Wednesday, 9 November 2022

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Morteza Sharifi requesting that the House urge the Government to expel the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran

petition of Bernard Schofield requesting that the House urge the Government to hold fortnightly press conferences to inform the public on the country’s progress in reducing greenhouse gases.

SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Te Tari Taiwhenua, Department of Internal Affairs, Long-term Insights Briefing

Real Estate Authority annual report 2022.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government’s efforts to support New Zealanders to stay in, or obtain, employment during economically unstable times. Policies such as the wage subsidy, flexi-wage, free apprenticeships, and Mana in Mahi continue to show their value as unemployment remains at record lows, and workforce participation reaches the highest rates recorded since the household labour force survey began in 1986. Importantly, average ordinary-time hourly earnings rose 7.4 percent in the year to September 2022. The volatile international environment continues to put pressure on prices, with the Ukraine war, and pandemic-related supply constraints, affecting fuel, food, and building material prices. New Zealand cannot escape these global pressures, but we are in a strong position to provide targeted support for New Zealand families, and that’s what we’re doing.

Christopher Luxon: Why, despite hiring more than 1,400 extra bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education, are half of secondary students not able to pass a basic NCEA maths test, while two-thirds can’t pass a basic writing test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will not term public servants in that way. I will not call 2,900 additional teachers, employed since 2017, “bureaucrats”. I will not call those additional staff that we have supported to provide specialist education needs and coordination of specialist education “bureaucrats”. They are people on the ground supporting our learners. Having said that, of course, over the course of COVID, we have seen an impact on young people’s learning. It’s been seen internationally; it was a significant theme at the UN General Assembly. And that is why we have provided targeted support for learners, including catch-up support, as they head into their examinations.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that her Government has failed to deliver for low-income families, when a staggering 98 percent of decile 1 students can’t pass a basic NCEA writing test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I do not. And, of course, you can see from all of the targeted support that we have provided, in every case it has been about supporting those who have the least: our low and middle income families and, of course, their children. One of those projects—just one of them, for instance—has been free healthy lunches in schools, and I have had, on countless occasions, teachers and principals point out that that has improved, in some cases, the connection between their young people and school. Have we continued to see trends beyond New Zealand? Sure, around some of these issues, yes, but I absolutely refute the member’s suggestion that we have not worked hard to support those families.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been informed that the entire cohort of students that we’re talking about, who are struggling with literacy and numeracy, did the entirety of their primary schooling during the era of national standards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is not the only situation, yes, where I’ve often had criticism from a National Government for outcomes that were actually generated for the previous Government. We had the same thing happen for a number of years on child poverty rates, when we were accused, actually, of being the ones who produced those stats when they were all generated because of lag times under National. We are happy to debate education, on this side, but we won’t be held to account for outcomes that were ultimately generated through nine years of National being in charge of education.

Christopher Luxon: Has her Government also failed to deliver for Māori students, when only 38 percent could pass a basic NCEA maths test, and less than one in four could pass a basic writing test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to the same answer I just gave. If the member wants to stand up and be accountable to those families for the fact that they went through the education period under a National Government, let’s have that debate. The stats that we own are the lowest Māori unemployment stats this country has had; those are the stats we own. Half of the Māori unemployment rate during this economic crisis than under the global financial crisis; those are the stats we own. He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi; those are the stats we own.

Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that since she took office, the proportion of students leaving school with at least NCEA level 1 has fallen for every single ethnic group, with Māori suffering the biggest drop in achievement of almost six percentage points?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At this point, the member may wish to reflect on whether or not his line of questioning is helping him. I refer to the same answer. The stats have a lag, and that member needs to reflect on his Government’s record.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that one of the reasons NCEA pass rates went up under the last Government is that they made it easier to meet the literacy and numeracy requirements in order to get it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and ultimately we need to make sure that our young people, when they go into the world, are genuinely prepared and that’s what we’re focused on.

Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government scrap the target for students leaving school with NCEA and does that explain why, after a decade of improvement under National, achievement has fallen across the board on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member believes that every single outcome for a young person, for healthcare, for everything, is dictated by a target. Again, we’ve seen when that occurs—when you rule by targets—you see distortions and you see perverse behaviour. I’ll give you one example: on the occasion of that Government putting in targets in education around pass rates, schools stopped putting their children forward for exams. That was not the right approach, and yet that’s what those targets drove.

Christopher Luxon: If the Prime Minister doesn’t believe in targets, why does she have them for child poverty?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, and I’ll stand by absolutely all of them because they have not produced distorted outcomes; they’ve produced investment in our young people. Because, when you measure child poverty, when you measure child poverty openly and objectively, then you drive change. When you create a distorted target that changes people’s behaviour, it means kids miss out.

Christopher Luxon: Can she name one thing her Government has done in the last five years that has actually lifted literacy and numeracy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is willing to read any evidence, he’d understand that poverty is connected to educational outcomes, that employment is connected to educational outcomes, that decent housing is connected to educational outcomes. And on all nine poverty measures, we have reversed the increase so that our children, we know, are doing better in this country. We’ve put food in schools. We’ve put free period products into schools. We have increased Māori employment. We have changed the things that drive educational outcomes for our kids.

Christopher Luxon: How can the Government spend $5 billion a year more, hire 1,400 extra staff, and actually deliver worse attendance and worse and declining academic achievement?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member can continue to speak to his own record in education, because that is what he is doing, but all I hear right now is that you wish to sack the extra 3,000 teachers, you wish to sack those coordinators we’ve put in for our kids with special needs, that you wish to sack or reduce the pay of our teacher aides, because that is where our money has gone.

David Seymour: If the Prime Minister stands by her Government’s statements and actions, why does she believe people are voting with their feet as New Zealand loses a net 10,000 people a year compared with gaining 60,000 people a year on average for the decade prior?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We know that we are going to see a period of change post-COVID, with the borders opening. But my recollection is that we’ve had, for instance, in just a short period of time, I believe, about 16,000 working holiday visas enter into New Zealand. New Zealanders are likely doing the same.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister accept that the net result of her Government’s policies over the last five years is that this country is losing a net 10,000 people a year where net migration has been positive for this country for practically its whole history?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is frankly ridiculous, in a short period after having borders closed for the better part of two years, to make an assessment about the final net growth or net loss for New Zealand at this point in time. What I can tell you is that we have, for instance, currently 16,000 people who have arrived in New Zealand for our working holiday visas. We currently have 77,000 positions that are currently available for individuals to enter into New Zealand and take up work. I’m not going to take a snapshot in time in a huge period of flux.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there was in fact a net outflow of New Zealand citizens for every recorded month from the beginning of the year 2000 to early 2020?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst I do not have specific numbers in front of me, yes, I would confirm what the Minister of Immigration would share.

Question No. 2—Conservation

2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What, if any, options for protecting public conservation land from mining is she considering?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: On behalf of the Minister, our most valuable public conservation land is already protected from mining. Conservation lands listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act include national parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. This prevents access from being granted to mine Crown-owned minerals on those land classifications and represents about 50 percent of all public conservation land by area. Additionally, the Government is undertaking significant work to reclassify a further 30 percent of conservation land via the stewardship land review. This covers 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land, and that is being considered for further protection. Progress is being made, and the Minister of Conservation will soon be considering final recommendations on the first phase of this process, which covers the West Coast, with that information due to the Minister by the end of this year.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Would adding public conservation land to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, as my member’s bill does, achieve the Government’s promise in the 2017 Speech from the Throne that there be no new mines on conservation land?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government remains committed to no new mines on conservation land. The member’s bill, though, goes a lot further than that and, also, effectively, prohibits mining on private land. It would also cut across more than four Treaty settlements, including the likes of mining pounamu, which does occur on conservation land.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Isn’t it true that the reclassification process will make a very limited contribution to protecting conservation land from mining, because only 12 percent of the stewardship land on the West Coast is recommended for status, such as national park, where it would be safe from mining?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No assessment can be made of that because the department is still considering the 6,000 submissions that were received, which will inform the advice that is due to the Minister before the end of the year.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Have large mines on conservation land, such as the former Globe Progress mine near Reefton and the Escarpment mine on the Denniston Plateau, harmed the conservation values which that land was set aside to protect?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it depends on the project, but there can be no doubt that the extensive open-cast coal mining on conservation land did cause environmental damage.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Department of Conservation’s experience monitoring 12 former mining sites on public conservation land and 12 current mining sites for potential ongoing pollution, as she noted in answers to written questions, suggest that reform is needed to limit mining activities which cause pollution on conservation land?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, reform is under way, including work that’s being done by the Minister of Energy and Resources in respect of the Crown Minerals Act. In respect of the monitoring of existing alluvial gold operations, those costs are recovered from the miners.

