Thursday, 27 October 2022

THURSDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2022

THURSDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha, ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 8 November. In that week, legislation to be considered by the House will include the first readings of the Business Payment Practices Bill, the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, and the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. It will also include the second reading of the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Thursday, 10 November, and that afternoon there will be a special debate on the report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on its inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Acting Leader of the House for that update. We’re quite concerned on this side of the House about the inquiry into the review of the Radio New Zealand charter, which had a report presented on 21 June. The Government response was due on 14 September and, as yet, that report has not been presented to the House. I’m wondering if the Acting Leader of the House could follow up on that for the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): Yeah, I can do that.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): To the Acting Leader of the House, just in reference to the Organic Products Bill, thanks!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): No worries.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Just speaking to the business of the House, I just question, for the Acting Leader of the House: when can we expect the Government to introduce the Natural and Built Environments Bill and any accompanying legislation to reform the Resource Management Act?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): At the moment, we’re focused on the Organic Products Bill and once we get through that, then we will look at other options.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The Minister for the Environment noted in the House this week that consenting costs the country $1.3 billion per annum. So is reforming the Resource Management Act a priority for the Government, and, if so, when will the bill be introduced to the House?

SPEAKER: Order! No. It would be best if the member put that question on notice for question time.

Motions

Iran—Women’s Rights

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the treatment of women in Iran.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That this House note the bravery of women and the people of Iran exercising their right to protest for women’s rights and democracy; call for a thorough, independent, and prompt investigation of recent deaths of people in the custody of Iranian authorities, including the Morality Police; and condemn the Iranian authorities’ suppression of protestors and journalists, making clear our view that the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental human rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is unacceptable.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual report for 2021-22 of the Education Review Office

annual report for 2021-22 of the New Zealand Defence Force

Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of the Chained Dog Awareness Trust

Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Ava Simeon.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Auditor-General’s mid-term review. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Interim report of the Health Committee on the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill

report of the Health Committee on the petition of the E tū Union.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Inspector-General of Defence Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Conservation

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she consider 18 percent marine protection areas is adequate for the Hauraki Gulf; if not, will she work with iwi and hapū to increase protection to 30 percent as called for by Forest & Bird?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): The Revitalising the Gulf strategy we released in June last year responds to the call for action we received in the 2017 Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan, and has been designed with input from mana whenua, local communities, and industry. It’s a piece of work that will help us protect the long-term health of the Hauraki Gulf. As proposals currently stand, we will see the marine protection within the gulf increase from just over 6 percent to 18 percent. The proposals have been designed to protect the gulf, and I do consider that they will help us achieve this goal. However, the proposals are currently being consulted on and are subject to final decisions by myself and the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. Submissions close at 5 p.m. tomorrow and I encourage everyone with an interest on this piece of work to make a submission.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with retaining trawling corridors in the Hauraki Gulf, or does she consider that the marine conservation value of the gulf requires it to be closed to trawling?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I have said, we are in a process of taking submissions on this, and final decisions will be made by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and myself, and we look forward to people with an interest on this matter making submissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How, then, will the proposed protections interface with the many rāhui that iwi and hapū have placed in efforts to protect Tīkapa Moana?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I said in my primary answer, we have worked alongside iwi to ensure that the proposals we have put in place are fit for purpose, and we encourage people with a view on this to make those submissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government plan to continue to allow mining and dumping outside of the high-protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf in any special legislation to establish the areas, despite knowing full well that its ecosystem is “on the brink of collapse”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In regards to mining, the proposals within Revitalising the Gulf, which bring marine protection of the gulf up to around 18 percent—these protected areas will prohibit bottom trawling and harmful bottom contact activities. This includes a complete prohibition on mining, including sand mining. This will protect some of the most vulnerable ecosystems from harmful human activity.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. The question was about whether mining and dumping will be allowed to continue outside of those high-protected areas.

SPEAKER: I’m pretty sure the Minister addressed that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The Minister addressed what’s to occur inside of those high-protected areas.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think there are any Standing Orders that say that you can argue with my ruling.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she actively considering changing the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act to give the Hauraki Gulf Forum substantive decision-making powers so it can do more than chart the ongoing decline in the health of the gulf?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In relation to the work that the Government is doing, the Government has already taken a number of actions to protect our marine environment. We’ve established an oceans and fisheries portfolio, we’re requiring cameras on up to 300 commercial inshore fishing vessels by 2024, and the work to restore the health of the Hauraki Gulf is part of the Revitalising the Gulf initiative. This includes establishing 19 new marine protected areas and restricting trawl fishing to selected corridors.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. The question was about the Hauraki Gulf Forum. The Minister didn’t address that at all.

SPEAKER: Can you repeat the question for me again.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Thank you. Is she actively considering changing the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 to give the Hauraki Gulf Forum substantive decision-making powers so it can do more than chart the ongoing decline in the health of the gulf?

SPEAKER: Yeah, there are three parts to that, and it’s definitely been—at least one part of it was addressed.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the feedback from public consultation, to which the Minister has referred throughout her answers this afternoon, demands that the Government increases its ambition in the Hauraki Gulf, will the Minister increase protected areas to 30 percent in line with international consensus on ocean protection?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We will consider the submissions as they are presented to us.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about the social sector in New Zealand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. Today, the Government launched our Social Sector Commissioning Action Plan. The action plan represents a new chapter for more than 18,000 social service providers across Aotearoa New Zealand. Improving how Government commissions and works with social services was one of our key manifesto commitments. Our response to COVID-19 showed us how much we can achieve when Government works alongside providers to deliver outcomes for our people and communities. This action plan provides a pathway for how we can roll out this relational approach across the motu. This will fundamentally change the way we work with social services to better support them to help our communities.

Angie Warren-Clark: What change will New Zealanders in need see from the action plan?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This action plan is part of our welfare overhaul programme and is one step towards modernising our welfare system so that social sector organisations can support New Zealanders to live with dignity. This means people will be provided with the support they need when they need it, without providers having to cut through unnecessary red tape along the way. Over time, this transformation will mean New Zealanders know where to go for assistance, and the support available to them is community-led. Their experiences will also help to inform further improvements to the delivery of social services that are responsive to their needs.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the action plan change the way social service providers work with Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our COVID-19 response made it clear how effective our social service providers can be with more certainty and flexibility to respond to the unique and diverse needs of those accessing their services. For our social services, these changes mean they can be more sustainable, less focused on paperwork and competition for funding, and more focused on supporting their communities. The approach has started, with more agencies receiving longer-term contracts, which provides them with the certainty to plan ahead. This is also a mammoth coordination task between Government organisations; 15 have been mandated to take this approach and work more effectively in collaboration with social services.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the action plan support a Te Tiriti partnership?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Underpinning this action plan, and the starting point for transformation, is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the need for us to recognise and give practical effect to Te Tiriti. Māori-Crown partnerships must be at the heart of effective commissioning. This action plan will support iwi, hapū, and whānau to create their own solutions. It will support equitable access, experiences, and outcomes for Māori who work in the sector and apply tikanga in a way that benefits the provision of support. Our social sector commissioning kaupapa is not just about improving Government practices; it’s also about strengthening the ties that bring together Government, the sector, iwi, Māori, and communities to support people in their whānau, including disabled people, people experiencing mental illness, Māori and Pacific peoples, and rainbow, rural, and ethnic communities.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. I particularly stand by the Government’s statements and actions yesterday, which saw the passing of the historic Fair Pay Agreements Bill. This bill unwinds a 30-year failed experiment to erode the pay, rights, and conditions of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is about stopping the race to the bottom for the workers in this country who have, for too long, had minimal bargaining power. Those workers are among the likes of our cleaners, bus drivers, supermarket workers, and security guards—the people who keep our economy ticking and looked after us through COVID. The legislation is also positive for good employers, as it seeks to stop the race to the bottom from other employers who are not so well-minded. I am proud to be part of a Government who backs fair pay and conditions for these workers. These are the type of policies that will make a difference to the lives of Kiwis doing it tough right now.

Nicola Willis: Well, can he confirm that, despite talking the talk on wages, the fact is that real wages have declined by 3.5 percent since Labour came to office?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, the member is wrong. She is using the adjusted labour cost index, which most experts would tell you is not actually a good reflection of the actual take-home pay. [Interruption] It’s important to learn lessons, Mr Bishop, in life. And I would refer the member to the fact that, in fact, in every year in our forecast—in every year—between 2017 and 2025-26, average earnings are forecast to grow faster than inflation, with the exception of the year just gone. In the four June years from 2019 to 2022, wage growth, measured by the best estimate of ordinary-time hourly earnings, averaged 5.1 percent a year, compared to inflation averaging 3.5 percent.

Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Library’s real-wage index, which the Minister of Finance doesn’t appear to have access to.

SPEAKER: No—the end comment was unnecessary. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out adjusting tax brackets in the 2023 Budget, and, if so, why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has been very clear about our policy that the tax work programme that we’ve had, which included lifting the top rate of tax from 33c to 39c, is the extent of the programme of tax for this Government in this term. In terms of Budget 2023, the member will be well aware that that has not yet been finalised.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister believe that ploughing billions of taxpayer dollars into a merger of TVNZ and RNZ, Tesla subsidies, backroom bureaucrats, and Government consultants is the best use of money in a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Among the man assertions in that question is the continuation of the National Party’s description of the front-line workers who got New Zealand through COVID as “backroom bureaucrats”. Once again, the National Party is running down the role of the people who work very hard every day to deliver things like the wage subsidy scheme, to make sure people are looked after in our health system—that is typical of the attitude of the National Party towards working people.

Nicola Willis: [Holds up graph] If extra spending is the answer to every problem, then why, under Labour, has the number of people getting timely emergency department care plummeted, while it stayed consistently high under National?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, and as we traversed in the House yesterday, this has been an extremely difficult winter for our emergency departments. We have seen tens of thousands of people a week showing up to emergency departments seeking care in a period of time, through COVID, when there were staffing shortages as well. There are many graphs that I can hold up about the health system, but two spring to mind: the failure of the previous National Government to fund health to keep up with inflation, year on year on year, and the two years where the National Party decided that it was appropriate to put zero dollars into health capital and health infrastructure. That is the graph the member should be showing.

Nicola Willis: Will Labour heed the call of emergency doctors calling for the return of health targets which delivered results under National, or will it stick to its no-targets, no-accountability, no-results approach?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The approach that we will stick to is the one that’s seen more than a 40 percent increase in the funding for health, a 20 percent increase in the number of doctors, and a 20 percent increase in the number of nurses. We are actually investing in the health system. We are, in part, making up for the failures of the last nine years, and we’ve had to deal with a small matter called COVID. The New Zealand health system and the dedicated professionals within it deserve this Parliament’s support—and not being run down by that member.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that only 2 percent of New Zealand’s decile 1 students achieved the numeracy standard in a recent NCEA assessment, or does he share the Associate Minister of Education’s view that the assessment wasn’t culturally appropriate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the second part of the question, I have sat through the House and listened to the Associate Minister carefully, and she was reflecting the view of experts with respect to that last comment. More broadly, when it comes to the way in which we choose to assess our students, I back the Associate Minister of Education any day over the Opposition when it comes to what is best for students within our schools.

Nicola Willis: Will his Government continue to listen to the excuses of experts, or will it reassert its view—or the view it should have—that New Zealand students, no matter their socio-economic or cultural background, should be equipped by their schooling with the literacy and numeracy skills needed to succeed in modern life?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s an interesting phrase, “the excuses of experts”. That tells you a lot about the National Party’s view about evidence and the National Party’s view about what actually works in the education system. What this Government’s going to keep doing is investing in our education system, making sure teachers are paid properly, and making sure that they’ve got the support in their classrooms; not going down the failed experiment of national standards which many of the people within the education system blame for the issues that might be there today.

Hon Stuart Nash: Under National’s tax proposal, how much money would a McDonald’s worker on the minimum wage get?

SPEAKER: No. He’s not responsible for that.

Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs

4. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What decisions, if any, has she made from her review of New Zealand’s position on deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): This morning, I announced Aotearoa New Zealand’s call for a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This means that New Zealand will oppose all commercial seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction until strong environmental rules can be agreed and backed up by robust science. The deep sea contains some of the least-understood ecosystems on the planet, and our scientific knowledge of it remains extremely limited. Without adequate knowledge and environmental protections, we do not believe it is safe for mining to take place.

Ingrid Leary: Why has the Government taken this position?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’ve recently reviewed the progress made, to date, through the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to develop a mining code for the deep sea. Given the lack of progress, to date, it’s our view that the ISA process is unlikely to produce a mining code with adequate environmental safeguards to protect our oceans before its July 2023 deadline—that risks mining going ahead without any environmental protections. New Zealand would caution against such an approach. We’ve also listened to the concerns raised by a number of Pacific Island countries about the potential impacts of deep-sea mining on Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa and the livelihoods it supports. We share their ambition to protect our oceans, and I’d like to acknowledge their leadership on this issue. New Zealand is therefore calling for a conditional moratorium to protect our shared ocean, to care for the marine environment and its unique biodiversity.

