefit from. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports the changes proposed in this bill. The problem to solve is to simplify the way that hazardous substances, pesticides, agricultural chemicals, and water treatment chemicals, for example, are assessed and can come into use in New Zealand. And that’s because, over the past few decades, there have been many, many advances in the type of chemical formulations that are used on our crops, in our water supply, and in manufacturing food, which means that the chemicals used today are far less toxic than the ones used in previous generations.

If we consider it wasn’t that long ago that in New Zealand we used to manufacture products like 2,4,5-T, like dieldrin, and like lindane that all contained extremely harmful dioxin compounds that cause cancer and birth defects and that are not easy to clean up and dispose of—those chemicals are banned and we now use a far safer generation of products to grow food, in industrial manufacturing, water treatment, and so on. But the next generation of products that are available are safer again, and our current hazardous substances and new organisms legislation has made it difficult to have older products, less safe products, reassessed and removed, and to bring new products into the market. It’s actually our growers who are asking for access to these products, asking for the system to be sped up. And so for that reason, ACT supports this.

What is missing from this particular piece of legislation, and it has been canvassed, is the opportunity to look at the new organisms component, which would give us a pathway, potentially, to solving some of our really serious environmental problems, like how we address emissions from livestock, for example. There are products in the market right now, like Bovaer, which, if fed to livestock, reduce their methane emissions. There are forms of ryegrass, for example, which are genetically modified, which would take up more nitrogen and actually improve the environment. And, of course, there are opportunities to use medical treatments which are commonly used in places like far-flung Australia, which involve genetically modified organisms to treat really rare but extremely deadly cancers.

So the ACT Party supports this legislation. We believe that it’s timely to simplify the process to reassess chemicals and to reassess hazardous substances so they can be removed from use if new, safer products are available. But we also urge the Minister and officials to continue work on liberalising the use of genetically modified biotechnology that is in common use in other parts of the world, and which would have great benefits for New Zealand consumers, for New Zealand primary producers, but, most importantly, for the environment we live in and for the future people of New Zealand. Thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): In the spirit of this bill, which is to make sure that we cut the costs of processes, I commend this bill to the House. It’s a great bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

Second Reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Today, I present the legislative statement on the Māori Purposes Bill.

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

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I’d like to thank those who have made submissions on the bill for their time and for sharing their whakaaro on these matters. I’d also like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the bill. Although the amendments included in this bill are considered minor or technical in nature, they remove barriers and unnecessary administrative compliance for a number of Māori entities. In doing so, they support Māori entities to better manage their own affairs, make use of new technologies, and exercise their rangatiratanga. This aligns with the Government’s commitment to building strong partnerships with Māori and working with Māori to improve wellbeing outcomes.

The Māori Purposes Bill is an omnibus bill that proposes minor technical and non-controversial updates and improvements to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962.

The amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993—the bill contains four specific sets of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The first set of amendments ensures the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries as intended by the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 Treaty claim. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust was established to give effect to an early Treaty settlement concerning lands at Waitomo Caves. It was intended that the beneficiaries of the settlement would be all the descendants of the original 22 owners of the relevant lands. However, since 1990, succession orders made by the Māori Land Court meant that should the trust be terminated, the people entitled to interest in the land may not include all the descendants of the original owners as intended in the Wai 51 settlement. The proposed amendment in this bill would mean that powers under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to terminate a trust do not apply to the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, ensuring the Wai 51 settlement can continue as intended. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust made submissions in support of these amendments.

Other amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act extend certain time frames for decision making, allow assembled owners of Māori land the option of meeting by electronic means, and correct a te reo Māori mistake in the preamble of the Act.

Amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959—the proposed amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 relate to Lake Rotoaira Trust and its trout fishery. Lake Rotoaira is privately owned Māori freehold land, and the Lake Rotoaira Trust is an ahuwhenua trust under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The bill proposes several amendments to provide the Lake Rotoaira Trust with more autonomy and flexibility to manage the lake and associated trout fishery. The proposed amendments include things like increasing trustees’ power to recommend fishing conditions for the lake and to manage the fishery, updating the maximum penalty for offences under the Act, and clarifying that entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing. These amendments are supported by the Lake Rotoaira Trust.

Amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—the amendments proposed to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 are aimed at ensuring Māori trust boards can operate efficiently. These will allow for electronic voting in trust board elections; remove Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework, as they are further removed or more distanced from the Crown than other entities subject to the framework; streamline the process for board members resignations; and remove the Taranaki Māori Trust Board annuity payment following the agreed buy-out of the annuity by the Crown annuity. All Māori trust boards have been contacted about this proposal and all those who responded to consultation support the proposal.

Finally, the Maori Community Development Act 1962—the amendment proposed in relation to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 all required district Māori councils to submit the audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council, the body district Māori councils are legally accountable to, rather than to Te Puni Kōkiri’s chief executive.

After the first reading on 25 November 2021, this bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the committee called for submissions between 8 December 2021 and 26 January 2022. Five submissions were received on the bill—a small but not unexpected number, given the nature of this bill. The majority of submissions supported the bill. I mentioned earlier the submission received in support of the bill from the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust have been seeking the amendments proposed in this bill in relation to their trust for a number of years. I particularly want to acknowledge the lengthy involvement of Josephine Anderson, who brought the original Wai 51 claim more than 30 years ago and also appeared before the select committee on behalf of the trust.

Again, I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for their diligent scrutiny of the bill and their collaborative approach to ensuring this legislation is passed in a timely manner. The select committee’s report back was succinct and no significant amendments to the bill were proposed. However, some minor typos in the bill as introduced have been corrected, which of course I support. As I said earlier, unlike some of the bills that come before this House which propose entirely new regimes or substantive changes to existing legislation, this bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to four Acts relevant to Māori affairs. While these changes are minor and technical in nature, they support the ability of Māori identities to manage their businesses and exercise their rangatiratanga. These changes also ensure that Māori entities are operating under up-to-date legislation that allows them to utilise modern technologies. With that, I commend this House to the bill.

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

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Aroha mai—this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): I have the distinct pleasure and privilege of rising for the National Party to take a call as Māori spokesperson—as spokesperson for Māori development. Our words are getting a little bit befuddled this morning, but the intention is accurate and on point.

So I acknowledge Minister Whaitiri for the contribution to the House today in outlining in meticulous detail what this bill before the House is about. The Māori Purposes Bill came before the Māori Affairs Committee on 25 November 2021: one year and one day ago. So today, I’m taking this call. When I first spoke to the bill, it was on 16 November—is the note that I have from 2021. And in so doing, I rose with the distinct purpose of speaking on this and acknowledging many Māori who had given contributions of a lifetime of service around Māori development. Back on 16 November last year, I specifically turned my whakaaro, my thoughts, and my sentiments towards the whānau of Neville Baker, who was a very prominent contributor to te ao Māori in both Government and the private sector.

Since that time, and before I do turn to the Māori Purposes Bill, it is with purpose that I also acknowledge Tā Wira Gardiner, Sir Wira Gardiner—again, significant contributions of a lifetime of service—Moana Jackson, Dame June Jackson, and Joe Hawke.

And then I turn to the living—and the living, importantly, is in celebration of the contributions that have been made—again, with that specific intent around Māori development. I look over at Minister Whaitiri and it was a privilege to be over in Ngāti Kahungunu for Ahuwhenua Māori farming awards last Friday, and very much about the development of the whenua; of te taiao, the environment; but also ngā tāngata katoa, our Māori farmers, in the space that’s there.

My final acknowledgment with purpose—because it is relevant to Māori development and what this Māori Purposes Bill is about—is having attended the 75th anniversary celebration since the establishment of Hato Paora, a Māori boys’ Catholic kura in Rangitīkei, Feilding. My colleague Ian McKelvie, who is the member of Parliament for Rangitīkei, also attended in support and acknowledgment of that.

I now turn to the bill. Importantly, this is an omnibus bill, which means that it’s an accumulation of several bills enabling minor technical and non-controversial amendments to be made to Māori development legislation. So this Māori Purposes Bill also deals with authorisations, transfers, and validations in respect of Māori land and property.

So Minister Whaitiri addressed the first component of the bill, which is proposing amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, also known as the Maori Land Act, to ensure that the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust can continue to exist and exercise powers, rights, and duties in a manner consistent with the 1990 settlement of the Wai—that’s the Waitangi Tribunal—51 claim in relation to the Waitomo Caves.

I always try and make a point of an association to the people of the area, of the whenua. And Waitomo Caves: earlier this year, during the recess period, in my own time with my husband, we travelled up to Ngāti Maniapoto into the area of the Waitomo Caves and met not only in visiting the adventures of Waitomo Caves. For those of us who haven’t been there, this is one of our national treasures—taonga—that is under the auspices of the authority and the kaitiakitanga of the trustees but also the uri—the descendants—of this Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust.

I have here just a little memento of that visit, and the memento is capturing some photographs of the time going into the Waitomo Caves. What’s interesting too—with this little memento—is a keepsake that I will show in time to my mokopuna, because it’s an educational tool-kit here: the marvels of nature and learning Māori. “Waitomo” is a Māori word made up of two parts: wai, which translates as “water”; tomo, which means “the entrance” or “the hole”. So going into that area and the glow worms there, which light up not only the space of the cave but in an enlightenment for those of us having that adventure and that experience. Waitomo Caves: a national treasure.

So this bill is about addressing some of the detail around the importance of management and looking after. When I did go to visit Waitomo Caves, I engaged with the uri, the descendants, of the people who are charged and entrusted with looking after this natural asset, this taonga, but also the visitors—and the international visitors will be flooding and flowing back and engaging and speaking with the local employees, all of whom are uri of the trust and the peoples associated with this whenua.

The second part of the bill proposes amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1955 to give the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. So those who are not familiar with the location of Lake Rotoaira: it is within the rohe—the domains, the tribal boundaries—of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. As you’re travelling through the national park and you veer off rather than going straight ahead towards Taumarunui, turn off to the right, travel through the volcanic plateau, and that will take you past Lake Rotoaira on your journey up to Lake Taupō, into Taupō, and around the area of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

The amendments will remove a requirement to hold a trout licence to fish for fish other than trout. So it goes into the specifics as to what is permissible in the management by the local people, by the uri of the whenua of Rotoaira Trust; clarifies that a right of entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing; and also includes the trustees of Motuopuhi Māori Reservation and their invitees in those listed persons are allowed access to the lake without an entry permit.