Hon Eugenie Sage: For how much longer will members of the public who’ve recently stood with a “no mining” banner on conservation land in Coromandel, on the Denniston Plateau, and in Mount Richmond Forest Park—all areas subject to mineral permits—have to keep reminding her Government of the 2017 promise of no new mines on conservation land?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve already explained that integral to achieving that problem is the reclassification of stewardship land.

SPEAKER: Helen White.

Helen White: My question is to—

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, I thought you had a supplementary.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The growing economy is working for women, Māori, and Pacific peoples. The employment rate for women rose to 64.9 percent, the highest rate since the series began. Unemployment rates for Māori and Pacific peoples are nearly at historic lows, at 6.8 percent and 6.4 percent respectively. Many New Zealand households are finding it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but they are in a better position to deal with this by being in work. Unemployment is at near record lows, more people than ever are in paid work, and wages are rising faster than inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures.

Helen White: What reaction has he seen to the impact of a strong labour market on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: ANZ’s economists said that our “extraordinarily strong labour market means households are, on average, starting from a good place when it comes to income growth and job security”. They are forecasting a steady decline in inflation, from a peak in the June quarter and with positive real wage growth improving from here. This will help New Zealanders with cost of living pressures.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on lifting skills in the economy to address workforce pressures?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re continuing to invest heavily in skills and training, with over 215,000 New Zealanders benefiting from our Government’s move to make apprenticeships and targeted trade training free. The immigration reset is attracting overseas workers to get the skills and expertise businesses need. More than 35,000 working holiday visas have been approved to support our tourism and hospitality industries as they approach a bumper summer season, and more than 78,000 job checks are being completed, ready for work visas to be granted.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The retail card spending data was released today. It remained resilient in October. Stats NZ reported that seasonally adjusted retail card spending rose 1 percent in October, compared with the previous month. Spending on durables, such as furniture and whiteware, rebounded this month. Stripping out fuel costs, core spending rose 0.9 percent. ASB’s economists said that this spending remains solid, supported by more people in work and decent income growth. However, forecasts for the global economy are being revised downward, and this will affect New Zealand’s prospects. New Zealand is well placed to be able to navigate this volatile and uncertain environment.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with reports that the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ said that “even if a report costs up to $6,000, if it leads to a lengthy prison sentence term being reduced by say, a year, the fiscal benefits alone are huge”; if so, is prioritising fiscal benefits over victims consistent with a “victim-centric approach”?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the first part of the question: the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ does not, of course, speak for the Government. However, I do agree that taxpayers—rightly—expect fiscal responsibility for Government spending. To the second part of the question: no, and that is not what the Government is prioritising.