Ingrid Leary: What steps will New Zealand take at the upcoming ISA negotiations to promote a conditional moratorium?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It’s important for New Zealand that we continue to engage in the ISA negotiations—it’s the best way to get international agreement for our position of a conditional moratorium. At the upcoming ISA negotiations, we’ll argue that a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining in international waters is necessary to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment until strong environmental rules can be agreed and backed up by robust science. New Zealand will work to proactively identify and promote steps that can be taken by the ISA to give effect to a conditional moratorium. We’ll work with other like-minded countries to progress the position of a conditional moratorium on deep-sea mining.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What contribution have civil society groups and Pacific parliamentarians made to the thinking which informed the Government’s decision to support the moratorium in international waters?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’d like to acknowledge the role that civil society groups in New Zealand have played and their continued advocacy. I have met with NGOs four times in the past 12 months to discuss perspectives and options on deep-sea mining, including most recently this morning. I expect New Zealand officials will work constructively with NGOs at the upcoming ISA negotiation to help push forward the call for a conditional moratorium. I know that there are a range of views on deep-sea mining in the Pacific Islands and an ongoing dialogue in many countries. In our review, we took stock of the views of Pacific Island countries, and I’ve also taken the time to discuss the issue in a number of my recent bilateral meetings across the Pacific. We will continue to engage with Pacific Island countries across the full spectrum of views on seabed mining. NGOs have an important and constructive role to play across the Pacific, and I also acknowledge the advocacy and expertise in this regard.

Ingrid Leary: Does this moratorium apply to countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs)?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The International Seabed Authority deals with international waters beyond countries’ territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Our call for a conditional moratorium, therefore, does not include areas within States’ national jurisdictions such as our own EEZ. For waters within national jurisdiction, we respect the mana of each country to manage its kaitiaki responsibilities to protect the ocean, consistent with the international legal obligation they have to protect and preserve the marine environment and its ecosystems.

Question No. 5—Conservation

5. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Conservation: Why has the Department of Conservation reportedly given full support to Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua’s plan to remove 48 DOC huts from Te Urewera, and what date, if any, has she been given for their replacement?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o Te Whare. Under the Te Urewera Act, much of Te Urewera National Park ceased to be a national park and became a legal entity in its own right. The legislation outlines that huts owned by the Department of Conservation (DOC) may be removed or demolished by either Te Uru Taumatua or the department in a manner that is consistent with the management plan and the annual operation plan for Te Urewera. Under this framework, the Department of Conservation is supporting Te Uru Taumatua to decommission 44 huts, many of which required significant maintenance work and did not meet health and safety standards. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, I understand that Te Uru Taumatua is working towards a time frame of between two to three years to replace some of the huts with fit for purpose facilities.

Nicole McKee: Can the Minister commit to ensuring the health and safety of Te Urewera hunters and trampers that replacement or temporary huts will be built before winter 2023, and, if not, is this what New Zealanders can expect from this Government’s co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Public access remains fully available across Te Urewera, and visitors will continue to have access to Te Urewera whether they be there camping or in one of the Great Walks huts—or, in future, a fit for purpose facility.

Nicole McKee: Does she think taxpayers, who are contributing $2 million per year for the maintenance of huts and tracks in Te Urewera, will see the burning of these huts as a successful outcome under the co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: To be very clear, the legislation put in place by the National-ACT Government of 2014 set up the legislation which allows Te Urewera to be managed in this particular way, where Te Urewera Board has day-to-day control of Te Urewera. Let me also be very clear: there was no burning of huts. Under the Department of Conservation process, huts were dismantled, roofing iron taken off, and timber salvaged for reuse. There are some rotten boards, which have been burnt. However, it is not correct to say “the burning of huts”. That is blatantly incorrect.

Nicole McKee: Does DOC value the safe haven that backcountry huts give their users, and, if so, why have they enabled the destruction of their huts without alternative temporary accommodation being constructed first?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We value health and safety, which is why we have supported Te Urewera Board in ensuring that those huts which were not fit for purpose are being replaced. In addition, Te Urewera Board are making decisions about fit for purpose facilities, which will provide a Te Urewera experience for visitors into the future. It is not fair to say that these huts are being destroyed. There are three heritage huts which are being relocated, and many of these other facilities, which will be built, will be in a far better state to cope with, and cater for, visitors into the future.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she think that this would be an issue if DOC had a programme of replacing these huts, or is it just an issue because Te Uru Taumatua is replacing these huts?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I think that is probably a question for the ACT Party, but it seems very clear to me—

SPEAKER: No, the question is to the Minister, and the Minister should address it.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my view that the ACT Party should honour the commitment they made by supporting this particular legislation—

SPEAKER: No, I’m on my feet. You need to sit down. That does not address the question. The question is to the Minister. It’s not about her opinions about the ACT Party or the former Government. It was a very clear question. I’m going to give Nicole McKee an extra question and she can examine it.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the chair of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, Tāmati Kruger, says, “I don’t see it as a final destination. I don’t see co-governance as the answer.” and continues the “scorched earth policy” that one protester has described, is the Government confident with their co-governance model?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is no scorched earth policy.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the way the justice system operated during a recent rape case, “The last thing that we would like to see, that anybody in government or any New Zealander, would be that a victim is put off from coming forward to share their story and have somebody take accountability where they cause sexual violence and harms to victims”; if so, what changes, if any, is she considering to how the justice system operates?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the first part of the question, absolutely. To the second part of the question, can I just acknowledge the member for the question and for providing the opportunity to talk about one of our primary priorities, which is introducing and supporting a victim-centric justice system. Through Budget 2022, the Government increased funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and put aside significant resources for a whole-of-Government support programme for victims of crime. The Government has passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, which will take full effect from December this year, and a team has recently been established within the Ministry of Justice to drive further policy change to improve the system for victims. I’m also considering currently the settings for how sexual violence is managed in the criminal justice system, particularly those that directly impact children and young victims of crime. In recent months, my officials have been consulting with experts in the field, including victim advocates and specialist service providers, to better understand what is and what is not working. I expect to receive further advice on this in the next few months.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she worried that a well-publicised sentence of nine months’ home detention for a conviction of four rapes will discourage young women in New Zealand coming forward to share their story, and, if so, what changes, if any, is she considering to how the justice system operates for those victims?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I am absolutely concerned that any person in any environment would ever be put off by anything that takes them away from being able to share their story, and want to ensure that responsibility sits with those people that have caused harm to any individual. I refer back to my primary answer, though, that there is a broad range of settings I’m looking at right now across the criminal justice system as to how the settings for sexual violence are dealt with and with a particular focus on children and young victims.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm, firstly, that prosecutorial decisions, including recommendations as to sentence, don’t come from politicians and were not influenced in the subject case, but, none the less, the issue here was not one with sentencing guidelines; it was the decision taken by the local Crown prosecutor in that there is nothing needed to be changed in respect of sentencing guidelines?

SPEAKER: Order! That question was far too long—it wasn’t the ideal way to pitch a question like that. I’m not sure—I will take some advice from the Clerk, actually. Yes, the Minister can answer in so far as she’s responsible but that question was far too long.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I can confirm that this side of the House understands the separation of powers. I can confirm that we, the executive, have the obligation to administer the legislative tools and that we understand the principles of comity and that the Solicitor-General has responsibility for anything that is undertaken by the courts in terms of prosecuting. The principle for that is because we cannot politicise the judiciary, and that is one of the fundamental constitutional principles that this side of the House believes in.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: In light of that answer, why did she say publicly that she’d asked officials about the type of training the judiciary do to ensure “that they are appropriately equipped”, and, if so, does that mean she thinks that they are not appropriately equipped?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We have obligations to ensure that anybody exercising any public power function understands their duties, their responsibilities, and they will absolutely be doing that. I am not quite sure why the opposite side of the House doesn’t quite understand comity, but what I would say is that whilst the spokesperson for justice on that side of the House may not understand some core constitutional principles, the shadow spokesperson for the Attorney-General certainly does and I suggest he has a chat to him about what those principles are.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she concerned the justice system appears to be giving more weight to her colleague Kelvin Davis’ call to reduce the prison population by 30 percent than it is to ensuring someone take accountability for serious crimes?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I have absolutely no obligations for the Department of Corrections.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she work with the Attorney-General to require a proper inquiry into the Crown’s handling of the Meyer rape case and the operation of the Sentencing Act?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Attorney-General has put on record that the High Court judgment and other related court documents that have been made public set out clearly what happened in that case. However, any further response falls to the Solicitor-General in terms of her oversight of public prosecutions, and he has asked her to look at whether anything further is required.

Question No. 7—Housing (Māori Housing)

7. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What has the Government done to improve housing outcomes for Māori?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): When we came into Government, the housing challenges were many for Māori whānau. As a Government, we are taking action, and last year’s Budget committed $730 million for Māori housing. An update on where we are at: of the 1,000 homes to be delivered, we have approved and commenced building of 824; of the 700 homes for repairs and maintenance, we have approved and delivered up to 314 across the country; of the 2,700 sites requiring infrastructure support, we have approved up to 1,200. We are also supporting 41 Māori housing providers to build their capability to ensure that they have the right tools and resources to deliver warm, dry, and safe homes for whānau.

Willow-Jean Prime: How does this partnership provide better housing outcomes for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We have created new pathways for Māori housing that rely on a genuine partnership between the Government, iwi, and Māori to invest in housing opportunities that more widely contribute to the overall wellbeing of whānau, hapū, and iwi. The value of the partnership approach includes delivering Māori housing to a scale and at a pace that has never been achieved before, and by Māori, for Māori approaches to support and enable iwi and Māori to succeed through partnership, co-design, and, most importantly, delivery.

Willow-Jean Prime: How are these partnerships delivering transformational change for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We are partnering with iwi Māori to get whānau into affordable homes and, importantly, to be financially independent—for example, our partnership with Ka Uruora will see 172 whānau be housed in affordable rentals across Taranaki, Tuparoa, Blenheim, Thames, and Tāmaki-makau-rau. This will be complemented with support services such as financial literacy, and encourage iwi-sponsored savings schemes. In addition, 31 whānau will be assisted into homeownership through the progressive homeownership plan. I can quote from one of the supporters and leaders of this particular initiative: “Working … with Ka Uruora and [the Government], we can offer alternative paths to owning a home and achieving financial independence. [And] Our financial education and savings programmes are great tools to help whānau realise their [aspiration]”.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government’s investment in Māori housing supporting job creation for Māori and communities?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Through our partnerships with Māori, we will see more homes being built, which will in turn create significant jobs in regions—for example, our partnership with Toitu Tairawhiti will see 150 new homes for whānau who need them the most. It also has a large focus on job creation and upskilling whānau in construction. Toitu Tairawhiti is a programme in place with off-site manufacturer Built Smart to upskill a number of local people that will see them leading the building programme. This forms part of an innovative model of delivery with a mix of typologies for housing across the wider Tai Rāwhiti region.

Question No. 8—Education (School Operations)

8. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What is an example of a question in the 2022 NCEA Numeracy and Literacy pilot that she believes was not culturally “appropriate”, as she has claimed, and does she believe students should only be asked questions about things they have personally experienced?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): To the first part of the question, the member is referring to a quote that was not my personal claim but referring to the views of some teachers and experts. This was in relation to the overall assessment, not specific questions. To be clear, none of the feedback from teachers and experts in the evaluation report provided to me gave examples of specific questions in the assessment. Therefore, I have no specific examples to provide the member from that feedback. And to the second part of the question, no.

Erica Stanford: Isn’t the reason for her unwillingness to give one simple example to back up her excuse as to why 98 percent of decile 1 kids cannot pass a basic literacy exam because she is desperately trying to hide from the fact that her Government has not rolled out any numeracy or literacy programmes in the last five years to ensure that these students would pass the assessments?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Erica Stanford: How can she say that she will not second-guess the expert teachers when they say that the tests are not culturally appropriate, when the evaluation report stated that many of them have not seen the questions in the test, and an email to the education Minister from a principal said that “We have not seen the tests that our students sat, yet we were still asked to comment on the equity and suitability of the test.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I back our experts and I stand by the pilot. These results show that we need to ensure that all students leave school with fundamental maths and literacy skills fit for the modern world.

Erica Stanford: How many of the 14 participants who responded to the statement in the evaluation that the literacy reading test was not a valid and reliable assessment had actually seen the test questions, given she is relying on their expert opinion?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t have those figures in front of me. If the member wanted that, she could put that in writing and our office will respond.

Erica Stanford: Why, when I asked her yesterday to give one example of the type of question in the NCEA literacy and numeracy tests that she felt was culturally inappropriate, could she only point to this child’s book and the use of the word “clue”, and isn’t the entire point of teaching and education to teach children, to help them to learn words that they are unfamiliar with?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly the point that I was making: we need to contextualise learning. Thank you for listening to my answer.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Selamat siang. Terima kasih, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Government taking to improve wages and conditions for Kiwi workers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yesterday, the Fair Pay Agreements Bill was passed by the Parliament. Fair pay agreements (FPAs) are about the basic Kiwi value of a fair go, and turning the page on the 30-year era of a race to the bottom for many Kiwi workers. The global pandemic of COVID reinforced the basic truth that we rely on the work of many of our low-income workers, including cleaners, bus drivers, and checkout workers. We believe, in this Government, that we owe it to those people to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect and are paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of the fair pay agreements framework, including the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger.