So the Māori Purposes Bill just goes through and details calibrations in terms of the management, the authority, the kaitiakitanga of the taonga—the asset—Lake Rotoaira and talks about an increase of outdated low penalties for offences from $100 to $5,000.

I’m now going to move on to the third part of the bill, which proposes technical and non-contentious amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. And that, again, is to do a note that as we’ve moved into the futurism of technology and how we’ve Zoomed into this space, the provision for electronic voting.

It also removes the Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework—the Minister has addressed that—provides for resignations of members of the boards to be made in writing to the board, and for the board to then notify the Minister for Māori Development rather than for the member to have to resign in writing to the Minister. So these are just some administrative tweaks that go with it. And then, as the Minister said, the removal of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board annuity payment provision from the Act.

Finally—in the one minute, 30 seconds left—there is an amendment proposed to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 to require district Māori councils to provide a copy of their audited financial statement directly to the New Zealand Māori Council rather than to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri. So, again, the Maori Community Development Act, my first engagement with that Act was as secretary of the local Aotearoa District Māori Council back in the early 1980s. I remember, as a 19-year-old, recording the minutes of the kaumātua—none of whom are with us to this day—but those distinct memories now, as an older woman in public service, in this place and this space, draws on the memories of those who have given a service of a time in a bygone era.

In closing, I spent time over recent weeks with Sir Taihakurei Durie, a former Māori Land Court judge, Chief Māori Land Court judge, High Court judge, and a prominent public servant in this realm—in this domain and space—of Māori development, and he continues to give service as the president of the New Zealand Māori District Councils. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Mālō ni. For those just tuning in to this debate and those joining us, we’re discussing here the Māori Purposes Bill. This is one of the pieces of legislation—one of many pieces of legislation—in this House which we all agree on, and let me tell you a little bit about why we agree on this piece of legislation.

It went to the Māori Affairs Committee, and that committee is a very collegial committee. I’m honoured to sit on that committee as its deputy chairperson, alongside the member who has just spoken, Harete Hipango. We have a relationship in that committee where we discuss the ideas put to us. We draw heavily on the advice of our officials, and I must commend the officials who advised us on this piece of legislation. We had very experienced and helpful advisers on this. We worked well, as well, with our clerks’ team, particularly our clerk Dylan Hanna, who leaves us today for another committee, and I commend him on his service to the Māori Affairs Committee. [Interruption] He’s getting cheers from the Environment Committee, though.

Now look, this piece of legislation has been canvassed as technical, but let me tell you a little bit more about the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. It was a particularly interesting part of this legislation, which the committee considered in a little bit more detail, because this is a trust that has existed since 1990. That was before having settlements written into legislation were common. This arose from the claim of Wai 51. The original claimants actually gave evidence to the committee and spoke to us through their lawyer, Mr Koning, and took us through the procedural history of how this special trust came into existence before the Government was in the habit of making formal Treaty settlements.

This was really useful for the committee to consider because the Māori Affairs Committee is responsible for considering all Treaty legislation. We consider more modern forms of Treaty settlements that have arisen since, probably, the 2005-07 era. We also consider the older settlements that did not use the same sorts of policy settings that we do now when we consider those amendments. So it was really useful for us to consider what happened at this period of 1990, when no conventions existed and Treaty settlements weren’t something that was agreed between Labour and National as important. When we consider this arrangement that has existed for both the hapū of Uekaha and Ruapuha, the arrangements that were made using ahu whenua trusts simply aren’t as nimble and aren’t as flexible as those that exist today. So that is why we have to make an amendment to the legislation to limit the power of the court, because what was put in place in 1990 isn’t acceptable today and isn’t as useful today as more modern legislation.

So, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for a contribution on this bill. It’s a good bill, and that’s why I commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a privilege to speak on this short bill. I’ve had very little to do with the Māori Affairs Committee in my time in this House, other than to turn up for kai—and I can assure you it’s worth doing that!

But I just want to speak about the Māori Purposes Bill at this second reading. Obviously, we support this bill and, I think, rightly so. I think that the interesting thing for me about this bill, particularly, was the work those submitters must have had to do, the five of them, during their Christmas break, because the submissions for this bill were due back on 26 January. We in this Parliament have a habit of doing this to voluntary organisations, particularly, and some of these are semi-voluntary organisations that this bill deals with. So they’d have had to work through their Christmas break to put the submission in to appease the rules of the House, which I think is a little unfair and a little unfortunate, but that’s the way we seem to do things in this House. If you are suspicious, you could have been suspicious we did it on purpose to avoid submissions, but not in this case.

This bill is interesting because trusts of all natures are set up at a time and a place, and, of course, they often need alteration. Not only these sorts of trusts that are covered by the Māori Purposes Bill, but all other kinds of trusts that deal with local entities, with private people’s operations, they’re all set up with a time frame in mind and those time frames and the rules that they are living under often change. So it becomes quite complex.

But one of the things that really interests me about this bill—and, of course, as Harete Hipango said, if you drive through the Rangitīkei, you get to the top of it and there’s Lake Rotoaira. You drive a little further through the Rangitīkei and just past the boundary are the Waitomo Caves. You wonder what the Rangitīkei had to do with that, because most people think the Rangitīkei is around Marton and Bulls, but in fact it stretches right up to this area. And one of the really interesting discussions I’ve had about Lake Rotoaira in my time in this House relates to trout farming. It’s a very topical thing for the Māori communities in that area, and, frankly, when you look at the way trout farming is operated internationally, I think it’s a huge opportunity for New Zealand that we’ve never used. I’m fortunate that my colleague Louise Upston’s left the House, because she, of course, is the member for Taupō, and Taupō makes its money out of trout licences and trout fishing. But I don’t think that there’s any reason why the two couldn’t have lived in harmony, and Lake Rotoaira, of course, is a classic place that I suppose one could imagine—and I know the locals have imagined—being used for exactly that purpose, and probably with good reason.

One of the reasons that’s often been talked about with respect to trout farming in New Zealand not taking place is the fact that it needs to protect the fishing licences and the fishing industry. I don’t think trout farming would have any impact on the fishing industry at all. In fact, the salmon farming industry has proved that; there’s still a very vibrant salmon fishing industry where it’s applicable in New Zealand. Of course, it’s a thing that doesn’t happen in the North Island, we very seldom ever find salmon running up our rivers, but certainly in the lower parts of the South Island they do. Salmon farming in New Zealand is, of course, a massively huge opportunity for New Zealand, and I think that trout farming—in an appropriately managed and an appropriate place—would have the same effect. None the less, we haven’t been able to achieve it and there were some very strong submissions made by the Māori community around Tūrangi, by the people from Tūrangi, with respect to trying to instigate trout farming in that manner.

Another part of this bill relates to the way they manage the current use of Lake Rotoaira. The fishing that takes place there currently has historically run under the same rules as Lake Taupō. The local management, I think, now has the right to set those fishing limits and those fishing rules in a manner they see appropriate, which is entirely appropriate, in my view, and I think it’s proper that it should happen like that.

Interestingly, I think that if you look at New Zealand’s history, a lot of things that are reflected in this bill probably reflect some of the better things that have happened in the relationship between the Crown and Māori entities in New Zealand, and these are all areas where the local communities have maintained some interest in what, effectively, are quite—in these two instances, anyway—iconic pieces of New Zealand infrastructure, I suppose you call it. Certainly the differences between Waitomo Caves and the lake are significant; one is a major tourist attraction, the other one is a beautiful piece of water sitting at the southern end of Lake Taupō and the northern end of the Rangitīkei electorate.

So I think this bill, in its entirety, is certainly good for the purpose it’s been set out to achieve with respect to Māori trust boards. It allows Māori more autonomy with respect to the governance of some of their trusts and legal entities, and it’s obviously very good for New Zealand and for those communities involved. We support the bill. It’s certainly not a controversial bill and there’s been a number of Māori purposes bills passed in this Parliament; one passed in 2017 by the National Government. I don’t think it matters which parties are in power or which parties make up the Government in New Zealand, these kinds of issues are things that we need to progress through the House as quickly as we can. And, clearly, when you’ve got a bill that comes to the House with virtually no disagreement and no changes made at select committee, which is quite unusual—obviously the bill’s been put together with thought that’s complete and does a very good job for the entities concerned. So we support the bill. I’m sure it will progress through the next two stages in the House with very little discussion probably. But none the less, it’s important for those people it affects and it’s good for New Zealand. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Mālō ni, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to take what will just be a brief call on the Māori Purposes Bill. I have recently joined the Māori Affairs Committee, but, unfortunately, this piece of business was done before I joined the committee, so I do want to start by acknowledging the select committee for the work that they did on this bill, hearing from the submitters—of which there were five, I understand. On the contributions of those that we’ve heard this morning who are members of that select committee, I just want to acknowledge them for their work and for putting forward a unanimous report—unanimously supporting the report back with no further proposed changes.

The thing that I wanted to note is that I think it is great that the Minister has introduced a piece of legislation that looks at modernising some of the legislation that we have to enable these trusts and different organisations—some have existed, as Harete Hipango mentioned in her contribution, for a very long time. I think of the Māori councils, I think of our Māori trust boards, and they have been here, as I said, for decades, and technologies have changed.

The changes that I wanted to point out that I think help these organisations to manage their affairs in the 21st century are around things like the allowing for—so not saying that they have to, but allowing for—electronic voting in trust board elections and also the streamlining of processes for board members’ resignations. Another thing that I saw here, which I think, too, acknowledges the specific skill set that people have who are appointed to these positions by their people, is the removal of Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework as they are further removed and more distant from the Crown than other entities subject to that framework. It also acknowledges the particular skill sets of those people that take up these positions and gives them that flexibility around that.

I wanted to note that in terms of the proposed changes for the Maori Trust Boards Act, all Māori trust boards were contacted, and of all of those that responded, they were all in favour. So I don’t want to take any longer in this contribution, given it is a non-controversial bill with full support across the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Talofa ni. Manuia le taeao. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this omnibus Māori Purposes Bill. Thank you to the handful who submitted to the Māori Affairs Committee and to the Minister for Māori Development and his officials for their work.