Nicole McKee: How can the Minister claim that she is taking a victim-centric approach when costs for commissioning cultural reports increased from around $865,000 in 2019 to more than $6 million in 2021, while she stated in response to my oral question on 22 June that only $5 million had been given to victims in the previous year?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Two parts. To the first, the policy hasn’t changed since 1985. Cultural reports have made up a part of our criminal justice environment since 1985 and carry through to 2022. Secondly, what I’d say to the member is that this Government has doubled the support for victims since the previous Government, and we are continuing that support again in 2022.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister believe that section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 takes a victim-centric approach when it enables offenders such as the pair of Mongrel Mob members who ran a major meth operation in September to commission a cultural report to receive a discount of between 10 and 30 percent off their sentence?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my previous answer. Cultural reports have made up a critical part of New Zealand’s criminal justice process since 1985—nothing has changed.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that the justice system under her Government is more offender-centric than victim-centric and that to young ram-raiders it offers more excuses than consequences, and, if so, what is she going to do about it?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my answers in the House just yesterday. This side of the House has introduced new offences that prioritise victims, for example, in circumstances of sexual and family violence. Over $1 billion has gone into ensuring that victims of these particular types of crime are supported. This side of the House has doubled the funding available to victims. So, no, I disagree with that member’s proposition.

Nicole McKee: Is the Minister convinced there is a need for section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, considering that section 8(i) requires the court “must take into account the offender’s personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence”, and, if so, can she explain why this taxpayer spend is necessary when the Act already requires these factors to be considered?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As I have previously stated, section 27 has been a part of the Sentencing Act since 2002, which was a carry-over proviso from 1985. Additionally, I will note that these reports are one of many factors that any sentencing judge takes into consideration at sentencing.

Nicole McKee: What cause does the Minister think is more worthy of spending $6 million of taxpayer money on: giving victims of crime their due reparations, or commissioning cultural reports in exchange for reduced sentences?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, that’s a fundamentally flawed proposition. It’s not an either/or. Cultural reports make up a part of our criminal justice process, as does supporting our victims, and this side of the House will continue to do that.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to make fuel markets more resilient, sustainable, and competitive?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): This morning, I announced a suite of measures to increase New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience and sustainability, and to ensure there is adequate competition in the retail fuel market. We’re implementing the planned onshore fuel stockholding requirement, delaying the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation by one year, and introducing a regulatory backstop to protect consumers.

Rachel Brooking: How does the onshore fuel stockholding increase New Zealand’s resilience to international fuel supply shocks?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are improving New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience with new onshore fuel stock obligations for the fuel sector as well as Government-procured diesel storage. The initiatives announced today enhance our resilience in the unlikely event of supply chain interruptions at no additional cost to consumers.

Rachel Brooking: Has the Minister received advice on the impact of the refinery’s closure on New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience, and what is that advice?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The advice points out that New Zealand’s fuel supply has always been reliant on imports, and that Marsden Point refinery was configured to refine imported heavy crude oil. It also says the refinery’s closure improves our supply chain resilience—for example, there are more frequent shipments of refined fuel from diverse sources. Our decision to hold more fuel onshore further insulates the economy and consumers from supply chain shocks. As a result of our fuel resilience, New Zealand will now hold 28 days of diesel consumption—compared to 20 days before the refinery’s closure—24 days instead of 17 days of jet fuel, and 28 days instead of 26 days of petrol.

Rachel Brooking: How is the Government responding to cost of living concerns through the fuel initiatives announced this morning?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know many households are struggling with the increased cost of living, which is why we’ve cut fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and delivered half-price transport for all New Zealand. This morning’s announcements to delay the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation further shields consumers from potential increased fuel costs while giving more time to the fuel sector to implement the changes.

Rachel Brooking: How will delaying the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation impact the Government’s climate commitments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The delay doesn’t change the emissions reductions that would have occurred, because fuel companies were preparing to pay the fines rather than meet the first year of targets amid the current global fuel conditions. The shortfall from the first year’s targets will be made up by increasing the emissions intensity limits for fuel in ongoing years, and other emission reduction opportunities such as our successful Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund programme which is decarbonising the industrial heat sector. This pragmatic decision gives the sector more time to build the infrastructure needed for lower-cost, sustainable biofuels such as ethanol.