Marja Lubeck: How will fair pay agreements work?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Despite some misinformation that I have heard in various places, fair pay agreements are not a one-size-fits-all model. They create a basic minimum floor of pay and conditions across a sector or an occupation, similar to the model that operates in Australia, which ensures certainty for workers employed in those areas but also ensures that there is protection for good employers in those sectors to not be undermined by others paying less and competing on low pay and conditions, which is the race to the bottom that we want to stop. Fair pay agreements do not preclude flexibility or competition by employers above that minimum floor but merely ensure that it doesn’t come at the expense of pay, conditions, and job security for workers.

Marja Lubeck: How will fair pay agreements support greater productivity?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: One of the lessons of the past 30 years is that a highly deregulated labour market manifestly failed to deliver on the claims made in the early 1990s that that would deliver higher productivity growth for New Zealand. FPAs will incentivise competition based on the factors that we know contribute to productivity growth, like the quality of goods and services, innovation, and R & D; not the undercutting of pay and conditions for our essential workers. Again, we’re supporting the overwhelming majority of good employers who do want to see productivity in our country grow and do want to give their employees a fair go at the same time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will fair pay agreements see significant improvements in wages and conditions for McDonald’s workers in Christchurch?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: McDonald’s workers in Christchurch have the great good benefit of being covered by a collective agreement negotiated by the Unite Union, which has seen them achieve an increased minimum wage, increased minimum break times, improved minimum hours, and better shift allowances. A fair pay agreement would allow workers more broadly across that sector to access some of those same benefits, and I think we’d all agree that’s a good thing.

Marja Lubeck: Will workers be forced to join unions under this legislation?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Once again, it’s important to be very clear and to correct some of the disinformation that’s heard in this area. No, workers will not be required to join unions under the fair pay agreement legislation, nor will the fair pay agreement legislation allow strikes or lockouts, and nor does it breach international labour laws. Fair pay agreements are a pragmatic and modern approach to industrial relations, which will offer outcomes similar to Australia and deliver good outcomes for both employees and employers. I’m proud that our Labour Government has delivered on this manifesto commitment.

Hon Grant Robertson: Returning to the important matter of McDonald’s workers in Christchurch, can the Minister confirm reports of McDonald’s workers on Newshub last night celebrating the passing of the fair pay agreements legislation, and was he surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition join them this morning?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I can confirm that I actually met with a number of McDonald’s workers, last night, who were extremely pleased about the passing of the fair pay agreements legislation. These are workers who do important work within our society. It is only decent and fair that they receive a fair go. We believe that those workers should receive fair pay for their work, and we believe that’s more important than an $18,000 tax cut for the Leader of the Opposition.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount of subsidies the Government has paid out to Tesla owners through the clean car discount scheme, and how many Teslas have been purchased through the scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government’s clean car discount scheme has been an electrifying success. Since the discount came into effect last year, 108,000 low-emission vehicles have been registered in New Zealand; 74,800 in 2022 alone. Across the programme, we’ve supported Kiwis to purchase around 38,200 Daihatsus, Fords, Hondas, Hyundais, Mazdas, Mitsubishis, Nissans, Subarus, Suzukis, Toyotas, and Kias, making up 79 percent of total vehicles. The most popular vehicle has been the Toyota Aqua, where we have paid out 5,818 rebates, and those vehicles have cost an average of $13,900. In comparison, the discount has supported the purchase of 4,791 Teslas, less than 10 percent of total vehicles, by paying approximately $40,990,000, about 22 percent of total rebates. Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids make up nearly 30 percent of monthly imports of new cars into New Zealand now, compared to only 1 percent under the previous National Government, which talked a big game about EVs but delivered nothing.

SPEAKER: Supplementary—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Five years on.

SPEAKER: Order! We have a supplementary. Be quiet.

Simeon Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he think spending $40.9 million subsidising millionaires to buy Teslas represents good value for money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think that the clean car discount, which has enabled tens of thousands of New Zealanders to get into a cleaner vehicle, is good for decarbonising our transport system and it’s good for all of those people, because it will save them long-run costs in terms of running their vehicles. Again, I note that our Government has increased the uptake of clean vehicles in New Zealand to one of the world’s leading levels, unlike that side of the House, which opposes every single measure to decarbonise the transport system—

Chris Bishop: We started it.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —our Government is getting on with the job. Mr Bishop says they started it. Clean vehicles made up 1 percent of imports under his Government; they made up 30 percent of imports last month under this Government.

Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that in addition to subsidising thousands of Teslas, the scheme has also subsidised the purchase of more than 100 Audis, over 350 BMWs, and at least one Porsche?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that the clean car discount scheme has subsidised the purchase of a range of clean vehicles, including 5,818 Toyota Aquas, 1,812 Toyota Corollas, 4,467 Nissan Leafs, and 3,183 Toyota Priuses. I note that some of those vehicles that the member has just mentioned are actually very popular trade vehicles that many small businesses are finding extremely valuable, both to reduce their emissions and as a cheaper way of running their businesses.

Simeon Brown: Let them eat Teslas. Does he stand by his decision to tax farmers buying utes so they can do their job and hand that money out for people to buy luxury vehicles like Teslas, Audis, BMWs, and Porsches?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Over the last six months, we have seen rural district after rural district devastated by the impacts of climate change. On this side of the House, we actually believe in doing something to reduce our emissions so that that problem doesn’t get worse. Under this Government, the average emissions of vehicles coming into New Zealand under the clean car discount scheme has reduced by 20 percent. That member may think it’s fine and dandy to ignore climate change and oppose every single measure we do to reduce our emissions, but, ultimately, that will only harm the farmers that he claims to be representing.

Question No. 11—Social Development and Employment

11. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government delivering on its commitment to strengthen social cohesion?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): This morning, I launched Te Korowai Whetū Social Cohesion, a package of tools that provides us with a shared understanding of what social cohesion means for Aotearoa New Zealand, actions that we can take collectively to strengthen it, and how we will measure progress. I also launched a community fund that will support social cohesion initiatives. This package delivers on specific recommendations made by the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks to strengthen social cohesion.

Dr Emily Henderson: What role do communities have to strengthen social cohesion?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: People from different communities and sectors have contributed significantly as we developed this package, and I thank them. The aim here is for us to work collectively to create a society where everyone feels safe, valued, a sense of belonging, and able to participate, and so everyone has a role. I believe that the tools that we’ve released today will play a role in guiding action that contributes to work strengthening cohesion.

Dr Emily Henderson: How will the grant fund support community-led initiatives?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Te Korowai Whetū, we’ve also launched a fund to support community initiatives that contribute to cohesion. New Zealand already has high levels of social cohesion; we rank higher than the OECD average on a number of indicators. However, we know that there’s more to do, and we know that strength lies in our communities and the initiatives that they lead that bring people together and break down barriers. This fund will support our communities to do more of that.

Dr Emily Henderson: What else is included in this package?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This package also includes a measurement framework that will provide a whole-of-population view of social cohesion outcomes across a broad range of domains and a range of indicators. It provides a consistent way for stakeholders, including Government, to define aspects of cohesion and measure progress. The package also includes specific new actions for Government, including looking at how we use the framework to analyse the impact that our legislative and policy decisions will have on social cohesion. Finally, there are information sheets to support action across different sectors and communities, and I encourage everyone to make use of them.

Question No. 12—Broadcasting and Media

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

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Yes. I particularly stand by the view that the creation of this new organisation will strengthen the delivery of New Zealand’s public media services for future generations.

Melissa Lee: What does the Strong Public Media Business Case say is the total new Crown funding required for Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media across financial years 2027-2051?

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

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media will require new Crown funding each year, once established, and, if so, how much will it be?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve already committed to the next three years. There will be $109 million of new money injected over the next three years. We can commit to the next three years.

Melissa Lee: When the Minister agreed to arrange for officials to brief me on the business case for the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, to show the cost-benefit analysis, why has it been over four weeks and I have still not been contacted by his ministry?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I have asked my ministry to contact that member. I will ask them again.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe that the planned merger will provide an opportunity to present more programming to New Zealand viewers which reflects more Māori contact, more stories, themes, and presenters; if so, does the Minister know what percentage of content on TVNZ+, TV ONE+, and TV2 Ondemand streams currently features Māori themes, contents, and presenters?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll answer the first part of the question. I expect there to be more Māori programming, more diversity, as well as more programming for Pasifika, Asian people, and young people. We want to see ourselves. We want to hear ourselves.

SPECIAL DEBATES

Briefing on Disarmament—Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

SPEAKER: I’ll just ask members who are exiting to do so quietly and quickly as possible, which means taking your conversations outside. Thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): Mālō ni, Mr Speaker, and happy Tokelau Language Week. I move, That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its briefing on disarmament, which was initiated on 20 May 2021.

We invited the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, the Hon Phil Twyford, to brief us on this issue, and I would like to thank the Minister and his officials from the International Security and Disarmament Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as the clerks and officers that assisted in finalising this report.

As members of this House will be aware, the current global security environment is becoming more fractured, increasingly fraught, and challenging to navigate. The relative sense of peace and stability that Europe and the rest of the world have enjoyed since World War II has been shattered by Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Aotearoa New Zealand’s approach has not been to despair at the current state of the international security environment, and, instead, the view has been a call to action. Our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, has made clear New Zealand’s strong view that the legacy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must not be an arms race to a more polarised and dangerous world. What is needed is an equal commitment to international institutions, to multilateral forums, and to disarmament.

This timely briefing on disarmament covered a range of matters in which New Zealand is involved or is taking an interest. This includes multilateral agreements and treaties; progress on nuclear disarmament, including our perspective on the 2022 conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and future steps; and emerging disarmament issues, autonomous weapons, and the militarisation of space and Antarctica.

New Zealand is an active participant in multilateral agreements that are aimed at reducing or controlling the use of both nuclear and conventional weapons. This is significant in terms of New Zealand’s foreign policy engagement, especially in an increasingly charged security environment which includes increased superpower rivalry and the threat by Russia to use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine.

New Zealand is a signatory to two international treaties concerning nuclear weapons. The first is the 52-year-old Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which commits the nuclear weapon States—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—to disarmament and return for other countries foregoing the right to acquire nuclear weapons. Aotearoa New Zealand was one of the first signatories to the NPT, which entered into force in 1970, and we participated in the recent 10th review conference of the NPT, which was held in New York in August of this year. There was a delegation from Aotearoa New Zealand led by the Minister the Hon Phil Twyford; myself as well as the Hon Todd McClay from the National Party were also part of that delegation.

The second treaty is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which came into force on 21 January 2021, and 50 countries ratified it, committing to making nuclear weapons illegal within their territories. I’ve got to say that New Zealand is one of the strong leaders of this particular treaty. New Zealand participated in the first meeting of the State parties to this treaty, which was held in Vienna in June of this year, and our Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford, was the person that represented Aotearoa New Zealand.

With regard, however, to the review conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons, members of our select committee asked the Minister when he came to present what had been New Zealand’s aims in going to this conference in New York. The Minister said that the bottom lines were the following: a specific new commitment on disarmament from nuclear weapons States; increased accountability and transparency, including a structure for monitoring and reporting on progress between sessions; language recognising the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons; and a specific mention within the NPT of the prohibition treaty, TPNW. Unfortunately, however, this was not achieved. The draft outcome was actually not signed—Russia did not agree to this treaty.

Our committee expressed the view that for progress to be made on the NPT, the leaders of the five nuclear States that are party to the NPT must be prepared to meet together with the others and to directly negotiate on disarmament issues. Our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee also asked about the size, the age, and the state of the nuclear weapons stockpile held by nuclear weapons States, and the Minister replied that, overall, the numbers of nuclear warheads have reduced from the 63,000 that used to be held at the height of the Cold War. However, there are still about 14,000 nuclear warheads held by NPT nuclear weapons States. Of these, 90 percent, roughly, are evenly split between the United States and Russia, with China holding several hundred and the United Kingdom and France holding 200 to 300 each. Experts suggest that we are closer to the use of nuclear weapons than at any other time since the height of the Cold War. Therefore, there has never been a greater need for progress on nuclear disarmament.

I would like at this point to reflect on the effects of nuclear weapons, especially on the Pacific Islands. Nuclear weapons effects on Pacific people have been unimaginable. From radioactive contamination, there have been devastating effects on human health, environmental degradation, and social cohesion has also been affected. In 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur on toxics called the legacy on nuclear testing on the Pacific—and I quote—“one of the cruellest examples of environmental injustice [ever] witnessed”. From the years 1946 to 1996, 300 nuclear tests have been conducted—300 nuclear tests—in the Pacific. So the impact this testing has had on ecology and the environment, and especially on the physical and mental health of Pacific people, has indeed been profound.