As we stated in the first reading, the Greens support this bill in the hope that these changes will indeed contribute to Māori wellbeing and development by providing these entities with greater autonomy in decision making, addressing previous technical issues, and reducing the administrative compliance. We particularly support bills which enable iwi, whānau, and hapū to get on with their responsibilities to each other and to the whenua, the moana, the maunga, and the awa that they are responsible for. Whether they own that or not, they have that kaitiakitanga, and, preferably, we’d like them to get on with that with a minimum of oversight, compliance, and Government interference.

We note the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust provided the most substantive submission to the Māori Affairs Committee. As stated in their submission, amending Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993 will ensure that the trust continues as an ahu whenua trust where the beneficiaries of all descendants of the 22 original owners—but also at the same time account for the beneficial owners of the Hauturu East 8, who have a reversionary interest. Because there’s no other ahu whenua trust or even post-settlement governance entity that has this kind of set-up, that are in this position, the trust is rightly concerned that this will be in jeopardy if this bill does not go ahead. So we note their concerns that Hauturu East 8 could not otherwise be returned to and otherwise benefit the hapū of Ruapuha and Uekaha, and we agree that that would be a fundamental breach of the Wai 51 settlement.

For the trust of the very beautiful Rotoaira—it’s a very special place to one of my nannies—amending the Māori Purposes Act will provide more autonomy and flexibility in managing their lake and their fisheries. We appreciate that the trustees of Motuopuhi Māori Reservation are able to visit without a purpose. We note that they’re still expected to get a permit if they actually want to fish. I’m just saying, knowing some of my nannies and my pakeke, good luck with that—once they’re there, they’re probably going to do whatever they like.

As my colleagues have stated, amending the Maori Trust Boards Act will provide for, among other things, the use of electronic voting. Can someone put up a bill that just updates all the electronic voting in all our legislation so we don’t have to do this in such a piecemeal way? This is really, really important. This is something whereby more people will be able to take part in this process. We know that people who are involved in our trust boards and lots of our iwi things don’t always live in the place where they are taking part in that work. I hope it also enables the Government to think more broadly about other places where we could do electronic voting—I’m just going to put it out there about local government elections; we might have higher take-up of the opportunity.

Amending the Maori Community Development Act will also mean that district Māori councils can give their audited accounts to the New Zealand Māori Council instead of the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, who I imagine has better things and more appropriate things to do with their time. I also wonder if there are still things like this embedded in different legislation which mean that our chief executives of different organisations are having to deal with this kind of micromanagement. Is it just our Māori organisations, or does this occur in other places?

Appropriate decision-making is a cornerstone of the Greens charter, so the views of the organisations impacted by all of these little changes are really important to us. We understand that most of them are in support. We’re surprised to hear, though, that of the ones—Lake Rotoaira trust, Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, Aorangi, Hauraki, Tūwharetoa, Whakatōhea, Tauranga Moana, Wairoa Waikaremoana Māori Trust Board, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua are all good with all of this, but we’re surprised to hear that Te Tai Tokerau Māori Trust Board has still not been in contact. I understand from the report from the select committee that they’re taking this to mean—it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a negative; they just have not heard from them. So that concerns me. I hope that trust is doing OK and that they have capacity for the rest of their work.

In conclusion, given the support of all of those affected—almost all—we commend this sensible, albeit incremental, omnibus bill to the House. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Māori Purposes Bill. We view this piece of legislation as something that, by and large, enables people to manage their own affairs; their own properties, such as fishing on a lake that is held on privately held land. The ACT Party believes in property rights, and if people are not harming others then they should be able to do as they please, as a basic principle. By and large, that’s what this bill enables.

I would question one part of it, which is the reforms to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which extends the notice period to those who might otherwise lose their interest for not responding when they have a claim of interest in land.

This is something that is a major impediment to New Zealand’s economic development and particularly the development of Māori land. Throughout the history of our country, there’s been a very complex legislative framework around the ownership of Māori land, and it has held Māori back, in our view.

We think that the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, that was advanced by Te Ururoa Flavell in a previous Parliament, that has been picked up by the member for Southland, Joseph Mooney, in this Parliament would move Māori property rights over collectively owned land in the correct direction, and that is that the range of people who have not shown any material interest, perhaps for generations, who can object to land being borrowed against, developed, and otherwise used to enhance people’s wellbeing—that range of people should be limited. Because if you have someone who has theoretically got an interest but hasn’t shown much interest and that prevents the people who are present and do want to develop and use land from doing so, then we’re all poorer for no benefit. It would appear that this reform is going to make it harder for people to use land if they have to wait longer to notify those people who have a remote but largely redundant interest. I think that is a movement in the wrong direction. I think that Joseph Mooney’s bill, taken on from Te Ururoa Flavell’s earlier efforts to make Māori land more economically useful, to provide often for people in some of the most impoverished parts of New Zealand, is the right direction.

But we’re not going to let that quibble prevent us from supporting this Māori Purposes Bill, because we believe that the wider issue of collective ownership is going to have to be resolved by a more serious bill, a more serious piece of legislation, perhaps in a different Parliament that has a greater regard for property rights and economic development than the make-up of the current Parliament is able to furnish.

For people interested in this topic, I highly recommend Hernando de Soto. He is the South American economist who wrote extensively, most in his book The Mystery of Capital, about the importance of indigenous peoples around the world being able to bundle up their property rights in a way that can be used in a modern, global, commercial world for the advancement of their people.

The great irony is that somewhat paternalistic Governments around the world have gone and put indigenous property rights in a format that they say is helpful and respectful of traditional ownership but, in all reality, just makes it harder for indigenous people to provide for themselves. I say indigenous because—Hernando de Soto is, as I say, South American—this is a worldwide phenomenon. I think it’s a pity that in New Zealand, Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill was not advanced. It’s been drawn by a National Party MP out of the ballot. It hasn’t been announced by the Government.

But in the long term, one of the most important things we can do is the opposite of one of the provisions in this bill, and that is make it easier for Māori property rights to be converted into commercial value for the prosperity of all people.

With that, I think, you know, important note of objection, we believe that this legislation is enabling, it enhances freedom and flexibility of people to provide for their own needs, so long as they are not harming the interests of others, and that is something that the ACT Party will always be standing up in the Parliament in support of. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this, the Māori Purposes Bill. What we’ve heard from speakers already, from around the House, is how supportive people are, and I would like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee. I sit on it, and thanks to chair, Tāmati Coffey, and members who, as we’ve heard, work collegially to progress the agenda of the day.

We’ve heard, also, that some of these things are minor, technical, but we’d all agree that they make life easier, and they remove all of the unnecessary administrative compliance, etc. For me, it’s about making sure that these Māori entities can better manage their affairs, exercise their rangatiratanga, and that’s through the use of new technologies, etc.

I wanted to just pull out a few things in this short speech, and that’s the amendment to the Maori Trust Boards Act. I think allowing them to vote electronically and removing them from the Cabinet Fees Framework is great, and just streamlining their whole process for resignations, making sure that they can just do things in a timely manner, in the way they want to do them, is really good.

There’s also the Maori Community Development Act 1962. That’s the piece of legislation that really governs, authorises Māori wardens in New Zealand. They’ve done a fantastic job, and that just, I’d just say, strengthens their accountability, in terms of their financial records. So although minor in nature, they will make life easier for entities, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts for five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. An absolute pleasure to rise, as the member of Parliament for North Shore and as a member of the National Party, in support of the Māori Purposes Bill on its second reading. I join with others that have made contributions in regards to this bill around the fact that the elements included within the bill are going to have a positive contribution in terms of the wellbeing and development elements that have been referred to already in this House.

I want to, in the time that I’ve got, just highlight two or three of the key aspects which we see as being integral in terms of what I’ve just described. Firstly, it is in regards—the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, noted it as well—to provision for Māori entities to have greater autonomy and greater decision-making. And I think the broad consensus across party in regards to this bill echoes that, that that is absolutely a positive aspect. I think any opportunity that we have as a House to reinforce and look for ensuring that that aspect of greater autonomy and decision-making is strengthened is a good thing. So we’ve seen that come through here.

The second aspect obviously is more remedial in nature, but for those sitting at home watching this this morning—which I’m sure there will be a large number—

Hon Member: A huge number, Simon.

SIMON WATTS: A huge number.

Hon Member: Fewer now!

SIMON WATTS: Definitely from the North Shore—if I can just raise a callout to all of those regular watchers of Parliament TV in the North Shore. You know who you are. You know who you are when you’re watching, you’ll be going “I’m glad you mentioned it.” Thank you. [Interruption] Anyway, cross-party of course—a number of people from different parties watch Parliament TV.

But anyway, let’s get back to the bill eh? Let’s get back to the bill. The other members are trying to distract me off the bill, which we don’t want to do. The second point I was getting to—before I was interrupted—was the technical issues that the previous legislation had, that this bill will, in effect, address some of those previous technical issues, which is great.

The third aspect, which as an accountant I always enjoy seeing when I see a bill, is the reduction of administrative compliance. Oh gosh. It’s just such great words there. I’ll tell you what, I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I’ve hardly ever seen those words in the last two years of being in this House. Not too often. Often it’s increasing—administrative compliance is increasing, administrative burden. But that’s not the case today, so that’s a good thing. So we’re seeing that this bill is going to positively impact that.

I want to also recognise the good members of the Māori Affairs Committee, Harete Hipango, right here, a fellow colleague, along with Joseph Mooney on the National side and members across the House. A great committee by all accounts, not a committee that I have attended, but I always have mentioned to my colleagues “Don’t forget, when you need someone to whip in for that committee, I’m always available.” So you can just put that on the record. So I understand there’s a lot of good times that happen there. I’m looking across at Paul Eagle and he’s not signalling—maybe he’s just getting used to being back in the House. It’s good to have him back, isn’t it?