Rachel Brooking: What else is the Government doing to ensure our fuel markets are competitive and delivering fair prices for New Zealand consumers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has already implemented a number of changes resulting from our market study into retail fuel to secure a better deal on fuel for consumers, including improving monitoring of the market and increasing transparency of fuel company margins. Our next step is giving the Commerce Commission the ability to investigate, intervene, and potentially set fuel prices at terminals if they determine the market is not operating competitively.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement about the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that “The Fund is not there to be used for any old project in the never-never. It is to provide support and stimulus to recover and rebuild from COVID-19”; if so, does he support the draw-down and redirection of $72.3 million to help cover unfunded Department of Internal Affairs three waters work?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first question, which is with regards to a statement I made in July 2020, yes. To the second part of the question, the member is incorrect in her description of the funding. In July 2020, a tagged contingency of $710 million was established for three waters infrastructure and investment and a service delivery reform programme within the COVID response and recovery fund—this included provision for policy work on the programme. In April 2022, when that 2020 tagged contingency was coming to an end, $72 million was allocated to programme costs. I would note, at the same time, $12.4 million was returned to the centre.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister recall a Cabinet paper seeking agreement to reallocate $72 million of the unallocated portion of the three waters infrastructure investment programme for policy advice, and can he advise the House how spending $21 million of taxpayers’ money on three waters policy advice and communications activity helps the New Zealand economy recover from COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed several times in this House, the member knows that the COVID response and recovery fund was designed to make sure that New Zealand could respond to COVID and recover from COVID. Part of that is making sure that we stimulate economic development in the regions. That includes, I might say, through the three waters programme, 291 kilometres of drinking-water pipes, 159 kilometres of waste-water pipes, and 128 upgrades to waste-water treatment plants all over New Zealand. The three waters programme, overall, will contribute to a significant number of jobs being created in New Zealand—something I know the National Party has difficulty with.

Nicola Willis: How does spending $14.6 million of taxpayer money on supporting iwi Māori to participate “in the three waters service delivery system” help the New Zealand economy recover from COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve just said in my previous answer, the three waters reform programme is part of economic development right across New Zealand. I appreciate that the National Party doesn’t want iwi and Māori to participate in the New Zealand economy, but on this side of the House we think that’s a good idea.

Nicola Willis: Why did he take $3.6 million from the COVID fund and spend it on the Future of Local Government Review, and is this what he thinks New Zealanders expected would most help the recovery of the economy from COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I think most New Zealanders expected would happen in terms of the recovery from COVID was that the Government would spend around $26 billion supporting employers to be able to keep their staff on, around $13 billion supporting small businesses with low-cost loans, around $10 billion for the health sector to be able to respond to COVID, around $5 billion for business and science and innovation support, around $4.7 billion to support people in housing, around $2.85 billion to support the education sector, around $1.85 billion to support the transport sector to keep going. The vast bulk of the COVID-19 fund was spent directly on things related to recovery; some was spent on response. The member has many colleagues who asked us to spend a lot more money, in COVID, on other things.

Nicola Willis: Does he think it’s prudent for the Government to be spending $2.1 million on a swanky Freemans Bay office for the hundreds of consultants and staff hired to work on three waters reforms, and could he tell the House whether this will also help with recovery from COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that the National Party think that if a difficult problem comes along, the answer is to kick the can down the road: not deal with the massive rate increases that New Zealanders will have if we don’t solve three waters; not worry whether people have good quality drinking water; not worry whether our waste systems work. It’s all in the power of the National Party to say, “We’re going to kick that problem down the road.” We’re facing up to it; we’re making sure those reforms happen so New Zealanders don’t have to pay so much for their rates, for their water. National might not care about that; we do.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall stating, in relation to the COVID fund, that, “We are sticking to our word on this. We are investing money where it is needed to respond to COVID-19.”, and does he recall whether, when he said those words, he was anticipating dipping in to the COVID fund so he could avoid public scrutiny for throwing yet more taxpayer money at his unpopular three waters reforms?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by the record of this Government of getting New Zealand through COVID, of saving lives and saving livelihoods. The fact that we spent $26 billion supporting New Zealand businesses has helped New Zealand have an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent. The fact that we spent that money supporting small businesses means that they didn’t go out of business. The member might not like it, but the Government’s record on getting New Zealand through COVID is an excellent one that all New Zealanders should be proud of.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she seen on the take-up of the Training Incentive Allowance?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government’s Training Incentive Allowance (TIA)—which was a manifesto commitment and reinstated as part of Budget 2021—has had an overwhelming response, with an over 600 percent increase in uptake from 1 January to 30 June 2022, compared to the same time last year. Since the allowance’s reinstatement, 4,848 people have been supported, 90 percent of recipients are female, just under 80 percent are sole parents, 42 percent identified as Māori, and 7 percent as Pacific. Almost three-quarters of TIA recipients are in courses level 4 or higher—for example, certificates, diplomas, and bachelor’s degrees.