When we were at the conference over in New York, there was a presentation from the Marshall Islands, and some of us actually—she was really quite emotional, describing how the people in the Marshall Islands have been affected. They’ve suffered radiation poisoning. Birth defects, leukaemia, thyroid, and many other cancers, to name a few, are still prevalent among their people that have been exposed to nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. She also described that four of the islands were partially or completely vaporised and some have become the subjects of medical research and atomic refugees.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier on, in the closing hours of that treaty review, Russia blocked the adoption of the document and so the treaty was not signed. We in New Zealand were deeply disappointed at this result, but Aotearoa New Zealand remains committed to disarmament and to global advocacy on the use of weapons.

We must continue to remain engaged with our commitments to international institutions, to multilateral forums, and to disarmament. As our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, has put it at the 2022 NATO Summit—and I quote—we must “put a halt in the production of weapons that create our mutually assured destruction, because the alternative is unfathomable.” I commend our select committee’s report on disarmament to this House. Mālō ‘aupito.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you so much. I think you will find near if not complete unanimity in the House when it comes to this issue, and it’s a very important thing to underline. When we had the opportunity to have the Minister before us at the committee and discuss this, it was constructive, it was useful, and I think we would say it was foresighted in as far as the desire from all members to understand the challenges the world has faced and continues to face because of atomic and nuclear weapons, and New Zealand’s role or what we can do most constructively about this.

Can I start by thanking the Minister Phil Twyford for reaching across the House and deciding to take a bipartisan delegation to the 10th review meeting in New York on the non-proliferation treaty. I think there are many areas of policy on the international stage where a more bipartisan approach would work well for New Zealand and for this House. It perhaps hasn’t happened as often as one might like—graciously, let’s say it was COVID. But I say to Minister Twyford that it was constructive, it was useful, and I think it was completely worthwhile.

I had the good fortune of going on that delegation visit to New York and I can confirm how exceptional the New Zealand officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) are when it comes to disarmament, not only in terms of their advice to the Government and to us but also in terms of the regard in which they are held internationally by their peers from other countries and by the media. They are men and women—well, it’s women and men, actually, because it’s led more by women than men in this area, which in part perhaps is the reason we make so much progress. But the point here is that to a man, to a woman, they are experts and they are dedicated and they understand this very, very technical and challenging piece of international diplomacy and policy and the nuances extremely well.

It was deeply disappointing and concerning but not at all surprising that Russia at the very last moment showed their hand in a way that derailed all progress that had been made by officials, by Ministers at previous meetings, and by that month-long discussion in New York. It was no surprise at all because they sat very, very quietly as others were constructive and positive and talked about what needed to happen and talked diplomatically about their concerns with what Russia and others are doing in the world, with the US President reaching out and saying that whilst the majority of the international agreements between nuclear States, particularly Russia, China, and the US, are extinguished, have expired or are about to, they, the US administration, commits to negotiating directly, bilaterally, and multilaterally for a new agreement to continue work and to speed that work up—and Russia decided for reasons that are so obvious to us not to go forward.

We need not be disheartened in that. We need to be resolute and continue to focus on what needs to be achieved, and New Zealand along with a small group of other nations has a very, very important role to play, as we often do as an honest broker, not one that will scream from the rooftops of this building or the Beehive or speak to a domestic audience but do so constructively and respectfully from the point of view of an independent foreign policy but at the same time be very clear about what is needed and what we want and what the world needs, but, at the same time, what is not acceptable to us as a small nation or to our Pacific neighbours and to others.

If there was a single message that I think was very clear from the meeting in New York that we attended, from almost every delegation that spoke loudly, forcefully, or with a more gentle voice, it was the need for progress to continue towards complete disarmament and for Russia to be a responsible international citizen and stop threatening the use of weapons of horrific destruction and to get around a table with others and talk about not only the harm that’s being done in the Ukraine and a way to solve that peacefully—a ceasefire, to solve that peacefully—but also to work internationally and recommit to the giving up of their weapons, as China, as the US, and as the nine—only nine—small nuclear States that remain in the world.

We are deeply disappointed that they haven’t done that and continue to fire weapons that demonstrate their ability to use these weapons of mass, mass, great destruction at their will. But at the same time, there is another process that must continue with all nations of the world, a process that was started in 1970 and has had 10 meetings to discuss and measure progress and now needs renegotiation to find the way forward.

In our notes that we were given at the committee, we heard that little progress has been made since 1970 when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed. That is not the case—there has been significant progress from almost 60,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled around the world to now just 14,000 or 16,000. That’s 14,000 too many—one would be too many. But we should take some solace that it is possible when nations come together and are constructive and discuss things respectfully, rather than guarding their national position, for there to be great progress.

I suppose we could imagine or think that that the first 40,000-odd weapons were the easy ones to get. It’s always the last ones that are challenging. But I want to reiterate the National Party Opposition’s support of any party in this Parliament that’s constructively playing the role on the world stage to ensure that progress, albeit slow from time to time, towards nuclear non-proliferation and getting rid of these weapons must continue.

Finally, I want to mention, as you did, Madam Speaker, when you spoke as the chair of the committee just now, the importance of this issue historically for our Pacific neighbours. Prime Minister Bainimarama spoke on behalf of the forum island nations and gave a very strong and moving speech about the harm that is being done to so many nationals and Pacific Island nations from the nuclear testing decades ago in the Pacific by France and how that lingers in the memory of those countries—the harm that was done to people at the time and that, through generations, remains there. They asked for help, for more studies, for more support, for more assistance to understand the ongoing ramifications of nuclear testing in the Pacific for Pacific Islanders, and that’s something that should be done. We’re playing a part, and France has, but we cannot ignore our Pacific neighbours in that plea.

It’s something that happened when the world was a different place, but they are left with ongoing problems as a result of that—primarily health problems but many others. It is for all nations of the world, those that were directly involved—France and many others that supported it at the time—to look to the Pacific Islands, these small island nations that struggle when it comes to climate change. But this is something else that we must and we can help them with.

There are also New Zealand servicemen who were there on ships monitoring at the time when France was setting off nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and their health has directly suffered. The New Zealand Government has recognised that, but all of us, I am sure in this House—those who have been here for a period of time and have had family members that talked about ongoing health concerns on the future generations; grandchildren now—believe we have a duty not to make a decision in this House as to what should happen and to ask our experts and others to look at that and to listen with open ears. The reason for this is that one day we will live in a world where there are not nuclear weapons, but that does not mean we do not have an obligation to those who suffered because of the testing and the use of nuclear weapons in the past, and that is something that can be done right now.

If ever there was a time of caution needed in the world, it is at the moment. The world is a very unusually unstable place compared with the last decade or more. Most of us are not used to times like these. Most of us are used to peace and times when people get together and work out their issues. We must return to that and send a very clear call to the Russian regime and the President of Russia to stop threatening, get around the table, and stop killing innocent people.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on disarmament—on peace—and I do that as someone who has lived in a war, as a child, and as an international human rights lawyer. Both of those experiences make me very nervous about the world that we are living in currently. I do want to commend the Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford, for his leadership on disarmament issues.

This debate is about the report on our nuclear disarmament, but I also want to note that we have become leaders when it comes to banning autonomous weapons and to looking at peace in space, so we are starting to become leaders again. And it is important because there has never been a time, I don’t think, in the past decade or two, when the human rights - based system, the international rule of law, and that multilateral system, which small island nations like ours really rely on, has been under threat in the way that it is now.

I want to—in the way that others have done also—mihi to our Pacific neighbours because they are still suffering. They’re suffering not because of attacks by Russia, which, you know, obviously, is the main concern right now, rightly so, but by some of our friends and neighbours, like France—the only nation State who has ever committed an act of terror on New Zealand soil, which was related to protests against its nuclear testing in the Pacific, and that was the Rainbow Warrior bombing. And I know and I’ve had the privilege—and others have in this House—of meeting some of the activists that continue to work in the Pacific for their communities, who are still facing incredible ongoing generational injury as a result of that testing. So I join members across the House in saying that, actually, it is our obligation as a Pacific nation to stand with them and to stand against nuclear proliferation.

But I want to turn to the fact that France is one of our friends and allies and the fact that, actually, reparations have still not been paid for that suffering in the Pacific. There are healthcare costs, there are all sorts of humanitarian needs that need to be addressed, and I urge the Minister to look to that, too, under his mandate on nuclear non-proliferation. I think we’ve done really, really well on this, and I wasn’t privileged enough to be a part of that delegation, but I know, and as others have said, that we were strong.

But I do want to turn, then, to an area that still concerns me, because I don’t think we’re strong enough when it comes to our approach to investment and trade with companies and entities who still manufacture and profit from nuclear arms. We’re still very far from banning that when it comes to our commercial banks, when it comes to our defence procurements, and when it comes to investments by our super fund, and those are all areas that New Zealand is a live and active participant in contributing to nuclear armament. We don’t buy weapons; we don’t use these types of weapons—we’re good, there. But there are other areas that the sector has asked us to be strong in and we’re still lagging.

So we did have an inquiry, an independent inquiry, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, commissioned—that was done by David Smol—into our export controls regimes. It was found—it was a damning and detailed report—that our export controls regime, the regime that looks into how we OK exports when it comes to war industries, are still falling incredibly short, to the point that the word “ad hoc” was used to describe the process by which we OK exports in the war industries. That, sitting alongside the lack of regulation of investments, is a real problem. The recommendations are there and it’s for legislation.

So I urge our very active Disarmament and Arms Control Minister to work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and bring law to the House so we can have clarity that our commitment to peace is central to the way that we do trade, to the way that we export goods that are made here, and to the way that we interact with the world and profit from war, because I think New Zealanders wouldn’t want us to be doing that, knowingly or knowingly—that’s what peace really will look like. Thank you.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT acknowledges the efforts by the Government in this space, in particular New Zealand’s representation at the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, despite the outcome—which has been canvassed here today—as a result of Russia’s behaviour there.

We support New Zealand’s principled stance on nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction more broadly as an important part of our independent foreign policy. As a country, we of course have to be realistic—optimistic but realistic. Our leverage and voice is not as great as we would like, and our principles, while positive and well respected, can only get us so far, especially in such turbulent times. We’re actively hearing in the media at the moment of potential false flag events undertaken potentially by Russia, specifically the use of dirty bombs as a pretext for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

As an aside, a couple of years ago, one evening, I stood by the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima, which if you look at the mangled exhibition hall, it really is a time capsule into the hell that is brought about by nuclear weapons. The museum nearby shows plainly just how it indiscriminately targets civilians and how they bear the brunt of it and how their lives are changed for ever.

We obviously can’t ignore the elephants in the room: Russia being number one; talk of another North Korean nuclear test; the status of the Iran deal; and China’s intentions, whatever they are, on Taiwan and their general lack of transparency around their nuclear weapons programme. There are tough questions that we face; most pressing: what are the consequences if Russia actually does use a technical nuclear weapon in Ukraine? The region could spiral out of control. This is one of the risks with asymmetrical warfare: it could result in a situation where a nuclear-armed State fights a conventional war but always has the desperate option that they can turn to if it doesn’t go their way.

We should always be cautious about State actors not playing by the rules—for instance, using nuclear threats—despite being signatories, I might add—and clearly violating the Geneva conventions in their actions. Russia has continually used cluster munitions, white phosphorus, and thermobaric weapons in Ukraine, and the prospect of them using a tactical—or battlefield—nuclear weapon is extremely concerning.

Tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called on-battlefield, as I said, while they have a smaller yield than strategic nuclear weapons would—the types that are mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—they’re still nuclear and violate first use. So it’ll be an utterly disgraceful situation if it gets to that.

Speaking of which, as we’ve seen in the media, Russia has continued with its planned nuclear tests, which includes an ICBM and a submarine-launched ballistic missile, and while announced and notified, it comes at a strategically complex time and just not an overall wise thing to do.

The briefing discussed issues around transparency and accountability with China’s nuclear programme, as I mentioned. In that discussion, there was a note about the age of the warheads and the modernisation projects. The issue with stockpile stewardship is that it can be pitched as a means to ensure warheads are stored safely, but ultimately they’re going to be retrofitting warheads into newer and longer-range delivery systems. So it’s always things to worry about.

A note in acknowledgment to our friends in the Five Eyes: like it or not, however we want to look at it, New Zealand indirectly has a nuclear deterrent, so we have to tread carefully and be respectful and realistic when we confront our allies on this issue—especially with what the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are doing. We’re confident that we can continue with New Zealand’s principled approach to non-proliferation, but we do need to commit to our nuclear-armed partners to maintain our alliances in spite of this key difference. We have to leverage our stance carefully to be an example amongst our allies that they can all look to.

Ultimately, it is difficult to imagine a world that is free of nuclear weapons when there are bad actors at present threatening to use them unilaterally. The review conference obviously didn’t produce a solid or desirable outcome, which is a reflection on the sad state of affairs of the world of late and it also just wasn’t all that unexpected. It is good that the United States has expressed a willingness to reach out to Russia and also to China in negotiating a new bilateral arms control framework to replace the New START Treaty. And, you know, hopefully we’ll see some progress there. But who knows how that’s going to evolve with the Ukraine situation?