So National will be supporting this bill at second reading. We don’t see any aspects of it that are controversial or unusual, which I think is important. Actually, the only aspect that’s unusual, as I said, is the reduction in administrative compliance, but we will take that point as noted. We are looking forward to it progressing through in terms of the third reading. I think it’s just important to recognise and link back to National Party values, which National Party values obviously recognise the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand, and I think this bill aligns with the National Party values, and on that basis we will be supporting it.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to provide a very brief call in regards to this bill, and I look forward with great interest in terms of its progression through the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It has been one of these really technical bills, which, you know, you think might just be able to be changed really quickly, just somebody can jump into the keyboard and just delete this and add that, but, actually, we need to go through this process in Parliament to be able to make those changes official. So as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we’ve scrutinised this bill, we bring it back it before the House with the most minor of changes—however, they are necessary. The one that I wanted to pick up on was just the change that we’re going to make off the back of conversations with the Lake Rotoaira Trust, who had some desire to be able to tighten up the rules, and relax the rules in certain areas, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

Really interestingly, Lake Rotoaira is actually Māori private freehold land. It’s situated between Lake Taupō and Mount Tongariro, and it’s administered by a trust on behalf of over 11,000 beneficiaries. It also looks after the trout fishery down those ways, as well. One of the things that we’re doing in here is that we’re actually updating the list of people that are allowed access to the lake without an entry permit. We’ve actually got a stakeholder group Māori Rōpū—they’re actually Māori trustees on their own reservation, which is the island in the middle of Lake Rotoaira—at the moment, they need a permit to be able to access their own whenua. So it’s little changes like this that we’re making to be able to allow the system to be a lot slicker, a lot more responsive to current-day needs, and to solve some of those wicked problems. So that one was the one that I wanted to point out.

And just the other one around updating amendments to the Maori Trust Board Act, getting with the times, things like e-voting, things like the Act currently says that if you’re going to resign, you have to write it in a letter and you have to hand that letter to the Minister of Māori Development. Times have changed; we know that we can do that a lot more efficiently these days. So this bill is well supported around the House, and rightly so, because it does make a number of technical amendments that are going to make life much easier and much more straightforward for people. I commend it to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call in this, the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill. I’m not a member of the select committee that has overseen this bill through the submissions stage, but I always enjoy it when we have a piece of legislation that comes back to the House where all parties agree on it. It makes for a much, much more pleasant process.

We’ve heard from several members who’ve spoken today that this is a small bill, a minor bill, and one that takes care of some technical issues. But I see this bill as also, partly, one that helps to remove barriers for people. We’ve heard, for example, one of the amendments that has been made to the Maori Trust Boards Act, which my colleague just prior to me mentioned around the ability to be able to vote online, and I think that’s a really big way of ensuring that barriers are removed for people.

Angie Warren-Clark: Sensible.

JO LUXTON: It is sensible, thank you, Angie Warren-Clark. It’s a sensible addition, or change, to the legislation because these days most people have access to the internet and the ability to vote online, as opposed to the long drawn-out process that my colleague Tāmati Coffey just mentioned. He also mentioned—he’s taken all my speaking points!—the ability for board members to resign; a bit more of a streamlined process there.

I also wanted to, just briefly, talk about the amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993, where one of the first set of changes applies to the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, so that it continues to exist with the same beneficiaries, as was attended under the Wai 51 Treaty claim. It means that the powers—I was just reading before that succession orders that were made by the Māori Land Court meant that the trust could be terminated and people entitled to the interest in the land may not necessarily be the ones that were direct descendants of the original owners, as was intended. And so this piece of legislation also updates that and changes that to ensure that it is able to continue with the direct descendants, as was intended by that Wai 51 part of the Treaty settlement there.

Again, I agree with all the things that colleagues around the House have said, and it’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill. As our colleague and friend Jo Luxton has recorded, it’s nice when parties are able to be in agreement on a matter. It does make for a more pleasant experience here, not that we should shy away from that other kind of debate that we do have from time to time.

On that note, I made myself as familiar with this as possible by reading the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, as opposed to having participated in it myself, and it seems that there was a good collegial atmosphere at that august body, and it typically operates in that way, I understand. It is famous for seeking a consensus-based model of discussion and debate and resolution, and it seems that their consideration and ultimately their deliberation on this bill has been no different. So that’s a positive thing in itself.

The name of the bill, I think, is interesting—the Māori Purposes Bill. To some extent there’s a high-level desire to act in a way that meets the purposes as opposed to being necessarily that specific, but, actually, there is a bit of detail that is quite interesting and very specific and no less interesting for that, in my view. But I think the other point about having a Māori Purposes Bill, a very broad generic name, is to reflect that there are quite a few different things that the bill is looking to do. As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has noted, it’s an omnibus bill and four different pieces of existing legislation are amended, and so to capture a pretty wide intent and to make life easier and better for those involved in those various entities, it’s got that pretty broad catch-all kind of title. So that’s, I guess, a bit of background for anyone who is listening and is relatively new to it. If they’ve just switched on, they’ve missed more erudite contributions than I’ll be able to make, but for what it’s worth I do make that point.

In terms of what the bill actually does, as I mentioned, there are four different pieces of legislation that are amended, and I’ll look to go through each of those in turn. There is more to say about some and, for others, less, but if there’s an overall feeling or vibe, if I may, it’s that it’s providing greater autonomy in relation to decision making, and I think that’s helpful whichever way one comes at that kind of philosophy. In the National Party we like to talk about limited government and having communities able to decide and determine their own fate as much as possible. Sometimes that’s framed in negative terms—if we say limited government, for example, we might rail against Wellington, not the city itself, of course. I hear it’s good on a nice day but I’ve only been here for a few years so I wouldn’t know.

But perhaps a more positive expression is the idea of localism, which is the idea—albeit not in a local government context but a local decision-making philosophy—that those who are most directly impacted and affected by decisions that are made should have the right to participate in those to the maximum extent.

There are a couple of examples within these amendments that I’d like to bring out on that point, but just on that broad philosophical note, I note that in the Māori world, those who are more familiar with that than me—and I speak respectfully as someone who doesn’t have any great knowledge or background particularly, but my understanding is that the concept of tino rangatiratanga is, at least according to one way of characterising it, about self-determination and being able to control one’s own affairs, and that’s appropriate.

It is interesting that our colleague in the Green Party Dr Elizabeth Kerekere talked about a Green Party kaupapa of what they call appropriate decision-making, so that’s a different perspective on the same kind of philosophy that those who are closest to the impacts of decision making should be allowed to make those decisions to the greatest extent possible. Then we heard from our colleague and friend in the ACT Party through a private property lens, and they are supportive of the general direction that the bill is taking us. So there are different ways to approach essentially the same question, I think, and perhaps because of that philosophical underpinning we’re all able to come together in this House and continue to support the bill.

Firstly, the bill amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. As Mr Seymour noted quite rightly, this is a law reform project that arguably should have already happened but no doubt will happen in due course. In relation to that, there’s a bigger piece of work but for now it’s relevant to the work of this bill but it’s nodding towards that work of Messrs Finlayson and Flavell and now Mooney, with that member’s bill in his name that we see in relation to the TTWM—as Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is often known—that the powers of the Māori Land Court under that Act to terminate a trust don’t apply to a particular local trust, and others have spoken more from a local perspective.

Harete Hipango, again, has superior knowledge in this regard and I would defer to Ian McKelvie’s knowledge of that geographical region as well. But with that trust having been established by the Māori Land Court in 1990, an auspicious year, of course, some century and a half after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it seems that it’s intended by this bill not to allow that trust to be terminated in that way. I don’t have a good understanding of what those issues are that have arisen in terms of the succession orders and how real it is as a possibility as opposed to a mere theoretical possibility that the Māori Land Court might terminate the trust, but in any case this bill seems clear enough in placing beyond even that theoretical possibility of such termination.

As for the Maori Purposes Act 1959, which is, of course, pretty close in name to the bill that is before us, we see that, among other things, there’s a right of entry to Lake Rotoaira—excuse the pronunciation—and the significance of the trout fishery there has been well-articulated by others. So it’s clarifying that the right of entry to that lake without an entry permit doesn’t authorise fishing. It’s kind of interesting in itself, actually, just from statutory interpretation perspective in the sense that: if one has entry to a lake, would one regard that as automatically implying that one has the ability to do things there? Not necessarily. I suppose it’s unclear enough potentially on the books as it currently stands that providing some clarity through this legislation is deemed to be helpful. So that’s one of the things that the bill does.

It also increases low penalties for offences. It is currently $100, I understand. You don’t get far for 100 bucks these days—and I note the cost of living crisis here, inflation out of control, etc. But all the same, in all seriousness, if there was to be a penalty that was to be meaningful, of course, it must have some sort of real-world application and effect. So to increase those penalties for breaching the right that some enjoy in relation to private property, as our ACT colleagues would have it, seems an obvious thing to do.

I think the legislation that’s currently on the books and is being amended by this bill that caught my eye the most was the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. Among other things, it provides for electronic voting. Sometimes the debate about electronic voting in other contexts, as Dr Kerekere talked about, is characterised in terms of increasing participation and balancing that against security, and being able to have confidence that a ballot is fairly conducted and that the results reflect the genuine true will of the people. I’m not sure that even in terms of participation it is necessarily foolproof, but in any case the Māori trust boards, should they choose, will be able to conduct their own elections in an electronic way, and good luck to them I say. It certainly seems appropriate to allow them to exercise their own judgment about whether that’s a way they want to be able to conduct their affairs.

The Māori trust boards are removed from the Cabinet Fees Framework, and while it’s a different matter, that’s similar, actually, to a move made recently by this House to take various officers of our judicial system out of the Cabinet Fees Framework. Judges proper are already outside that but it was deemed appropriate by the House and I think unanimously supported—certainly National agreed—that Cabinet not be setting fees for officers and in this case a body that’s outside the realm of the Government, and, of course, it goes back to that big-picture theme of allowing determination and operations to be unencumbered by the dictates of the Government as much as possible. I say that in a positive way: devolution or even, if one wanted to say, decolonisation. I suppose that would be another way to frame it. But in any case, it seems sensible to allow that kind of fee setting to take place without any perception even of political interference.

Other changes are relatively minor but, I think, none the less worthwhile. I’ve joined others in my party and across the House, it seems, in continuing to support this bill. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It would be remiss of me not to start my contribution by just responding to the suggestion from the previous speaker, Chris Penk, but also David Seymour that the so-called Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill would be the answer to fast tracking Māori use of Māori land. That recycled bill in the name of Joseph Mooney is 509 clauses, 396 pages. There was a lot of consultation, and, actually, Māori land owners don’t want it. So that isn’t the solution.