Terisa Ngobi: Why is the Training Incentive Allowance important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Training Incentive Allowance is one tool amongst many in our Government’s tool box that we are using to support people off benefit and into work. The additional benefit of the Training Incentive Allowance is that it is a tool that is also supporting people into jobs where there are skill shortages. The reports to date show that the majority of recipients are going into social service areas, including nursing, midwifery, and social work. This is great for the beneficiaries and their families but also a fantastic win for our workforce.

Terisa Ngobi: What work has been done to make sure people know this support exists?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Ministry of Social Development have been running promotional campaigns on the allowance and working hard to ensure people know where and how to access it. They’ve also sought to make the application process more accessible for clients with processing standards made permanent to create a more seamless interaction for those wishing access the allowance. Our Government is all about putting ladders in place; not pulling them up behind us.

Terisa Ngobi: What other updates has she seen on people being supported into employment, education, or training?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s pleasing that last week’s household labour force survey shows that unemployment remains at a near-record low of 3.3 percent in the September quarter. Particular highlights also include a big growth in Pacific employment, with over 25,700 more Pacific people in employment compared to a year ago; youth employment increased strongly, the NEETs rate fell by 0.7 percent; Māori unemployment remains low; and jobseeker work-ready numbers continue to fall quarter on quarter. We absolutely know there is more to do, which is why through our suite of employment initiatives such as Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Māori Trades and Training Fund, Flexi-wage, and Apprenticeship Boost—to name a few—we are doing just that.

Question No. 8—Health

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Why does his interim health plan say it will take another two years to get the full benefits of the health reforms, given it has already been nearly two years since he announced them, and tens of millions of Ernst & Young consulting dollars?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Recently, we released the Interim New Zealand Health Plan, that was prepared by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, and Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority. That plan follows the current funding cycle, which was a two-year funding cycle following this year’s Budget, and in preparation for the next New Zealand Health Plan, which will be a three-year health plan, following a three-year funding cycle in Budget 2024. The Public Health Service is a service that covers 30 hospital campuses, about 80,000 health workers—anything from senior clinicians, to doctors, to nurses, to healthcare assistants, to allied health workers. In addition to that, it’s also the service that funds much of primary and community care. This Government inherited a health system that was in desperate need of change. We’re changing it, and it will take time.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the chair and chief executive of the Rural Health Network and the college of GPs, who say his interim health plan is disappointing, and that the plan fails to deliver on how a sustainable rural workforce will be delivered?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer that person to the specific aspects of the interim health plan that talks about rural health needs and the development of a rural health strategy, and I look to the experience that we all saw for ourselves at Taupō Hospital when we release the plan and the difference that adding a CT scanner made to that hospital and to the wider district and to access to healthcare for more rural people—access they had not hitherto seen.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to an associate professor of health policy at Auckland University, who suggests his interim health plan is virtue signalling and light on detail, and concludes, “In two years, if we were to ask how do we know things are going to plan, I don’t know if there’s anything in there that would help us answer that question.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The interim health plan sets out around about 120 different tasks that are part of the process to turn around a health system that has been underfunded and under-resourced for far too long, and not delivering on the health needs for New Zealanders. I stand by the plan that’s prepared by the senior clinicians and other experts from Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand and Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is it that with nearly every wait-list target being the worst on record, the only targets in his interim health plan are emissions targets?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In addition to this Government inheriting a health system that had been underfunded and under-resourced for many years, we also inherited a health system that was not achieving for New Zealanders what it should do, which is improved equity and improved access. That is what the health plan seeks to do. It is an interim health plan; as the large and difficult job of creating a health system capable of allocating its resources properly and fairly and efficiently right around New Zealand starts its journey.