So the door is still open for some traction, and we just encourage the Government and the Minister to keep up the good work despite all the difficulties. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to acknowledge the excellent contributions from colleagues across the House in this debate and underline the importance and the value of the cross-party commitment that this Parliament shows to nuclear disarmament. As colleagues have pointed out, it is one example of the important tradition that we have in this country of a cross-party commitment on elements of our foreign policy. It’s always good for New Zealand, when we’re facing outwards to the rest of the world, that we can speak with one voice. I also want to thank the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Jenny Salesa for joining me on the Government’s delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in New York.

As colleagues have pointed out, the world is in a very dangerous place right now. Many experts have said that there is a greater risk of a nuclear exchange, whether it’s deliberate or by miscalculation or error, right now than at any time since the height of the Cold War. We’ve seen the rise of authoritarian nationalism, the weakening of the institutions of multilateralism, and the atrophy of many of the systems that have been in place between the nuclear powers to reduce the risk of nuclear war. There has never been a greater need for nuclear disarmament, nor for the kind of leadership and statespersonship that we’ve seen in previous generations.

But you wouldn’t know that from the way that nuclear-weapon States behaved at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York. Even before Vladimir Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling—the threats that have been made by Russia in the course of their invasion and their war in Ukraine. The nuclear-weapon States have, to be brutally frank, over the last two decades collectively so badly failed to meet the commitments that they made under international law to reduce their nuclear arsenals and to disarm that they have and they bear responsibility for undermining the institutions of international law and multilateralism as far as they relate to nuclear disarmament. I stood in the UN hall in New York and looked around: it was absolutely clear to me that an overwhelming majority of the world’s countries want to see nuclear disarmament, and yet the nuclear-weapon States are champions at making excuses and they cling to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, insisting that their right to threaten humanity with the incineration of entire cities, a nuclear exchange that could threaten the survival of our species—that somehow that doctrine makes the rest of us safer. New Zealand rejects that logic, and we have done so since David Lange smelt the uranium on the breath of nuclear deterrence back in 1985. We as a country are working harder than ever now in defence of multilateralism, of nuclear disarmament, and of the institutions of peace.

There is a bright spot on the horizon in this very grim scenario, and that is the creation of the nuclear-ban treaty—the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It now has 68 States parties and 91 signatories, and I have no doubt that in the course of the next generation a majority of the world’s countries will sign up to that treaty. The nuclear-weapon States and their financiers and their allies will become increasingly isolated, and the public tolerance of nuclear-weapon States will become less and less.

I also want to talk about the importance of tackling the legacy of nuclear testing in the Pacific. The nuclear-weapon States—the United States, France, the United Kingdom—have never owned up to the environment damage: the fact that people were driven from their lands; their waters are poisoned. Three generations later, there are still excessive cancer incidents in the populations that were affected by nuclear testing. We must tackle this, and New Zealand is working alongside Pacific countries at the Pacific Islands Forum to do this, to put in place a research programme that would create the basis for remedying that historical wrong.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Much of what I might say has already been said by speakers this afternoon, as we are engaged in a contribution on the topic of disarmament, which does have broad bipartisan support. I do want to acknowledge the reaching out to all parties of the Parliament by the Hon Phil Goff—sorry, my goodness; I just put a tweet out about Phil Goff; a good one, by the way—by the Hon Phil Twyford. I think the idea that New Zealand has a single position on these matters internationally, as he has just said, is extremely important. The way in which the material was made available to other parties ahead of the delegation’s going to New York will have, I think, assisted our officials there to represent us extremely well. And I’m pleased to hear those reports here this afternoon.

A person never likes to age themselves in politics; it’s a dangerous sort of thing. Perhaps I did with that little senior moment before, confusing this gentleman over here with another one, who is about to represent us overseas. But I do actually remember family members engaging in fairly interesting discussions at the time of the Bay of Pigs, and for some time after that—quite a time. It’s almost like that crisis moment blended into the very significant extent of testing in the Pacific, particularly by France in the 1960s, rolling on into the 1970s. There was a lot of discussion about what would happen to people, what the long-term consequences were going to be, and the French position always was, “Well, actually, don’t worry about it. There’s nothing there. It’s all fine.”

But I do also have the vivid memory of a French Minister going to, I think, Mururoa and being asked to take a swim in the lagoon. There was much sort of, I suppose you would say, hurrah about the fact that he was all ready to get into the water and then, at the last moment, managed to change his mind, perhaps because the wind was a bit cold, or something else, but, generally, I would suspect, knowing that there was perhaps some potential for him to become somewhat damaged by undertaking that particular swim. I also recall, at the time, there was a New Zealand diplomat who was confronted with this suggestion from the French that there was nothing wrong with what they’d done in the Pacific, there was no problem with it, it wasn’t going to hurt anybody, and his response simply was “Well, if that’s the case, why not test in France?” So we all know that that was a wrong position.

Whatever might come of the discussions about the fallout from those tests, it’s still being experienced in the Pacific. We shouldn’t let that get in the road of pushing for the disarmament that is so much needed. There will be few people in the world now, with the positioning that Russia has taken over the last few months, who would, I think, disagree that we need to do something to get away from that particular threat and the extraordinary damage that can be caused by those particular weapons. The danger, I think, won’t be countries that are, essentially, the long-term holders of nuclear weapons: France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and China. I think it will be the rogue States that present a problem for us; those rogue States being Iran particularly, where no one quite knows what’s going on with their programme—with North Korea, where, obviously, the testing of the ballistic missiles that would be the vessels for carrying nuclear weapons is continuing, with that sort of veiled threat that “Actually, we’ve got the bomb back here and we could use it any time we like.” And then, also, I think an emerging threat that’s sort of becoming clearer as we see the, dare I say the word, development of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the possibility of those weapons falling into private hands—private armies like the Wagner Group or some other such. That is, I think, a big concern that we should be equally worried about.

So this is a good discussion in the House today. It’s good to tell New Zealand and the world that we are bipartisan, across all parties in this House, in pursuing disarmament.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d like to add my thanks to the Minister, not only for the leadership he’s shown in this discussion and work but also in mentioning those famous words from our 32nd Prime Minister, the Rt Hon David Lange, when he said, “I can smell the uranium on your breath.”

It was a defining moment for New Zealand. It wasn’t just a quip from a Prime Minister that was known to be intellectual and witty, but it also put the world on notice about our nuclear-free stance. The reason that he was able to win that debate, despite attending against all the diplomatic advice and despite competing against somebody—a reverend—whose whole persona was based on moral authority was because it was the right side of the argument. New Zealand was morally correct, and we need to stay there.

As has been said today, that moment has shaped our culture. It is extremely relevant now, as we have the doomsday clock still sitting at, I believe, 100 seconds before midnight, showing the prescient danger of nuclear weapons still currently to our world.

I won’t go into why I believe the world order is under threat; I believe that has been well-canvased in the House. But I do think New Zealand also needs to step back and look at our own actions, particularly around our relationships in the Pacific, and this is under Governments of both stripes, after the Fijian coup in 2006, where we did give Fiji the cold shoulder. We may feel we have moved on, but I think that is still a present sentiment for the Fijians and has meant that since then, we’ve all had a lot of work to do. Should tensions arise in the Pacific again, it’s something we need to bear in mind: managed dialogue, in my view, is always better than completely cutting off, especially from those who are friends to us.

We’ve talked about the two treaties and how important they are. I’d just like to mention and add my thanks to the officials and my observation just from work I’ve done in international fora prior to this role about how good New Zealand is at working those rooms, at being an independent convener, having respectful discussions, and a lot of that has been around our independent foreign policy. I think we heard in our chair’s contribution that New Zealand is a member of several coalitions that were able to conduct negotiations and discussions at these international meetings. That is a real leadership role that we can continue to play, punching above our weight and despite our size. In order to do that, we do need to keep our independent voice. Our position is different on this issue from some of our Five Eyes partners, but it can cut through in the convening process.

The other comment I would just make is that our unequivocal stance around stockpiling, also mentioned by the ACT Party, is that as long there are nuclear weapons—any nuclear weapons—the threat remains. It is not an arena where there is a diminished threat by the number; as long as there is one weapon around, that threat remains because the devastation is so utterly impactful.

My closing remarks are really just looking at Antarctica. There is another treaty that we are a party to in Antarctica, and there are countries who have nuclear weapons that also have bases there and are doing scientific research. I think it behoves us to ensure that all the research is scientific; I’m thinking particularly here around the presence of NASA and also the Communist Party of China with its station in Kunlun, Russia in Vostok. They are hard to reach, New Zealand may not have the resources to get there, but we can influence our partners to ensure that the credibility of that treaty remains for all partners by having those independent investigations.

We also do need to consider what that Antarctic geopolitical piece of land means in terms of the region that we occupy with our Pacific friends and some of the geopolitics in this area. On that note, I’m really pleased that we’re in the process of a $306 million capital upgrade to Scott Base in order to secure the credibility that we have with our friends there.

As we’ve heard, the time for action is now. Russia’s actions may be a threat, but they also present an opportunity for us to do something in the world to really show the leadership that we did back in 1985. I’m so pleased that we have such an energetic Minister who is leading that; the bipartisan approach is the right one. I really look forward to seeing progress around nuclear States coming together to discuss what they can do as they are accountable.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to echo mostly, I think, what people have already said. And I think it’s really important, first and foremost, to acknowledge the work that the Minister has led and, as others have rightly noted, the Minister himself, that this is bipartisan. In fact, across the House is a commitment to disarmament in principle and in reality to maintain New Zealand’s nuclear weapon - free status, to proudly stand by that and use that, if you will, as a moral authority to speak into the world and to use our voice. And I think, as well, it’s really important that we continue to do that no matter what the geopolitical situation is.

But I do want to raise a couple of other points which, for me personally, do still sit within disarmament but also the challenges that are in front of us. There’s always a Latin phrase you can whip out to help in moments just like this. So “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”, which means if you want peace, prepare for war: si vis pacem, para bellum. In a more modern context now, we talk about pray for peace but prepare for war.

I want to be really clear, for anyone listening at home and for the Minister, that I am not here advocating for the rearmament of New Zealand or anything like that, but I think it is reflective of a dangerous geo-political world that we have at the moment, and it’s my personal belief that talk alone is not going to operate. And by that, if I wanted to break this into two areas, certainly on the nuclear front we have some major, major challenges, and the Minister touched on that himself.

We have Russia speaking much more clearly, dangerously into this space, where they’re now in the last 48 hours conducting drills and simulations around nuclear tactical strikes. We know, and your report indicates this, that China is expanding its nuclear base and facilities. We are very aware of what Iran is seeking to do in its nuclear space and we see the horror of that autocratic theocratic regime on its own people at the moment, let alone once it has, or if it ever does gain, nuclear capability. And then of course there is North Korea, who’s continuing to sabre rattle in the last week. These are dangerous times.

Then beside all of that, and this is where the challenge comes in, we have these autocratic regimes who paradoxically do speak quite candidly and freely about what they’re wanting to do. Russia is a great example of this. For many months, years, no one believed what Putin was saying, that he would go into the Ukraine. I remember when various intelligence operatives got in contact with me and said, “Simon, they’re going to go in at 4 p.m. New Zealand time.”, there were still people saying, “No, it’ll never happen”, despite Putin having said this, and he has. And in recent days, a certain president of a State has got up and said that they will take back Taiwan with military force if necessary.

I suppose the little lesson I’m taking from this is when autocrats and dictators say things, we should listen. Now, that doesn’t mean we panic but we do react and we react in two ways. One is very much, as this report touches on, we talk about disarmament. We use our moral authority. We deploy diplomacy. We talk, we hope, but we also must have open eyes: si vis pacem, para bellum. We must make sure we are still able to work with our allies to respond when necessary.

I don’t want to make this a big discussion about our defence forces and their current capability and funding, because that goes across multiple Governments. But I think it behoves this House, when we talk disarmament, that we also respect the men and women in uniform and make sure that they have the supplies, the capabilities that they need. Because, paradoxically, as we strengthen our military forces where necessary, where we strengthen their ability to help with human aid and development, particularly into the Pacific, where we cooperate around fisheries, where we cooperate much more clearly and interoperably around intelligence and so forth—that does strengthen our ability to confront those that would wish a more harmful, violent situation on our world.

So again, to where I started from, I acknowledge the Minister and the team for what they’ve done. I think there’s a real, real moral strength that New Zealand has over many years to be able to stand on the global stage and call out the ever growing violence across the globe, to call out nuclear proliferation. I am pleased to see the work that the committee has done around autonomous weapons systems and leading the conversation there. That is really, really important. But I suppose my plea to this House and to New Zealand as well is not to be blind—and, look, I could be wrong, but not to be blind to these dictators and autocrats. When they say they will do something, they tend to do it because they are not the reasonable moral actors which we are: si vis pacem, para bellum.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and may I add my thanks to the Minister for his leadership in this critical area of work, as well as the select committee for their work on the report.