But turning to this, the Māori Purposes Bill, I think that even though it’s technical, it’s quite significant for a couple of reasons. The first is that it recognises a public benefit about supporting the integrity and durability of a Treaty of Waitangi Act settlement consistent with the public policy of Government. So it basically says that this belongs in the area of a public law, not necessarily a private law, and it recognises that the Crown had a central role in the Wai 51 settlement, and, therefore, its conduct in undertaking should be considered a matter of public policy. That’s been the approach, as we’ve heard, since the mid-1990s. But what this bill does is really go to reinforcing that principle.

So it actually reinforces the Crown’s approach to be seen as consistent, stable, and predictable, not only in relation to its Treaty partners but also in the way it conducts itself, recognising that the Crown is representative of all New Zealanders: Māori and non-Māori. So that is the first principle, and then how it conducts itself in relation to Treaty partners, secondly.

The bill also excludes the ability of the Māori Land Court to terminate the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, and we’ve heard that. That shores up the kaupapa of the original Wai 51 settlement, which was to benefit the descendants of the 22 original owners of that whenua. So that, in turn, effectively, rules out any claim from the beneficial owners of the land who were not direct descendants. So it goes back to first principles and, again, I would say that that shores up the recognition of the durability of Te Tiriti.

So by recognising public benefit and by recognising that these matters belong in public legislation and don’t belong in the realm of the Māori Land Court, this technical bill is actually part of a significant whakapapa of legislation in common law that really recognises the intrinsic spirit of Te Tiriti in the Crown’s own identity and how it conducts itself with its Treaty partners. Therefore, it’s a great pleasure in recommending it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 September.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When we last were debating this bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill—the next call is an ACT Party call. I call on Karen Chhour.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, and there are just a couple of things I’d like to point out when it came to the consultation on this bill. Unfortunately, it ran parallel with the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, and I feel that many of the submitters either got confused between the two bills, or this bill just got hidden behind the other bill because it was of such importance. So, unfortunately, we didn’t have much feedback around this bill and around how it would affect people in the real world.

I was having a look through this bill, and we supported it through the first reading because I felt that we needed an opportunity to look into the subsequent child provision. Currently, as it stands, for anyone who has had a previous child or a young person removed from their care and there’s no realistic prospect that that child or young person will be returned to that person’s care, the next child seems to be automatically uplifted. I honestly did not see how that was fair. People deserve natural justice. People deserve to be innocent until proven guilty and to have an opportunity to have a second chance.

But the more I thought about it, and the more I see stories coming out around Oranga Tamariki, and decisions made, and children that are being abused in care or abused in the homes of the parents or stepparents, I have to push back a little bit. Right now, what we’re proposing is that it will only be for a parent or a caregiver that has been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or a young person that is in their care. But often we see children that may not have been murdered or may not have died at the hands of their caregiver or their parent, but they have been abused quite badly, to the point where, in a case recently, the child was beaten so badly that he nearly died and he was left permanently disabled. Those children wouldn’t come under the provision of subsequent children because they didn’t die.

So I feel that maybe there needs to be another section added in there to include anyone who has been convicted of an offence involving assault or injury to a child who was in the person’s care or custody and who has had an imprisonment of at least three months, so that we’re actually including that in there. The way it’s written now, we won’t take into account the children that have been beaten so badly that they are permanently disabled, and I don’t feel that is right. So we cannot support this bill through the second reading, and, hopefully, at committee stage, we can make some changes that will allow us to continue supporting this bill.

There’s also another section within this bill that I was looking at, and I couldn’t understand the changes that were being made and the little amendments in the back. It was around bail for young people, and it is in clause 29: “If a child or young person appears before a court and the court considers the child’s or young person’s bail, no breach of a bail condition that occurred before the appearance may be used to support a subsequent arrest under this section.” I’m a bit wary of changing bail conditions for youth when we have a huge spike in youth crime currently, and I’m just wanting to understand why we’re making that change, because no submissions were made on that. I’d just like a better understanding of that, and maybe we can discuss that in the committee stage as well.

Unfortunately, I’ve heard a number of stories and had a number of emails that have come to me around concerns with the uplifts of children and with the uplifts of subsequent children. One example of when it goes wrong, when Oranga Tamariki doesn’t uplift a subsequent child—there’s a story where a young lady is already currently taking care of three of her sibling’s children that have been removed from care and put into the care of the sister. The mother is now pregnant with the fourth child, and this caregiver is saying, “My sister is not capable of looking after this fourth child, but I’m not capable of taking on a fourth child.” She contacted Oranga Tamariki, and Oranga Tamariki will not go further with that because the baby is not born yet.

That is, unfortunately, where the problem lies. Instead of making provisions available so that we’re not uplifting children at birth, I feel that we need to look at this in a better way. We need to look at it before the child’s born—wraparound services before the child is born—and then there would be no need to change this law because we’re dealing with the parents and providing them with the services they need to prepare for the birth of the subsequent child. We wouldn’t necessarily need to uplift if we’ve got a plan in place before the birth of the child. Now, we remove the child once it’s born, and then we put a plan together. Those first three or four months are the most important for the bonding between the parent and the child, and we’ve taken that away from the mother—and the father—if they’ve done nothing to deserve the child being uplifted.

So, I think, although the best of intentions are there, there are still many questions to be asked in the committee stage, and I would like to be able to debate that completely in the committee stage so we can support this bill further. But, right now, ACT can’t support this bill in its current form.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a brief call in this, the second reading on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, or as we know it, the “subsequent child bill”.

I was a member of the Justice Committee, who worked on this bill.

Angie Warren-Clark: Social Services.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I’m so sorry. The Social Services and Community Committee—a far more intellectually rigorous committee than my other one, the Justice Committee! A delightful committee to work on, ably and wonderfully chaired by Ms Angie Warren-Clark—oh look, there she is!

I rise to take this brief call. This is about repealing a piece of legislation that the National Party brought in when they were in Government in 2016. As previous speakers have said, the intention was to it was to put in a safeguard where parents had had a previous child removed in the hopes that history would not repeat when another child was born.

Unfortunately, a thorough review of the operation of the legislation found it hasn’t worked as it was intended. In fact, as a practitioner, I have seen this in operation in my years as a practising lawyer. I remember a young woman called Tania, who was in a relationship with a very, very violent man. She had the first baby removed because she could not separate from this man; he was fairly chronic as a stalker and controller, and she was unable to escape. She subsequently did manage to escape, there were further babies, and each time there was anguish and distress because Oranga Tamariki had to undertake these investigations.

Just as has been said in the review, what happened was social workers, rather than walking alongside this young māmā, became her judge and jury. So many barriers were put in place of a good working relationship that’s so important between social worker and client and whānau, that it was years and years of trauma for that māmā and for her young children.

So I thoroughly welcome the repeal of this piece of legislation. It was a nice thought. It did not do what it was intended to do. What we need is the wraparound services, not to uplift our pēpē, and that is what this Government is trying to do. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is obviously a very difficult and sensitive topic. You know, there can be no more important work for this House and its representatives and policy makers than considering the protection of children—I mean, I’m tempted to say “vulnerable children”, but, of course, children are, by their very nature, vulnerable—and it’s important that we turn our mind, with the utmost clarity and concern, to protecting those who are in a particularly vulnerable situation, a situation of even greater concern than merely a situation where there has been some sort of breakdown or difficulty, and the processes must be followed. We’re talking no less than the importance of life and death decision-making, actually—just to be blunt about it—in the cases of the fate of these young people, and the care in which they’re placed. I use the term “care”, perhaps, loosely, in some cases.

We will all be aware, in this country and in this House—and I’m sure it goes without saying that we would all deplore the idea of violence against children. Nevertheless, that has been the experience, sadly, of far too many of our young people entrusted either with the default arrangement, which is to say that they’ve been growing up in a household and problems have developed or maybe have been there from the very start, or else problems have developed by some other care arrangement—whether that’s organic in the sense of being a family or a blood relation, or some other kind of family arrangement, or, indeed, the intervention of the State. All the well-meaning words in the world will not protect those who are most vulnerable and in a situation of experiencing violence if we do not set in place the right systems.

Now, I don’t pretend to know the right systems myself—I don’t know if anyone in this House does entirely—but I can say, for those who are concerned, to ensure that barriers for the protection of children are not taken down that have been erected in the first place. To those who would say that we need to be careful about putting up barriers between the State and the family, I say that I understand exactly where you’re coming from; I acknowledge that concern. We in the National Party understand, of course, that, wherever possible, it should be family and whānau who are able to raise their own children. But, at the same time, we recognise the sad reality that sometimes, and, regrettably, too often—and, of course, one child injured or killed in this way would be one too many—it’s been the case that, in care, a child, whether a subsequent child or otherwise, has been failed by the State, primarily, of course, by those who actively perpetrate such violence, but when the State does not make the right decisions or the best decisions or the least worst decisions in the circumstances, then that’s something we should all take very seriously.

So, as far as the bill goes, I haven’t had the benefit of involvement at a select committee level, but I’ve listened carefully to the contributions of those who have. I understand that, effectively, it’s a repeal of that subsequent child provision or regime that the National Party had introduced in 2014. The previous contributor to this debate, Dr Emily Henderson, has said that it was not working as it had been intended. Well, that may or may not be true, and I’m not particularly in a position to know one way or the other, but I would say that we should indeed be very careful to replace a system without being extremely confident that we’re replacing it with one that is at least as good, if not better. And, of course, the concern here is that we will remove a layer of protection that’s so badly needed by children who are in particularly vulnerable situations.

I will acknowledge the point that has been made in documents associated with the bill that additional Family Court proceedings for older siblings in care can be damaging—that’s a fair enough point to make, whichever way one addresses or considers the bill. Extending disputes between families, entrenching the positions—particularly of the parents, or the would-be caregivers—and expanding the scope of disagreement by airing those in a way that’s not likely to lead to resolution is, of course, harmful to the child, and that’s another form of harm that we should be anxious to avoid. So, like others on this side of the House, we the National Party say that we cannot support the bill.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō ni, kia orana, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to take a brief call on a bill that will amend the Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989. In doing so, can I acknowledge the team that have worked on this as members of the Social Services and Community Committee—

Angie Warren-Clark: Hard-working.

TANGI UTIKERE: Hard-working, indeed, from the chair there.