Dr Shane Reti: What actions did he take around the health and safety provisional improvement notice issued two weeks ago by frustrated staff at North Shore Hospital, who said that the emergency department (ED) was at critical overload, unsafe, and that patients and staff could be harmed; and were any actions he took clearly ineffective, given reports of an innocent bystander being seriously assaulted at the very same ED last night?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The responsibility for responding to those improvement notices is the responsibility of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand management. They are in receipt of those notices. Where those notices have been issued in other hospitals around the country, it has resulted in engagement between WorkSafe New Zealand and the hospital management, and I expect the same will happen in relation to North Shore Hospital.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the Australian and New Zealand college of ICU specialists, who ask, “What work is he doing to expedite the immigration entry of ICU nurses that are required to open recently funded ICU beds?”

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I’m glad that member has drawn attention to the significant additional investment that this Government has made in our ICUs: $100 million for capital spending; over $500 million to recruit the additional staff over the next four years to run them. What I’m very pleased to tell the House is that since 1 January this year, 1,266 internationally qualified nurses have arrived in New Zealand to pick up their work. They’ve arrived here under two visas: the critical purpose work visa and the accredited employer work visa. I can say that a total of 3,510 overseas qualified health workers have arrived since 1 January to work across our health system—public and private—and I can say that just in relation to the accredited employer work visa, 471 of those visas have now been approved. We are attracting nurses to work in New Zealand, including critical healthcare nurses, and we will continue that programme to fill the vacancies, because this is a Government that has funded 5,000 additional nurse positions in our hospitals. We’ll continue to fund more as we rebuild the health system that when inherited was left in such an appalling state.

Dr Shane Reti: How many nurses have left New Zealand in exactly the same time frame that he has just quoted?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, nurses come and go. What I can say is we have more nurses employed right now than we did as a matter of just some months ago. The reality is, this is a Government that does not turn its back on the health system, does not turn its back on the mental health system; and a health organisation—Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand—that is focused on what needs to be done to rebuild our health system.

Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the chair of Health New Zealand, Rob Campbell, who told Heather Du Plessis Allan last week that there are multiple crises in the health system; or the Minister, who still denies there is a crisis?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member continues his long-track record of simply getting things wrong and he did it again just now.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has the Government made about the bus driver workforce?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, I announced that the Government is investing $61 million allocated in Budget 2022 to help standardise and improve wages and conditions for bus drivers across New Zealand. We know that having drivers in place to provide reliable bus services is critical in supporting people to get on to public transport—that’s why we’re investing to ensure that the industry, local councils, and unions work together to transition the industry to higher base rates of $30 per hour for urban drivers and $28 per hour for regional drivers. I’d like to thank those members of the Bus Driver Conditions Steering Group, including unions, employers, and councils, for their ongoing work to build consensus around improvements to driver terms and conditions.

Shanan Halbert: How will the funding that he has announced impact the bus driver workforce around New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We know that wages and conditions for bus drivers vary widely around the country. The $61 million allocated in Budget 2022 will support the sector to move towards more common industry standards for wages and conditions across New Zealand. Local councils and operators will be able to access a share of funding if they also contribute, to ensure that all players in the system are putting money on the table to improve pay and conditions. This will help us to progressively reach an industry standard of $30 per hour for urban services and $28 per hour for regional services, which will make the sector a more attractive place for people to work.