The former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once talked about the fraught times we’re in internationally and said we should now define ourselves not only by what we stand for but by what we stand against. Salman Rushdie then proposed the inverse: he mused that what we’re against is clear; it’s what we stand for that needs greater definition, articulation, and commitment. I believe, to solve this complex issue in front of us, we fiercely need both: we need opposition, yes, but we also need real solutions of how to deal with international disagreements and tensions.

Just a week and a half ago, I was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly in Rwanda with members of the Russian Duma, the Iranian Parliament, Ukrainian colleagues, and parliamentarians from around the world in heated discussions about Russian threats of the use of nuclear weapons and the use of Iranian drones to carry out acts of terror in Ukraine. The threat is not new, but it looms larger than it has for decades.

So where to from here? First, I think we need a shift away from faith in a flawed 20-year-old doctrine of mutual destruction. Some say this has kept us from a third world war; I believe this doctrine has kept us on the edge of tension and fear. Secondly, we need an understanding of the scope of the risk. The Minister noted, when he spoke to the select committee, that there are currently around 14,000 nuclear weapons in the stockpiles of nine countries, but the existence of them isn’t the totality of the risk picture. There are misreads and mistakes in addition to the risks that States pose to States. In 1995, the Black Brant incident happened when Russians believed they saw a US missile flying towards them; it was a Norwegian craft taking data images of the lights. The Russians came within five minutes of nuclear retaliation. In 2018, the US accidentally dropped nuclear weapons on North Carolina twice. By sheer luck, neither detonated.

Nuclear weapons are also vulnerable. The stockpile is not uniformly secure, particularly in Russia, where there are sites where warheads and fissionable materials are available to be bought or stolen—they are acquirable. There’s older data that I was looking at recently, from 1993 to 2006, which had 175 documented incidents of nuclear theft, 18 of which involved key ingredients to make nuclear weapons. I think we assume that the amount of fissionable material you would need would be huge, but in today’s terms, what you would need to make a bomb akin to that used in Hiroshima is about eight cans of coke. For the bomb used in Nagasaki, you’d be looking at source material of plutonium about the size of a cabbage. The risk is very real. It’s not just States who pose this risk, but individuals and groups, some of whom are Stateless.

So, what can we do? Is all hope lost? I don’t believe so. In 1991, the Soviet Union fell and the US sent cash to the Russians to secure loose nuclear material and to employ out-of-work nuclear scientists to work with US scientists to convert weapons-grade uranium into power. It was called the Megatons to Megawatts project, and over 20 years, the two nations worked together to do this, which resulted in one in 10 US lightbulbs being fuelled by former Russian warheads. Change is possible, and I note the reports that the US has made invitations to Russia to engage in bilateral conversations.

Kennedy once said, “No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.”, but we do need a renaissance in thinking about how we manage global disagreements and to be able to articulate both what we stand against as well as what we stand for. In my view, New Zealand must play a key leadership role in this.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Organic Products Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The last time we were debating the Organic Products Bill second reading, we were at call number six. The next call is an ACT Party call. I call on Anna Lorck.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the proud member for the Tukituki electorate, where growing organic produce is strong. From apples to chickens, we grow the great things in Hastings. We grow organics, and I’m so proud to say that and speak on the Organic Products Bill, which has been established for the mandatory organic standards of New Zealand.

The bill will set out a framework for the organics system and associated regulations, and it is so important that we support this bill. New Zealand’s organic industry is growing, and consumer demand for genuine and certified organic products across the world.

Currently, organic certification isn’t standardised, and questionable and confusing organic product claims threaten to muddy the waters for consumers and hinder our ability to compete on the international markets. This bill aims to increase consumer confidence when purchasing organic products and allow businesses to assert certified organic production domestically and internationally.

This bill brings New Zealand practices in line with the way that our major trading partners already regulate organic products, and this will assist us to grow our organic industry exports by half a billion dollars a year.

Rachel Brooking: How much?

ANNA LORCK: Fantastic. Half a billion dollars a year. Demand for a great organic product has grown markedly in recent years.

In 2019, organics were estimated to be worth €106 billion worldwide; approximately about $184 billion. With an annual increase of 9 percent on the year prior, industries estimate to put the value of New Zealand organic sector in 2020 at $723 million, a 20 percent increase on the—

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How much?

ANNA LORCK: A 20 percent increase.

Rachel Brooking: How much?

ANNA LORCK: Rachel Brooking, a 20 percent increase. And I tell you it’s going to keep on growing. Because in New Zealand, we’ve got the best farmers and growers in the world. We are world leaders, and that’s why this Government is so committed to supporting our primary sector to not only be the best in the world but to grow the best for the world.

And on that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will now go back to the ACT Party. I call on Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, this bill is intended to create organic standards to ensure that claims that products are organic have integrity. But, as one organics producer wrote to the select committee, the current system, while it may not be perfect, still works well. Organic producers can choose which market they want to supply, and, therefore, they can meet the standards of the consumers in that market.

Domestic and overseas customers have diverse requirements when it comes to the standards for organics. Setting a standard to meet the highest commercial market will drive most organics producers in New Zealand out of the market. Setting the standard too low means that a standard becomes pointless. It may undermine the credibility of other regulatory systems. So, many other small organic producers who did not want a single, centralised regulatory system came before the select committee; they did not want to bear the costs of being in that system.

Many of these organics producers are small scale in the domestic market, and they will be forced into a Government regulatory regime that they don’t agree with and that they said they didn’t need. I am talking about those people who might have beehives and who’ve chosen not to use pesticides in the manufacture of their honey and other products derived from bees, people who grow fruit and vegetables and who are on a pathway to an organic endpoint which actually has many stops. If their customers are confident in the product that they’re buying, then we believe, actually, that they should continue to be allowed to define their products as “organic” to the market that they are selling into.

Now, there’s no definition of “organics” in this bill, except an organic product “is produced in compliance with [a] standard”. Defining what the standards are is simply left to Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in Part 6 of the bill. There are no principles of what organics are. It simply gives MPI the power to define what “organic” means.

But now we see that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduced by the Minister has even removed that inadequate definition. Without warning during the second reading, the Minister dropped a massive Supplementary Order Paper on the House—about 85 pages—without giving submitters or the Opposition the opportunity to consider it. There’s been no consultation on this, essentially, redrafting of the bill. Now, my colleague Mark Cameron, a dairy farmer from Northland who sits on the Primary Production Committee, tells me that the committee sat and considered this bill for two years. At any point, the Government could have brought in amendments, it could have offered those amendments to the public and the committee for consideration, but they didn’t do it—the Minister didn’t do it.

The ACT Party believes that the House has, in fact, been ambushed with this Supplementary Order Paper, and, at this stage of the bill’s progress, that’s an extremely bad process. That’s an abuse of the democratic process. We’ve had a look at the Supplementary Order Paper, and while I’m quite happy to buy organic honey and to buy organic vegetables and organic meat from my butcher, without the need for any standard as proposed under this bill, this bill actually raised fundamental issues. There are a host of technical amendments. MPI could have proposed these in the past two years when it was before select committee, but they didn’t.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that discussing an SOP in detail is not for a second reading. The opportunity will come for that. You can refer to it, but it’s not the opportunity to go into detail in the SOP at this stage, in the second reading.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. However, I would like to point out that the bill that we are debating—the bill we are debating—has 85 pages of changes to the bill which was introduced to the House, so I feel it is important to draw this to the attention of the House and to all of those people watching at home who will want to know that their organic products are going to continue to be available and that they’ll be able to continue to manufacture them into the markets that they’ve sold.

Now, new clause 3A creates something that only this Government could come up with: an obligation for an undefined and ever-mutating principle of the Treaty of Waitangi to be observed. Why is this needed—why is this needed? The ACT Party would challenge the Government members to stand up and explain why a Treaty of Waitangi clause is required in a bill which proposes to set standards for organic products or food—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has been warned once. We’re not here to discuss what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. You’re discussing the second reading for what actually went on at the select committee. The member has now been told twice, so please stick to what the second reading requires, which is a discussion, essentially, of what happened at select committee.

SIMON COURT: Well, Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance and clarity. I will complete the ACT Party’s perspective on this bill without reflecting on this SOP, which is to come. We’ll assume that we’ll get to debate that at another time.

But, look, this bill, as proposed, had ACT’s support at first reading. Currently, based on the direction that the Government has set, we cannot support the bill. We support people who manufacture products that consumers want to eat, that they want to put on their skin—organic products that are manufactured to the standards that the market that they’re selling into wants to buy. But that’s not what this bill will do, so ACT will oppose this bill.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want it to be known that I was one of the people who was at the Primary Production Committee, who went through this process. It was actually in the last Parliament and, back in the day, I was chairing that committee, and the Hon Kiritapu Allan was the deputy chair before she was the Hon Kiritapu Allan. And so we worked with that committee on this piece of legislation, so it’s been a long time coming to the House. And I will commend the Hon James Shaw for his persistence in getting up every Thursday afternoon and asking, just before question time, when this bill is coming back to the House.

There has been a huge amount of work that has gone on and it has taken a long time. And one thing I was going to note today is that, in our family, two farms have been converted to organic, which is a three-year process, and that was completed three years ago. So the actual process of converting a dairy farm to organic has been far quicker than my eight years in Parliament, when the organic people have been asking for us to have a standard from which they can live by.

This is actually standards and regulations that the industry has asked for—not many industries are asking for standards and regulations—because what I can tell you is: right now, currently those people that are exporting can have anything up to seven audits. So you might get a US audit, an EU audit, a Korean audit, a Canadian audit—I can’t remember exactly, in terms of all of the places that New Zealanders are exporting to. But, actually, it would be much easier to have a baseline New Zealand standard and then, from there, just put any extra additions that might be needed that don’t quite fit with the country where the product is being sent to. I must note that fresh fruit and vegetables are the largest, and then it goes to dairy, meat, and wool.

Anna Lorck: Chickens.

BARBARA KURIGER: Then, you get to processed food—yes, definitely chickens, I’m very familiar with the chickens that come from the Hawke’s Bay.

So, look, there are quite a range of products—and they’re not just food products; there are actually quite a lot of fibre products that are going into organic as well. And the biggest discussion that we’ve had, when we were at the select committee, was that there’s a big difference between those people that have built a reasonably sizable business and are able to export to the world, complying with the world standards; and the smaller organic producers who are the people who grow broccoli, potatoes—small amounts of food and take them to the farmers markets. And there was quite a bit of contention, at the time, as to how much regulation was needed for the scale. Then, you look at these people who have a very small business and are making a few dollars at farmers market, and thinking about the level of complexity and compliance that would need to fall on those people—that’s where a huge amount of discussion has gone on.

Now, I’m yet to read in detail the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put out for the committee of the whole House stage, but what I do know—I have been speaking to people from Organics Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon—is the amount of work that’s gone on to try and actually iron out some of that regulatory process around how much the Ministry of Primary Industries would do compared to how much some of these smaller producers may be able to regulate themselves. And I’m not totally up to speed right now on exactly where that’s ended up, but we will be by the time we get to the committee of the whole House stage.

So I just really see a huge possibility with organics, and it is a growing market.

Rachel Brooking: Get it?

BARBARA KURIGER: And it is—yeah—something that, I think, if we look—we often look at Fit for a Better World and we think, “How do we add more value; how do we actually portray ourselves as New Zealanders?” And, you know, I can see there’s going to be some huge benefit going forward, but there’s a few constraints here, just at the moment, as to how we measure, manage, and portray it to the world. I really hope that, with just a short time left to speak this afternoon, it doesn’t take too long for the committee of the whole House stage and the third reading of this bill to go through so we can get on and earn the value. Thank you.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the newly named, I believe, Organic Products and Production Bill, as recommended from the Primary Production Committee.

This bill—why is it here before us? Well, it addresses the call from the industry, as we’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, to provide consumer confidence about what is organic. It’s going to be good for exporters. We heard from Anna Lorck about the huge size of the industry—

Angie Warren-Clark: Apples.

RACHEL BROOKING: —and about apples, of course. There will be environmental benefits as well from the system, because, of course, with more farmers being incentivised because of that premium to go organic, less synthetic fertilisers are going into our environment, and that’s got consequential health and environmental benefits. We’ve heard also from the past speaker, the member for Taranaki-King Country, about the time that this bill has been progressing through the House. I want to say that I have a recollection, from a hui at Rātana Pā in about 2001, about Māori organics. So this conversation about organics and standardising it and what’s good for export, what’s good for our economy, and what’s good for our environment has been going on for a long time.

So what does this bill do? Well, it sets up a regulatory system to standardise what is organic, and this will provide the international confidence that our export market wants. We’ve heard that from Tim van de Molen’s speech, and also the Minister’s speech outlined that very clearly. The regulations set the standards, and this is where the detail will be. Just reflecting on the conversations we’ve just had, Part 6 of the bill addresses organic standards, and at what will be section 105 it says what organic standards those regulations are to include. The select committee added in there that an organic standard must contain high-level guidance for notices that may be given in relation to the organic standard. So that was one of the changes that the select committee thought was important. The bill introduces a whole lot of new terms, like “recognised entity”, “approved operator”, “organic products officer”, and “advisory council”. That advisory council is via the select committee recommendation.