This will make a number of changes, including some minor and technical amendments that the committee have brought to the attention of the House that will certainly improve clarity but also focus on enhancing the rights of children and young people and removing some provisions that some may consider as being redundant or perhaps not well-utilised.

Colleagues previously have made contributions around what, I guess, is a key aspect of this bill. It relates to the partial removal of what is known as the “subsequent child provisions”. This is a change that will remove the mandatory involvement of the Family Court oversight for parents who’ve had a child who has previously been permanently removed from their care.

I guess the rationale for that is that often the provision itself is rather complex in nature; it is not often utilised. That, in itself, is no good reason to, effectively, remove it from legislation, but I reflect on the contribution our colleague Emily Henderson—someone who has been at the coalface, in terms of Family Court jurisdiction—and her contributions earlier today in the House which reflected on the role that this provides as a barrier for some social workers who are working with family and whānau.

So this is about providing that element of whānau and family wellbeing and care, noting, though, that there is still a requirement where the subsequent child provision would still apply to those who have a conviction of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide. That is because the presumption of risk is at a level that is still appropriate. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on the second reading of this bill, because I believe that it’s important that every child and young person in New Zealand grows up to reach their full potential, and I think this bill takes us one step further in that direction.

So I wasn’t on the committee when it heard the submissions on this bill, but I have taken a little bit of time to read some of that feedback provided by the submitters. Just noting that the committee received 24 written submissions and heard 11 oral submissions. I’d just like to thank everybody who provided their feedback through to the committee.

I guess the impression I got reading the submissions was just the incredibly negative impact that the subsequent child provisions have had on, particularly, parents and caregivers who had made a lot of steps to turn their lives around and wanted to work in the best interests of their subsequent child, and then having the current provisions in place and the huge distress that that caused.

But I also think that some of the submitters talked about the impact that the current provisions had on the approach that Oranga Tamariki then took more generally in terms of considering subsequent children. I think that the real sense was the partial repeal—what it would mean is that social workers could then use their best clinical judgment and their experience to make those decisions about what was most important in the interests of the children and young people, but also to allow them to work alongside whānau in a more meaningful way.

But also there was quite a lot of support confirming the fact that the subsequent child provisions for caregivers and parents who’ve been convicted of the death of the child in their care was retained, given the seriousness of those convictions.

So, I think, while this is a relatively small and short bill, it’s a really, really important one. I think it will make a significant difference in the lives of the children and their whānau that are impacted by these provisions. So I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Dr Liz Craig, the member who just resumed her seat, referred to the fact that this is a small bill, but I would argue with that side of the House that it is a very important and significant change that the Government is proposing and that National opposes.

I want to return the House’s attention to a debate that took place in this Chamber a week ago today, and that was an urgent debate because the Ombudsman had returned a report on the events that resulted in the death, the murder, of a five-year-old boy—Malachi—when Oranga Tamariki failed to do, in his words, the “bare minimum”. What we are debating today is actually the risk of serious harm and death to a child, and so it is absolutely critical that this House takes this issue seriously, because on the surface of it, it doesn’t sound like it’s too much of a big deal. But what we are talking about here is a piece of legislation that is proposing the partial repeal here today, with the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, of what was the result of months and years of work around vulnerable children that the previous Government undertook and, by and large, that the Government under Tracey Martin, as the Minister for Children, continued.

If you think about a child that is born into a family where a child has previously been permanently removed from the parents’ care—permanently removed—it’s quite a high threshold; it’s quite a high threshold. So this bill is a debate about risk, and on this side of the House, in the National Party, we see that where there is an identifiable risk that another child born into that household will be harmed, we’re not willing to risk it—we’re not willing to risk it.

That’s not to say that those parents can’t work hard to have that child in their care, and I absolutely think that work should be done really intensively and I agree with the Minister for Children that it should be done by community organisations that are closest to the whānau involved. But the question here is about automatically taking that child into care and protection.

Care and protection—those are the key words in this debate, and, unfortunately, as the ACT member Karen Chhour, who spoke earlier in this debate, has identified very clearly, this piece of legislation without the consultation at the same time that a very controversial piece of legislation was out for consultation, and that was the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system. So we’ve got multiple things going on at once.

We had a bill around the oversight of Oranga Tamariki which was opposed vehemently and strongly by every party in this Parliament except Labour. Just about every social service organisation that is involved in the care and protection of children opposed it, and they opposed the removal of independent oversight with the removal of the Children’s Commissioner, being that single point of complaint and advocacy, and being a fierce champion for children. Then this piece of legislation comes along and it looks as if it’s a little tweak—just a little tweak. Well, remember the point of this: this is about a child who was vulnerable—as my colleague Chris Penk said, every child is vulnerable—but who then was born into a family where another child, a previous child, had been seriously harmed or murdered.

So the Government wants to leave that threshold at murdered. Well, no, it should be about serious harm and the risk to those subsequent children in that household. Otherwise, we as a Parliament are willing to say that the life of another child will be lost to us, and, in New Zealand, that’s one in every five weeks, a New Zealand child dies of child abuse. So this side of the House is actually not willing to take that risk, because our interest is in the care and protection of the children.

I accept, having met with and spoken with many, many families who have had children taken into care, that it’s incredibly traumatic, and I accept that the process of working their way back to having their children returned to them is challenging and distressing. I get it—I absolutely get it. But in this debate, the question, the challenge, or the issue must be on what is in the best interests of the child. The child must be paramount in this debate, and that’s why there was so much work done in the previous National Government around vulnerable children. So to start unwinding bits of it doesn’t make sense.

The Government says that legislation is not delivering as intended, and I would argue this: it’s because that side of the House and Minister Davis, who said it in that urgent debate last week—they’re pleased that the number of children being uplifted is reducing. I don’t think that’s the right measure. I think the right measure is fewer children being harmed—not just murdered; harmed—because a child that is harmed if that behaviour of those parents escalates is a child that might be another one of the one in every five weeks—another Malachi—that dies when this Parliament had the opportunity to ensure legislative protection for a vulnerable child.

So, yep, it might be a small piece of legislation—it’s not a very big bill. There weren’t a lot of submitters, but many of the submitters opposed it. Many more of the submitters oppose the changes the Government is making to the oversight of Oranga Tamariki.

Now, I accept that Oranga Tamariki have been undergoing an enormous change over many, many years. That started with the previous National Government, it had been picked up by the Labour - New Zealand First Government, and it is now continuing under Labour. I accept that it’s a challenging organisation and that there are challenges they are facing now and as the days go forward, but business-as-usual for Oranga Tamariki is the care and protection of children.

So National isn’t willing to allow children where there is a clearly identifiable and known risk to remain in the care of their parents when their parents have seriously harmed and assaulted. Karen gave the example of a child who wasn’t murdered, but was permanently disabled because of a violent assault by a parent or caregiver. On this side of the House, we’re actually not willing to take that risk, and I’m proud to say that the National Party puts the interests of children first.

That’s not to say that we don’t understand the challenge where the onus is on the child being removed and the trauma that comes with that—we’re fully accepting that that exists. But there are some instances where the rights of the child must come first, and when we have a Prime Minister who says that New Zealand should be the best place in the world to be a child, let that be a country where their safety and where their care and protection come first.

That’s why National opposes this legislation to reverse the onus for the care and protection of a subsequent child. We want to make sure that every Kiwi child, despite the challenges of their parents and their parents’ circumstances—no child should be put in that position where they are knowingly at risk of harm in their own home environment. The measure should be that fewer New Zealand children are harmed, not fewer children are being taken into care.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be taking the last, fairly short, contribution on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill today. First off, I would like to acknowledge the hard work by the Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis, as well as the select committee members, and, of course, everyone who has submitted on this particular bill.

Now, the previous speaker, Louise Upston, mentioned that the legislation is not delivering as it’s intended, and therefore prefers to remain with the status quo. And, of course, that is no surprise that the National Party would like to remain with the status quo, because that is what they generally like to do, never mind that it is not the better situation. The subsequent child provisions were introduced by the previous National Government, and they had an aim of improving the safety of subsequent children, but, unfortunately, what the evidence shows us is that the opposite often occurred. And the legislation, therefore, unfairly, impacted on both the young person and their whānau.

So the Social Services and Community Committee recommends the passing of this bill. They made a number of changes all aimed at improving the readability and workability of this bill. The changes were set out in the legislative statement and also have been extensively debated around the House, so no need for me to go further into those. But I’d like to say that, as a Government, we know that we need to make changes at Oranga Tamariki to ensure children are appropriately protected, and, in regards to this bill specifically, as I mentioned before, it makes a number of changes. But the most important part there is the partial repeal of the subsequent child provision.

Again, thanking the committee members and submitters who have worked very hard in making positive changes to this bill. It’s an important bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Organic Products Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Organic Products Bill.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Organic Products Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I want to say that it’s great to see the bill back in the House. Demand for organic products has grown markedly in recent years. In 2019, organics was estimated to be worth €106 billion worldwide—approximately NZ$184 billion—with an annual increase of 9 percent on the year prior. Industry estimates put the value of New Zealand’s organic sector in 2020 at $723 million, a 20 percent increase on the 2017 figure. An estimated 58 percent of New Zealand’s organic output in 2020 was exported. A robust and practical framework is needed to help facilitate and secure the ongoing growth of New Zealand’s organic sector.

The purpose of the Organic Products Bill is to increase consumer confidence in purchasing organic products, to increase certainty for businesses making organic claims, and to facilitate international trade in organic products. The bill delivers this by enabling the development of mandatory organic standards and ways to check that businesses selling organic products are complying with that standard. The bill sets out the high-level framework for the organic system and establishes roles, powers, and offences, while the regulations will set out the detail of what organic businesses need to do in order to call their products organic. Standards will set out the technical rules for producing and processing organic products.

The bill will also require a change to the way organic businesses operate. Businesses will be required to apply to the relevant ministry for approval of their status as an organic business instead of their certifier taking care of the whole process. This wouldn’t duplicate any functions of the certifier, but would transfer one step in the process from the certifier to the relevant ministry. Those certifiers, to be called “recognised entities” under the new regime, will continue to play a central and crucial role in the system.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Primary Production Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill. The committee received nearly 350 submissions on the bill and heard over 60 oral submissions. I also want to thank all the submitters that took the time to share their views on the bill. I understand that many submitters have also provided comment on the draft regulatory proposals. I recognise that throughout the select committee process, submitters were concerned with the change to add ministry oversight. However, following the evidence presented on the benefits in detail behind ministry approval, the Primary Production Committee chose not to amend or to remove this element from the bill.