So I commend this bill. I commend the work of the Minister that we’ve heard about, the select committee, and, of course, the officials for really bringing us a piece of legislation that’s going to have both economic and environmental benefits.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Well, back in 2019, the organics industry worldwide was estimated to be worth $184 billion—quite a lot of money, really.

Rachel Brooking: Lot of money.

GLEN BENNETT: Lot of money. And, of course, that is growing. I know the pun has been dropped a few times, accidentally or on purpose, but that is growing and we need to grow with it. And here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we need to be on that waka, ensuring for our organic products that there is process in place so people know what they’re buying. But also, as my colleague and friend from across the floor said—the MP for Taranaki - King Country, Barbara Kuriger—that, for example, her whānau in Taranaki has an organic farm and the process they’ve gone through. And there are lots of examples, as I look around the region of Taranaki, where organics is just becoming the norm. So we need to ensure that we have policies and we have legislation that’s fit for the 21st century as we continue to grow this industry.

On the weekend, I was having a coffee with friends and caught up with someone who, in the last four years, has established this asparagus farm just on the outskirts of New Plymouth. And they’re working towards certifying it as an organic asparagus farm, and the complexities and the challenges that come with it. But, yes, she’ll probably get it done, well, hopefully we’ll be done before this—we’ll get this bill done anyway; that’s what I’m trying to say.

Barbara Kuriger: We hope so.

GLEN BENNETT: Very shortly—hope so.

The select committee process, as was carried out by the Primary Production Committee, saw 350 submissions come across the table, with around 60 oral submissions made; both in support and also critiquing this legislation.

As I said, we need to get on with it, so I’m going to sit down and commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the Organic Products Bill at its second reading. In short, National supports this bill. The bill has a dual goal of increasing the confidence of consumers wishing to purchase organic goods and giving increased certainty to businesses producing and selling organic products in New Zealand. The bill also aims to facilitate more international trade of organic products.

I’m proud to say that there is a great example in Southland that I visited with my colleague Barbara Kuriger: Aquila Farms. They’re the largest organic milk suppliers in the Southern Hemisphere, and they are a Southland operation. They have some 2,970 hectares of organic dairy units across six different farms, and they have 871 supporting blocks for that, and they do quite an impressive job. It’s been a big piece of work over quite a few years, but they have done a really good job, and, as I said, they’re now actually the largest organic milk suppliers in the Southern Hemisphere.

This is the second reading of this bill, so this is about some of the processes that happened in select committee. Now, I didn’t have the pleasure of being in the Primary Production Committee in the last Parliament, which I understand is when this was considered, but I have had a look at the commentary and what happened there. So “The bill as introduced would enable ministries, through regulations, to set standards for organic production and products [called] (the organic standard). [Those] regulations would set out the standard and include most of the technical detail about how organic approval and recognition would be granted. The relevant ministry would be responsible for administering the organic standard for its sector. For example, the Ministry for Primary Industries could develop organic standards for food and beverages, and would then be responsible for regulating businesses that made organic claims under those standards.”

There have been a few changes in this, and some of the recommendations, which I’ll go through. The proposed title: the select committee thought that “the title of the bill could better describe what it would regulate.” They said, “The legislation would go beyond products, regulating production and logistical matters such as the handling, packaging, labelling, processing, storage, and preparation of organic products.” They recommended changing the title of the bill to the “Organic Products and Production Bill”.

The bill as introduced also did not define the term “organic product”, which the select committee felt could lead to confusion over what is organic. The select committee recommended inserting a definition into clause 5 that “organic product means a product in relation to which an organic standard is in force and that is produced in compliance with the standard by an operator.” The select committee also felt that there needed to be some definition of what a “marae” is. The term “marae” is used in Part 5 of the bill, which is about enforcement of the organic standard. The select committee recommended inserting a definition of “marae” into clause 5 to make it clear what it covered. The definition recommended by the select committee was that a marae is “an area of land on which all buildings such as wharenui (meeting house), wharekai (dining room), ablution blocks, and any other associated buildings are situated.”

The select committee also had a look at the grant of the organic approval and recommended amending one of the clauses, clause 13(1), “to enable the chief executive of the relevant ministry to set out how long an organic approval would last. As introduced, the bill would commit all ministries to implementing a one-time approval, instead of approval for a specified length of time.” The select committee considered that one-time approval may not be appropriate in all circumstances, so they recommended amending that clause so that a time frame could be placed on an organic approval and it would insert a paragraph to require the expiration date of an organic approval to be specified if the approval was of fixed duration.

The select committee also had a look at the public register of operators and recognised entities and recommended amending clause 39(2)(a) “to make it clear that the organic register could be reproduced in electronic form.” The bill as introduced implied, at least, that they felt that the register would be reproducible only in hard-copy form. Obviously, in the modern era—in 2022—hard-copy forms are not necessarily always the best thing. Most of us are used to using other devices to access information, and that certainly seems a sensible recommendation from the committee recognising the era that we live in today.

The select committee also had a look—and this is, I think, indicative of the level of attention the committee had to this and I think that’s quite appropriate and very good work by the Primary Production Committee—at the records of organic practice and recommended amending clause 44 to ensure all organic operators keep records related to their organic practice. The bill as introduced would not require exempt persons to keep records; in fact, clause 108 provides for exemptions to be granted from the requirements or obligations of the legislation—for example, some operators could state that their products are organic without having to complete the organic approval application process. The select committee considered that they, and other exempt persons, should still be required to keep records, and that is obviously to underpin the certainty and the confidence that people have in this process.

Quite an important point—considering that this bill is specifically trying to facilitate the international trade of organic products—is ensuring the assurance of organic status for international markets. Although we in New Zealand certainly think we are the centre of the universe, that’s not always the case and we need to prove to international markets the relevance of our place in the world and the importance we place on providing certainty and certification of the products that we provide to international markets.

The bill as introduced provided for the chief executive to specify export requirements or restrictions on products described as organic. However, it was unclear what could be required or restricted. So the select committee recommended amending it to make it clear that notices made under this clause may include requirements or restrictions about production inputs, processing, and preparation of organic products, including requirements about sampling and testing.

They also felt that it should be made clear that the chief executive of the relevant ministry must be satisfied that an organic product meets the organic standard, and they note that clause 49 empowered the relevant chief executive to give a statement of compliance to organic operators and entities. However, the bill as introduced did not provide for the chief executive to check that the specified processes had been completed to ensure the products meet the organic standard.

The issue of converting to organic production was also considered by the select committee and they recommend amending clause 105 to allow the organic standards to specify how long it could be taken for conversion from non-organic to organic production. The bill as introduced did not provide for a time frame to be set by regulation, and they recommended that paragraph (ca) be inserted into clause 105(2) to allow the length of the conversion period to be set by regulation.

I can certainly say, having spoken to organic farmers, that the period of time for a conversion can be quite significant and quite costly, in fact. There is certainly a transition period that is required and there is a drop in production and, therefore, a drop in income that has been experienced by some folks who have made that transition. Although having spoken to, for example, Aquila Farms, they have seen their production rates actually increase and their financial viability. So it’s actually become a very good going concern.

There’s attention also by this select committee to regulating organic inputs. This is definitely one of those challenging issues, because the inputs that come into an organic farm are not necessarily always going to compliant, especially when, for example, feed becomes an issue during a drought. So there needs to be some consideration around that issue. The select committee had a look at this and they felt that during the production of organic products, different inputs—things that are used to assist organic production—may be used to improve the quality of the products. Common organic inputs include compost, manure, slurry, and certain pesticides.

They recommended inserting clause 111A(b) to make it clear that the type of input should be specified in a notice. The bill as introduced did not provide a mechanism to specify which types of inputs could be used during organic production processing. Currently, different organic certifiers provide lists of allowed inputs. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that was going to go on for ever! A real pleasure to talk on the Organic Products Bill. There is some real uncertainty. We’ve heard that the sector has asked for this. We have delivered, but it’s taken quite some time. I think the bill is fit for purpose, it’s going to support our overseas market to have more surety about our systems, and it’s going to increase and add value to what we do here, where we have $723 million value in the organics sector currently.

My dear friend Linley grows organic kiwifruit under the BioGro kiwifruit industry in the Bay of Plenty. I know she’s keen and is watching this bill progress through the House as many in the sector are. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Named changed to Organic Products and Production Bill.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the on the Statutes Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

As the House will be aware, statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make small, technical, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. These bills allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This bill, as reported back, amends 41 primary Acts, administered by various Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill have received unanimous cross-party support, and it’s interesting to see the proposed amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill. They are, as my introduction acknowledged, small, discrete changes: anything from modernising a bill—references, for example, to “doctor’s surgery” in the Maritime Transport Act 1994, of all things, now become “medical centre”; and, likewise, in the Railways Act 2005, the reference to “registered post” is removed because, of course, that no longer exists. It’s important that legislation keeps up with the times, and when only small, discrete amendments are required, this is the basis on which that happens. So it’s an efficient way of using the House’s time to do small but necessary and vital changes to important pieces of legislation.

This bill was reported back by the Governance and Administration Committee on 8 August this year. I want to thank the committee and the chair, Ian McKelvie, for the careful consideration that the committee gave to the bill. The committee received and considered 16 submissions on the bill, including one late supplementary submission. It is surprising sometimes to see that even with very small, discrete, noncontroversial changes to legislation, people are motivated and energised and animated enough not only to make one submission but to make more than one submission, including a supplementary submission. I know that is a measure of the robustness of democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand today. For that, we should be most grateful.

Two submissions that were part of the original 16, not the late supplementary submission, supported the intent of the respective amendments. Four submissions opposed specific parts of the bill or, indeed, the entire bill. I don’t have a full rundown of the detail of that. But, again, people are taking a close interest in what is passing through this House and what is being done in their name. And some people are for things and other people are against them. The remaining submissions commented on matters that didn’t relate to the bill, and that’s not unusual, and that’s fine. But, of course, that can’t come into the consideration of this particular bill.

The committee did not recommend making any changes to the bill based on the submissions, which is not to say that the time spent by those submitters was fruitless. It was them participating in our democracy. I’m sure, although I haven’t had any advice specifically on the matter, that members of the committee would have been well informed by those submissions and would have given due consideration to them. But they weren’t necessarily persuasive enough to lead to a change to any aspect of this bill and the changes to 41 pieces of legislation that it makes.

The committee’s report does recommend two changes to the bill as it was introduced. The first change is to include a new amendment to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012. In settlement legislation, there is a statutory encumbrance which provides for Māori to have a right of access to protected sites as defined by the New Zealand Heritage List. There is a development opportunity that Ngāti Manuhiri wish to pursue in a discrete area of the South Mangawhai Forest. Heritage New Zealand has confirmed there are no sites that meet the definition of protected sites within the discrete area. The encumbrance therefore has no practical effect. So this amendment will remove the statutory encumbrance from this discrete part of the Mangawhai Forest, and this will enable Ngāti Manuhiri to fulfil their post-settlement aspirations. This amendment meets the criteria of a statutes amendment bill because it is, as I said at the beginning, small, technical, and non-controversial. This amendment, the House will be pleased to know, received cross-party support earlier this year.

The second change recommended by the committee is to remove the amendment to the Unit Titles Act 2010, as apparently it is no longer required. The same amendment was made by the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2022, which received Royal assent on 9 May 2022.

I do just want to take my hat off, too, to the staff of the Clerk’s Office, who have to keep track of all these sorts of things, not only individual and discrete pieces of legislation like the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2022, but also the statute amendment bills that come through, and make sure that everything lines up and nothing crosses over each other. So I just want to acknowledge that that takes a fierce amount of organisation and diligence and paying attention and understanding what’s going on, and the Clerk’s Office does a terrific job in supporting the business of this House and, ultimately, supporting effective democracy in New Zealand.

In summary, this bill will provide much needed changes to the statute book. The amendments will ensure that New Zealand’s legislation operates efficiently and effectively. I endorse the recommendations of the committee. Again, I thank the committee for its considered work. I look forward to the passage of the bill through its remaining stages. And, although ordinarily I’m not the Minister in charge of this bill, I will actually now, having read these notes, keep very close tabs on the future progress of this bill. I think this will be a remarkable achievement of the House as it passes this bill eventually, with the level of unanimity—can you have a level of unanimity?—with the unanimity that it has so far received, because that, again, is a celebration of wonderful things that can happen when everybody thinks together. I look forward, as I said, to this matter coming to a conclusion. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s good that such enthusiasm survives two sitting weeks! The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Mr Speaker, the National Party does not—oh sorry, wrong notes, wrong notes. Only kidding! No, we’re very pleased to support this Statutes Amendment Bill. In fact, there is nothing more exciting than a statute amendment bill late on a Thursday as we approach a recess week, and that enthusiasm was abundantly clear in the impassioned speech from the Minister Andrew Little, who we know is actually a very strong speaker—eloquent; can get fired up—and that was on display there. Full passion, and I feel humbled—humbled—to speak after him.

Look, somewhat humour aside—somewhat humour—these are actually important bills, or bill, rather. It’s an omnibus bill and, importantly, for those at home, what that means is it’s one piece of legislation which changes a number of pieces of legislation. In this case it’s 41, but perhaps symbolic of a statutes amendment bill, the notes given to me said it was 42. It was wrong, clearly, so I’ve had to amend the amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill. But 41 pieces of legislation have to be amended.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Governance and Administration Committee and Ian McKelvie, who was then the chair—is he still the chair?

Barbara Edmonds: Yes.

SIMON O’CONNOR: He is still there. I’ve lost track of who’s swapped around lately, so I apologise to Ian, who remains the chair. But, actually, I’d like to thank the committee—and I’ll come to the clerks as well—for their diligence. There is actually quite a lot of work involved in getting down to what are very particular, discrete changes, and that actually takes a little bit of discipline. To somewhat speak personally, when you are dealing, in a select committee, with, if you will, a highly controversial topic or one that’s particularly fascinating, you can be engaged. It actually takes a certain degree of quality to sit through something that is quite particular, and we’ll go through some of those in a moment.

Secondly, I’d like to actually echo the Minister’s comments to our clerks and the entire office. They have a remarkable ability—and duty, as well—to keep an eye on all that we do, to, obviously, articulate it in law or in writing very, very clearly, and to acknowledge what is changing and where these changes are needed, because, despite all the work that we do in this entire Parliament, with the hundreds of people who help us, mistakes are made in some instances, or often—as with, actually, the two changes the select committee recommended—the situation changes, which means a piece of legislation becomes out of date. I’ll be quite honest: I’d be hopeless—absolutely hopeless—at the clerk’s role with that level of detail. So full admiration to them there for the work that they do, and, of course, to the Minister’s team who’s put this together.

As has been noted, these are uncontroversial changes. The Government of the day will engage with other parties and other MPs, and it gets its sign-off. It’s an important part of our democratic process, and I think it also illustrates two points. One is that most legislation, as I said the other night, goes through this House—I think it’s about 80 percent of the legislation—with the agreement of certainly the two major parties, but it’s also a sign of how the rule of law works.

As we heard, there were 16 submissions, and I think I heard from the Minister that there was a late submission as well. I think it’s actually in itself quite remarkable that actually people—and thank you to those who submitted—are taking enough of an interest, and rightly so, in what this Parliament does that they want to raise issues.

The bill makes a series of changes to 41 pieces of legislation, and I’ll take some highlights from that for members’ edification, but the select committee proposed two changes. One was around the unit titles. Long and short—probably long—but the reason there is that it was a proposed change through statute amendment to the Unit Titles Act. Now, that, of course, has been updated in recent months as we have a new version of the Unit Titles Act; there was an amendment bill that was passed, the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act—by and large, I think, a good set of improvements. So, basically, the changes in the Statutes Amendment Bill were no longer needed.

The other comes down to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I think it’s actually a really good example of using statutes amendment to bring about a sensible, practical change otherwise. I’m sure Minister Andrew Little, who’s also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, would know the hoopla one would have to go through to make a change in that Treaty law to bring around something very, very simple. So I’m really pleased to see that to this point, the House supports it, and I’m sure that it will continue to do so.

I’m not going to go through all the Acts which are being changed, but I’ll go through most, depending how five minutes goes.

Hon Members: Aww!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, I know—I’m sorry. I can’t quite give you the gift of time in these last minutes. By and large, a lot of what you’re seeing is, basically, removing some duplication that’s coming through legislation, and you see that with the animal products and welfare bills.

Some small changes in the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009—again, a good example where the Statutes Amendment Bill will kick in, because that bill’s from 2009. It refers to the 1996 Customs and Excise Act, but we’ve made changes since then—exciting changes—in 2018, and we just have to update the text there accordingly. Obviously, the committee was in agreement with that.

We’ve also got two of the incorporated elements of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act. That’s in 2009, which must have occurred just after the anti - money laundering. So, again, it’s just tightening up the language and nomenclature there.

Similarly, with the Care of Children Act of 2004—in 2004, we talked about “domestic violence”. The nomenclature we use now is much more around “family violence”. So, again, it’s just to illustrate to the viewers at home—probably, once again, my mum and dad—to say that these are important changes.

The Courts Security Act is removing the phrase that “2 or more justices” are required to ensure that, actually, in this particular case, justices of the peace cannot and, if I understand that correctly, should not be doing any hearings for an alleged crime that has an imprisonable penalty—so that’s important, there, as well.

I think a very efficient change is coming through around the Crown Entities Act of 2004. It means that Orders in Council can actually update the list of State and Crown entities, and that’s very, very pragmatic as well.

A really good change—and I’m thinking I might even have had a small part in this—to the Customs and Excise Act of 2018 around correcting the excise rate to “undenatured ethyl”, as it’s called strictly in the schedule. So, basically, you’re talking pure ethanol. The rates were incorrect, according to other types of alcohol. So that’s just a small, little tidy-up there. I mean, it’s almost inconsequential, but it’s important to get things right.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act: despite all the issues in Fire and Emergency New Zealand, they’re doing some good little tidy-ups here. The board can now authorise a class of person to actually hold some delegations. The current law means that a very specific fire officer had to be named to exercise certain delegations. Now, it can be a class of person, which is really good.

Excitingly for me, Fire and Emergency are now able, once we pass this law, to legally use drones, helicopters, and other—I better read it to be correct. We don’t want to make a mistake in the Statute Amendment Bill. They can now legally use drones or aircraft or helicopters—I’d have preferred the term “fixed wing and rotary wing”, but, anyway, that’s me—in responding to an emergency.

Angie Warren-Clark: Is it a rotary wing?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Rotary wing. It’s sort of the military term for a helicopter. It’s not plain English, but we just sort of sound fancy. There’s something in Latin for it too, I suspect.

Look—really importantly too—we’re updating things like “housing and urban development”. It’s now just “urban development”, and, again, it’s all just nomenclature. Similarly, to the Land Transport Act, we’re making sure “medical practitioners” has been updated to “health practitioners”—I think we changed that about five or six years ago—as in we change a lot of terminology from “medical practitioners”, which means just doctors, to “health practitioners”, which recognises, actually, that doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, and others can operate in this space, and, clearly, we missed something in the Land Transport Act.

Interestingly, we have to update the Legislation Act of 2019 to correct the definitions of the “North Island” and “South Island”, and I thought it was fairly binary. I mean, how do we get that wrong? Did we once called the South Island the North Island? I don’t know and I’m very confused, but we are updating it.

Finally, and of great importance, I am sure, the Wine Act of 2003—

Hon Member: Oh, hello—hello.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, now everyone’s interested. The Wine Act of 2003—who knew. I want to be really clear to people at home that this is the Wine Act, without an “h”. We invoke the whining, often, here, but no, this is the Wine Act of 2003. It’s very important. We must listen to this: it’s going to enable certain secondary legislation or published instruments made by the same marker to be consolidated—excellent. I think that means we can still get a bit of a drop once we’re well over the yardarm, and, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Although I’m tempted to call this a mundane bill, it is not. Like the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, has said, it is a bill with lots and lots of hard work and lots and lots of detail that has been put into it by our officials, especially those led by the Ministry of Justice. And so, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee—a great select committee—we thank all of the officials who have come in to work with us.

During the select committee process, we spent a lot of time making sure any changes were non-controversial. And that is obviously the nature of omnibus bills. To make sure that there was no opposition, we paid special attention to the Ngāti Manuhiri claims in terms of whether people, either from iwi or from other interested parties, had any other opinions or ideas or if there was any conflict about the changes being made. And so we spent a good deal of time making sure that was settled, and that was, and that they all supported this change we were going to make.

Mr Speaker, it would be remiss of me, especially when you are in the seat today, to not talk about my favourite change here: the Dog Control Act of 1996 to remove the requirement for a registered vet to provide a written declaration that an imported dog is not a breed listed at Schedule 4 for disability dogs and any dog “that is kept, used, or certified for use by a specified agency”. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): So, on Thursday evening, at approximately 4.45, I rise to take a call for the National Party on the Statutes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge members who served on the Governance and Administration Committee, the previous speaker, Naisi Chen, being one of those, and my colleague Ian McKelvie, who is the chairperson and MP for Rangitīkei.

Not having sat on this committee and being enlightened by all the amendments that came before the committee—this bill was referred to the select committee on 8 March earlier this year, with the closing of submissions to be presented on 20 April of this year. There were 16 submissions that were received and all 16 of those were considered by members of the select committee. Advice had been received from the Ministry of Justice and also Te Arawhiti, which is the Māori-Crown agency, and also, notably, advice from the Office of the Clerk on the bill’s legislative quality, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with legal drafting.

The reason why I’ve made particular mention of those offices is that there is an inordinate amount of work that goes on behind the scenes, particularly noting that this Statutes Amendment Bill, as has been said, is an omnibus bill, which is dealing with multiple numbers of Acts—42 specifically, in relation to this Statutes Amendment Bill. And within the framework of this, as an omnibus bill, 62 amendments have been proposed and outlined in the bill.

It was interesting when I picked up the bill to have a cursory glance, and my eye was drawn specifically, in particular, to noting that this bill is made up of 41 parts and four schedules. So in my Māori development spokesperson role, the lens of my eye was drawn to, in particular, Part 25A, which references amendments to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act of 2012. Minister Little addressed the House in terms of the particular and the detailed and the important provisions around that amendment.

My eye, also with a Māori development lens, was drawn to Part 28, “Amendment to Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009”, and then, of particular and relevant significant note for myself personally as uri, a descendant of Whanganui, having spent all my life in Whanganui, and generations before me too, to Part 39, which is “Amendment to Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017”.

I was in the House on the day that that particular bill was passed into law and that was a significant time for Whanganui, for uri of Whanganui, because it was in the making of some 128-130 years before we arrived at that point. So my eye has been drawn to that. My colleague Simon O’Connor made reference to Part 41, amendments to the Wine Act—“wine” without an “h”. I’m going to highlight Part 39, Whanganui with the “h”. That took some time—and it was controversial for the “h” to be gazetted—for the recognition of we of Whanganui and the significance of it. So that is Part 39.

I’m going to address specifically clause 119 of the bill, and it’s important for me to be able to address this under the Statutes Amendment Bill. Clause 119 of this bill amends the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017; in particular, clause 120 amends Schedule 3 of the principal Act, inserting “If the term of appointment of a person appointed to Te Pou Tupua expires”—and to explain to members of the public and also members in this gallery, Te Pou Tupua is the human face and representative of Te Awa Tupua, the Whanganui River. This was significant international legislation—significant for we of Whanganui, but significant internationally because this was a legal personification of our tūpuna, of a natural asset: the flowing waters of the Whanganui River.

Clause 120(3) is dealing with the appointment of Te Pou Tupua, one of the two legal faces representing the Whanganui River. If the term of the appointment of that Te Pou Tupua person expires, “unless that person resigns or is removed from office, that person continues to hold office by virtue of the appointment for the term that has expired, until—(a)that person is reappointed; or (b) a successor to that person is appointed.” I’m labouring the point a little bit, but there is specific and personal relevance. A former member of Parliament of this House—Dame Tariana Turia—was one of the first of those two Te Pou Tupua to be the legal representative of the Whanganui River in the personification and recognition of that as a living being, an essence.

So this is quite significant for we of Whanganui in terms of the Statutes Amendment Bill. As has been said, the National Party does support this bill. It’s one of the few bills that comes before the House that does have unanimous support across all parties for this. In recognition of the importance—although it may not be seen to be important by members of the public and perhaps some members of this House—the fact that there are 42 Acts that have 62 amendments under 41 parts with four schedules says that it is somewhat significant.

So, in closing, the National Party does commend this bill. And, finally, my last commentary is that my eye has also been drawn to relevant, significant parts to do with our children in terms of the service that I gave in the Family Court and in the child welfare sector and also representing victims particularly in the domestic violence and the family violence—there are provisions within this Statutes Amendment Bill that make modifications or amendments to bring everything to contemporise it and to make it consistent. So, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a saying that “short can be sweet”, especially when you’re vertically challenged like myself, but also because this particular bill is very sweet, and so I’m going to make this speech very short for your purposes.

There are not many times in this House where we come together to unanimously agree to a bill. This is one of those times. Even before it gets through to the process where it’s a bill, generally most political parties are actually consulted as part of the policy process. What usually happens: Government agencies come together and say, “I have this very small technical amendment, I’m not going to have a bill in the House in the next coming Order Paper, so please, Parliamentary Counsel Office, adjust this. Please make this bill come together and put my amendment in the bill.” I’ve been part of that policy process many times.

So as Minister Andrew Little covered already, this is a small, technical bill. It is a bill that does not contain any significant policy changes; it is a bill to make policy more efficient and more effective. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 November 2022. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and staff, for your work in this sitting block.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.56 p.m.