These benefits include, firstly, aligning the bill with other regulatory models in New Zealand which many businesses are already subject to, such as the Food Act 2014, helping create efficiencies in the system; and, secondly, building the organic sector’s resilience and integrity by bringing further consistency in approach and in decision making into the system. It will also make it easier for businesses to shift between recognised entities, which in turn allows for better market competition between recognised entities. And, lastly, it assists the Government to negotiate better market access to increase trade. Government oversight of the system is preferred by the Governments of major export markets.

The bill has been reported back with some amendments, and I want to acknowledge that the committee did not significantly change the bill, but the bill has a new title now: the Organic Products and Production Bill. Two of the other key amendments relate to how the organics sector can be involved in scrutinising the standard. First is the addition, in the bill, of a power to create an advisory council broadly representative of the sector. This council could provide crucial sector advice to relevant ministers or chief executives, including on the interpretation and ongoing maintenance of organic standards and implementation of the regulations.

The other key amendment related to the organic standard is a change in how organic standards can be made. The bill as reported back splits the standards-making process into two parts. The regulations will specify the scope, standards, and high-level principles, which should guide the technical parts of the standard, which can now be made by notice. This change is important because it will better allow the experts in organic production—those working in the organic sector—to play a greater role in the development of the technical rules around the organic standard. As a new instrument to set up a new regulatory system, the bill needed some tweaking to ensure it should operate as intended. I also saw an opportunity to clarify a number of provisions in the bill to provide greater transparency and clarity for organic stakeholders.

To make these adjustments, I developed a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which has just been released. The amendments made by the Supplementary Order paper will make this Act a stronger and more robust piece of legislation. I’ve introduced a clause to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and a clause to strengthen consultation requirements in the bill, including for Māori.

I have also made amendments to the information-sharing provisions to better reflect Cabinet’s original intent to ensure the interoperability of the regime with other legislation. The SOP incorporates more robust enforcement mechanisms through requiring recognised entities to follow corrective action, as well as giving recourse to the relevant Government department if a regulated party ignores corrective action or breaches other parts of the Act. I have proposed changes that allow the bill to operate as intended—for instance, several adjustments have been made to provide further clarity and transparency to the bill’s regulation-making powers. Finally, I’ve also clarified the transitional arrangements to further support our continued export of organic products while businesses move into the new system.

As I’ve previously said, it is great to see this bill progressing. I look forward to the discussion today and to debating the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on the Organic Products Bill.

Interested to note the Minister’s comments there; I just want to pick up on a few of those. Obviously, the key one being the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has now just been delivered to the House. This bill has been years in the making—2012, I believe: a decade-odd now, in the pipeline. And yet, at the very last minute, the Minister drops a substantial SOP—90-something pages—right as we are having the second reading, without there being any opportunity to have read through that prior to having this reading.

So on that basis, we will be reserving our comments on that until we’ve had the opportunity to discuss it or look at it more fully. But noting the Minister’s comments around allowing specific consideration for Treaty aspects within the SOP, my expectation would be that everyone has an equal opportunity in terms of the organic sector, and indeed that should be based on their particular sector needs rather than the ethnicity of any particular group. So it’s interesting to see that—and we saw that with the fair pay agreements as well—where there’s the risk of distorting or creating uneven opportunities for different groups.

So we will consider that as we go through the committee of the whole House stage as that comes up. I don’t know how many years we might wait before we get to the committee stage. Perhaps it will be less than that now that we’ve finally seen it shocked back into life for its second reading here in this Parliament. But indeed, it may be the next Parliament before we see the committee of the whole House stage. Who knows?

Look, I did just want to touch on a few of the amendments that were reported back from the select committee as well, because ultimately what we’re looking to achieve here is standardising a system for organic products in New Zealand. On the face of it, we support that intent. It is a mechanism that will help, I think, add some confidence to the system domestically. But also for our trade partners internationally: if they can look at our standard system set at a Government level with clear regulations outlining how participants can or cannot operate within that—depending on their sector and depending on the products and the broader supply chain—then that helps to give confidence to those international markets.

We heard the Minister say we’ve just had an increase now—I think $723 million worth of organic products in New Zealand, with some 58 percent of that exported. So that is a significant value add for our food and fibre sector, and that’s the sort of opportunity that we can continue to exploit here in New Zealand. We have a fantastic reputation internationally, and anything we can do to further enhance that—to add value to our economy here—is well worth pursuing.

So that intent of standardising the system, creating the regulatory framework around the production, processing, labelling of organic products all make sense. We support that intent. As I said, it helps to, I think, give that confidence internationally, but particularly also when it comes to having future discussions or potential discussions around additional trade opportunities, which I hope we will see. Again, we would like to see more focus on expanding our trade access—our market access—globally. Hopefully, this will help to broaden some of that discussion; we may need a change in Government to see a strong focus on trade, but nevertheless, 12 months to go, we shall see.

But on that basis, you know, one concern I do have, though, is around the risk of added compliance. And there’s a couple of the clauses that I do just want to pick up on in relation to that, because we have seen changes through the select committee process here—amending clause 13(1), for example, allowing for a time frame to be placed on an organic approval. So in some instances, that may be appropriate; in others, that may just be unnecessary compliance having to continually renew that certification. Presumably, if we have an appropriate offences and penalties regime in place that can have a regular ongoing audit process in place, then there shouldn’t necessarily be a need to continually renew if that adherence—or not—with the standard can be measured through that auditing process. So interested in exploring that one a little bit more.

One of the changes that I am comfortable with—clauses 33 and 34 being amended, allowing for suspension not just of an entity, but of a class. And I think this is a worthwhile distinction in that it enables for a particular issue if it’s been identified across sectors, for example, at the same point in the supply chain, rather than impacting the individual entities—of which there may be many—that are flowing through that system, it can actually identify that cog in the chain and say, “This is not currently fit for purpose; we need to withdraw recognition for that until it is amended appropriately.”

In terms of the use of personal information, that’s one that I just want to highlight as well. Because we’ve seen, obviously, a lot of concerns over the last few years—data breaches—that personal information in particular is a really important area that we need to protect as much as possible. Obviously, it’s important in the process of providing information around their adherence to the regulatory regime for compliance with organic products. That information is provided, but of course it should only be used for that purpose, and the amendment specifies that under new clause 44A as well.

I think just a nice common-sense—which is not particularly common over the last few years, it seems—change inserting the word “intentionally” into clause 84(1), which basically talks to the offence of resisting, obstructing, or delaying an organic products officer. So obviously, having some level of intent behind that obstruction is an important consideration that previously wasn’t there, which could have ended up with someone being in breach of it. For example, by being late to a meeting with that officer—which may have been caused by some issue on farm; things that can pop up from time to time that need to be dealt with immediately—that could lead to some inadvertent non-compliance and therefore being subject to the offences regime. So bringing in the ability to have some common sense with the intentionality aspect is an appropriate change there.

Also around the standardisation in terms of making sense—standardisation giving effect to the legislative intent of the conversion period. And that, I think, is an important one to note as well, being able to set in regulation the time to convert a property, depending on what sort of industry it may be in from its current practices through to achieving the organic status as defined under the regulations flowing from this legislation. So being able to determine what time frame that might look like, as well, I think is an appropriate step in acknowledging that transition and, again, giving confidence to our trade partners in that regard as well.

But I am concerned that the regulation setting and notices for organic standards may be somewhat restrictive, in that it says the standard that we’re looking to set up here could include specifics on what products would be covered; how the production, processing, and preparation of organic goods must be carried out; and the correct practices for the packing, storage, and handling of those goods would also be included in the standard.

On the face of it, that sounds appropriate. My concern with that aspect is around the potential for innovation to come into the industry. And we have a very proud history in New Zealand—in our food and fibre sector—of continuing to innovate over time. How we operate now is not how we did 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it won’t be how we operate 10, 20, or 50 years into the future.

It’s important that we allow scope for that sort of innovation to come through and in particular, some of these products—they may be smaller, niche categories—if a particular operator in that space can come up with an innovative new way of doing business whilst, of course, maintaining quality throughout that, then that should be their competitive advantage. And I would just be concerned that there is a risk where you could potentially be stymieing some of that innovation by being so prescriptive with that particular aspect around the regulation setting.

The high-level guidance, I think, is an important consideration as well. Because obviously setting the regulations here is done in confidence—it’s legally privileged—but it is now allowing for the insertion of subclause 3(b) to ensure that high-level guidance is provided to help guide those standards. And again, we’re seeing a lot of examples over the last few years where legislation coming through just isn’t fit for purpose. So it’s really important to be able to connect with the sector, understand exactly what their needs are, and ensure that we are providing the right outcome here.

So, look, on that basis, we are supporting it at the second reading—noting, of course, my concerns around the very late tabling of the SOP the Minister has just done—and we’ll be considering the details of that over the course of this passage through until the committee of the whole House stage. But some good changes made at the select committee, commend their work on it, and we look forward to supporting this bill, hopefully, through the remaining stages, subject to that SOP. Thank you.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I am so pleased to take a call on this, the second reading of the Organic Products Bill. I think it’s probably fair to say we’ve probably made Minister Shaw’s day by having this piece of legislation come into the House today!

What this piece of legislation does is pretty much bring confidence to the consumer, in so far as when they purchase a product that says it’s organic, that it actually is and that it meets certain standards to ensure that it is organic.

This piece of legislation also provides details to businesses of what they need to do in order to be able to call their product “organic”. We heard the Minister talk before about the fact that the ability to trade or sell our organic products overseas is increasing—this, I’m sure, will help to increase it even further.

One of the things I wanted to mention is that this bill brings our practice in line with other countries overseas, our major trading partners, and what they already do to regulate their organic products. It’s going to assist us in growing our organics industry exports, which is what I just alluded to before.

The Primary Production Committee heard from 350 submissions. It feels like a lifetime ago that we were going through this process, so it’s been a bit tricky to try and recall. But we had 60 submitters that submitted orally.

We heard the Minister talk about the fact that there were some concerns raised over the change to add ministry oversight. The committee did hear those concerns and consider those concerns, but, ultimately, we decided to continue with that as well because it does align this bill with other regulatory models in New Zealand, such as the Food Act.

We did change the title of this bill from the “Organic Products Bill” to the “Organic Products and Production Bill”. That just allows to ensure that the production of organics is done in such a way that it meets those standards.

We’ve heard the Minister mention Supplementary Order Paper 262 that he has introduced, which, simply, recognises the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of the Organic Products Bill, and I just want to make a couple of comments in line with my colleague Tim van de Molen. We do support this bill to the extent that it will certainly increase the confidence for consumers who are looking to buy organic products. We often talk about organic food products, but then, of course, there are the fibre products as well. I know a number of people like to ensure they’re wearing organic cotton or organic wool, or even organic silk, but it does certainly give some confidence to the consumer industry in a day and age when retail is in an incredibly competitive environment, as is the food and beverage sector. For a long time, New Zealand producers of organic products have traded on their reputation, which is richly deserved, but at least now, in an international environment particularly, there will be a framework set in place whereby offshore consumers can also recognise the same standards that our growers and producers are required to meet.

It is quite extraordinary that organic growers and producers have relied for so long entirely on private certification regimes, with private standards, and, of course, with no particular set of governing rules. This could have meant that anything and everything could have been considered an organic product. There have been those who have simply been able to self-certify. I often think of the wine industry, purchasing their gold stars, and I, as a consumer, automatically go for the cheap row, but those with the gold stars, because I like to think I’m getting a good deal. But who am I to know that it’s actually a gold star wine?

Simon Court: Does it taste good?

NICOLA GRIGG: It always tastes good, Simon!

Simon Court: That’s the test!

NICOLA GRIGG: Now, now—we’re not here to talk about the gold stars and my lack of knowledge around wine. But the Organic Products Bill will also implement—[Interruption] Anna Lorck, I could talk about wine and Berocca all day if you’d like, but not for now.

This bill will also, of course, implement a framework that will allow those businesses themselves, let alone the consumer, certainty around the processes that are needed for them to claim organic status or that their products are of organic origin. As many people have acknowledged, this is a large and rapidly growing industry. I understand it’s growing at about 9 percent a year, I think, worth a quarter of a billion dollars to our domestic market and closer to $700 million in the offshore market, which, as we all know, is incredibly competitive. We’ve just seen in recent months the signing of free-trade agreements with the likes of the UK and the EU. We know these are highly discerning markets, and, of course, we must as a legislator do everything we can to increase the competitive edge.

Rachel Brooking: Wonderful Minister of Trade.

NICOLA GRIGG: They were wonderful deals. Thank you very much to the Labour colleague across there. And isn’t it great that the National Government started the process of those free-trade agreements. But, of course, it has been an enormous frustration to growers and producers that this legislation has taken so long. Indeed, a couple of Parliaments ago it was begun. It’s taken this long to come into law. I do also acknowledge Minister James Shaw, and I’m very surprised that he’s not down in the House this afternoon to celebrate the second reading, because I know he’s been like the proverbial dog with a bone on this one. Anyway, I digress again.

The certification system I mentioned earlier has, in a funny old way, been organic itself, but it has seen vastly different requirements and standards that have meant both the grower/producer and the consumer haven’t been able to identify what exactly that claim on organic has meant. I think that this inconsistency and this confusion has led to a certain amount of distrust, and I think, from a consumer perspective, we must do everything we can to dampen that distrust, because I think, in a world where food security and food safety is paramount, we’ve got to do, here in this House, all that we can to engender trust in food and product that comes out of this country, because, as we know, our export industry is so vitally important to us as an economy and as a society. But we do, of course, need to stay ahead of the curve. We do know that demand for organic product is growing. I understand the global market itself is well in excess of $100 billion annually, and, as that growth continues, New Zealand has to be in as firm a position as our offshore trading partners. By having a widely recognised certification system, anyone shopping in an offshore supermarket—or, indeed, an offshore retail outlet—is going to be able to immediately recognise that our producers are using similar and recognised standards to our offshore partners.

As I said, and a lot of people have acknowledged this, this has not been a fast-moving piece of legislation. It started with good intentions over a decade ago, but we do, on this side of the House, feel that it’s lost its way a little bit in that policy development area and, indeed, in the regulation setting role that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will take. I also note that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, if I can just borrow my colleague’s copy of it here, is as big as the bill itself. I just can’t help but wonder, with all these very clever policy makers that we have in this precinct, why on earth this was not brought to the select committee at an earlier date so that it could be discussed and it could be debated. We on the Primary Production Committee have a very collegial relationship, and I would have thought this could have been implemented in the primary legislation itself rather than coming to the House as a very late Supplementary Order Paper, whereby we haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it, let alone read it, from my perspective.

National has made it very clear in our minority view that, despite the fact that we do welcome this bill and we are pleased that it is giving the industry a little bit of certainty, we are concerned, as we’ve outlined in our minority view, that the costs of this regulation are going to prove yet another onerous burden on growers and producers. And we do feel very much that MPI plays a role in being aware—and I should just quote—“of the costs of regulation on some organic farmers” and “It may lead to much higher costs on some producers, and MPI should be ensuring the most cost-effective regulation process.” And secondly—and I again quote—“MPI has given no indication of the costs involved.” That, I think, is the crux of the matter for us, and hence our reservation about supporting the bill entirely. It’s that this lack of transparency on this issue has created a divided reaction amongst organic producers, and I think that some are quite correct to fear that they don’t know what they’re heading into in the likes of an audit process. They don’t know what they’re heading into and the costs that will ultimately come off their bottom line.

I think the really important point to observe here is that we’ve all agreed this country is in the grips of a cost of living crisis. The more costs and the more compliance issues we pour on to our growers and producers ultimately does get fed downstream to the consumers. When we look to families who are looking to put good, wholesome, nutritious food on the dining table three times a day—or, indeed, at night, when families sit down to dinner, as is tradition—we want families to be able to eat the best of what New Zealand can produce, and, of course, if this does become an onerous cost on growers, that does get passed on as an onerous cost to families.

So the National Party, as I’ve outlined, has reservations about the lack of guidance about how this bill will be implemented—how it will be enforced—but we do support it because it does serve the wider interests of the sector and, indeed, of making New Zealand’s organic sector more transparent and, of course, internationally competitive. So I do commend this bill to the House.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my absolute pleasure to stand and take a short call on the Organic Products Bill. As a member of the Primary Production Committee, it is great to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, today, in the House. In fact, I think this might be the first piece of legislation that I considered as a new member of the House. I came in as a new MP at the tail end of the oral submissions on this bill, so it was great to be able to hear from those submitters, to also get the thoughts of the advisers and officials, and then be part of that report back to the House process.

As we’ve heard from colleagues across the House, including my good colleague Jo Luxton here—you know, people are wanting certainty. Ultimately, that’s what this bill comes down to. The organic industry is a rapidly growing industry. It is increasing year on year by about 9 percent. About 58 perfect of the organic products that we produce here, in New Zealand, are exported overseas. And where we see a rapidly growing industry, often what we can see across the board, looking back in history, is opportunity for people to get in on what they think is the next quick buck without necessarily going through all of the proper processes and channels.

What this bill does is make sure that we have a consistent, proper process in place, which will then give consumers, both here in New Zealand and our consumers overseas, the certainty that they have asked for, especially with our trading partners overseas. What they have indicated very clearly to us—from foreign Governments—is that they want some certainty, they want to see consistency in our process, and they would like Government oversight in the process—hence why part of the process is being removed from private certifiers and will now be undertaken by the Ministry for Primary Industries. So that will provide the certainty and the independence and transparency that our overseas consumers have been demanding.

So it is with absolute pleasure, as I said, that I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. What a glorious day for this House—a glorious day in that it appears as though there is consensus from all parties across the aisle here; obviously from the ACT Party soon, who are just giggling behind me about Big Brother or something. But it appears as though, at the very least, the majority of the parties are agreeing on the side of common sense that it makes sense that we have a standardised universal process for certifying organic standards of products and production in Aotearoa New Zealand.

It’s a glorious day because, as others have also acknowledged, this has very much been the bone that the dog, that being our co-leader the Hon James Shaw, has raised consistently with our Leader of the House in his many queries about the business of the House throughout the past two years. And I note, as many others have also said, that this bill has been in incubation since, at the very least, when it was made public in 2018 with a press release from Minister Damien O’Connor.

I want to acknowledge not only the Primary Production Committee, which obviously did a great job, as others have also acknowledged, in the process of considering this bill and a substantive amount of submissions. I want to acknowledge the chair, Jo Luxton, but also those who have helped to advocate for this along the way. Of course, I need to acknowledge Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly Brendan Hoare and Doug Voss, but I also need to acknowledge my Green forebears who’ve been banging this drum for a very long time. That goes back to Sue Kedgley, to Steffan Browning, and of course to Gareth Hughes. It was Eugenie Sage who gave the speech at the first reading on this legislation towards the end of last June, and I’m sorry, to members, that I am subbing in for the Minister, the Hon James Shaw, in our contribution today.

Of course, as others have also mentioned, organics are a huge and growing part of our economy, particularly for our exports. Organics make up $650 million, but $400 million of that is in export product, giving you just a sense of how large that currently is, but also the potential for growth. It might perhaps make more sense to consider this legislation as making sure the products do what they say on the tin, because we have had for a very long time, as others have outlined, rather more—I don’t want to imply that it’s been ad hoc by those who’ve been making a really big effort inside of the sector, but not a universalised and standardised approach to certification.

Consistent labelling is really important not only for producers in terms of having actually arguably, to a certain extent, lesser compliance costs because of that universal type of approach but also for consumers, particularly when we’re in an age of greenwash and concern about a disconnect from labelling, particularly from private companies, and, as National MP Nicola Grigg raised, where it is the case that certain companies can purchase labelling or certification for their products to imply that they’re better than others. Again, this is the importance of having that backstop and that certainty and that guarantee for consumers but also for producers that everybody is reaching the same standards.

As others have also raised, there’s going to be a lot to pick over in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 262—a weighty one that it is. So I’m looking forward to that committee of the whole House stage.

I don’t want to keep members from their lunch break, but I do want to say that this has been a long time coming and we won’t stand in the way of any further progress. The Greens are incredibly stoked to be supporting this legislation at second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.