Shanan Halbert: What other work is the Government doing to improve terms and conditions for the bus driver workforce?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Along with the focus on standardising wage rates in the immediate term, we’re also working with councils, operators, and unions to lift wages and improve a range of working conditions in the medium term. This includes looking at overtime rates, split shifts, and other ways of making bus driving a more attractive place to work in, so that we can retain and attract the workers that we need. We know that improving the conditions of drivers will make it easier to do this, meaning that New Zealanders will be able to enjoy more frequent and reliable bus services in the years to come.

Shanan Halbert: How do these improvements to bus driver terms and conditions fit with the Government’s broader work to improve the reliability of public transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The improvements that we have announced through our additional $61 million investment will be supported by the creation of a Sustainable Public Transport Framework, which I announced in August, which replaces the previous Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM), which had driven down pay and conditions for bus drivers across New Zealand. The new Sustainable Public Transport Framework, along with value for money, prioritises fair and equitable treatment of employees, mode shift, and improved environmental and health outcomes in the sector. We know that the race to the bottom caused by PTOM was one of the root causes of the bus driver shortage that we face and we’re having to clean up today. Our Government recognises the vital role that public transport has in our everyday lives and in our economic and environmental future.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Police: How many, if any, businesses in Hamilton have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and of those, how many have had installations of protective equipment completed, if any?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I’m advised that as of 9 November, New Zealand Police has visited at least 18 stores across Hamilton as part of the Retail Crime Prevention Programme. Sixteen of those stores are eligible to receive assistance under the programme and they’ve had their assessments completed. Twelve of those stores have had quotes received and approved for protective equipment. Additional quotes are due to be received. My understanding is that none of those businesses have had the work completed at this point. Hamilton City accounts for around 15 percent of all of the jobs that have been assigned to contractors as part of the programme to date.

Dr James McDowall: Is he aware that businesses in Hamilton with more than two physical stores have been told by Police that they are ineligible for funding, despite having been the victims of repeated ram raids and smash and grabs, and, if so, is this consistent with the intent of the programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The intent is to support small retailers. One of the things that the Police do take into account in conducting their assessments is whether or not a business qualifies as a small retailer. The range of criteria include the number of staff they employ, and it also does include the number of different outlets that they have.

Dr James McDowall: Will the Minister consider enabling the retail crime prevention programme to reimburse ram-raided businesses who have had to privately source and install protective equipment, considering the delays or non-existence of getting protective equipment put in?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Reimbursement’s not currently part of the programme.

Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government’s views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—

Chris Bishop: Your statements—the Minister’s statement; not the Prime Minister’s.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —referring particularly to TVNZ, that as audiences decline, advertising revenues decline, which means our ability to have public broadcasting declines, Mr Bishop. That’s why we are investing now to ensure that New Zealand’s public media remains strong and accessible to all New Zealanders into the future.

Melissa Lee: Does he accept, when his officials state—and I quote—“The Government … will significantly increase Crown funding for the entity to $200 million annually” and “This is half of ANZPM’s total estimated yearly operating budget of $400 million.”, this means Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM) will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion every five years in new spending over and above the $109 million of new money injected per year over the next three years?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I don’t accept that at all. The member is talking absolute nonsense. The set-up costs for the entity are only $40 million over four years. I suggest she reads what we have said about this constantly over the last month or so.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that, according to the business case for the merger, Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media will have permanently decreasing revenue and increased costs to the Crown over and above the $370 million budgeted this year?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The business case was speculative. It’s just speculating. As Mr Luxon knows, business cases look at some of the worst scenarios. So I can confirm that the business case, yes, talked about that, Melissa Lee.

Melissa Lee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did actually tell this House on 27 October that he will actually have those figures on hand and that he will provide it. And I’ll quote him: “I’ll have to come back to the member on that.”

SPEAKER: That’s fine, but what’s your point of order?

Melissa Lee: Well, he should have the figures.

SPEAKER: Remind me what the actual question you asked was.

Melissa Lee: He needs to confirm whether those figures are in the business case.

SPEAKER: Well, then don’t tell me. Do you have another supplementary?

Melissa Lee: I do, sir. What will the cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media be to New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as costed in the business case, and is it over $6 billion between financial year ’27 and financial year ’51?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, the member is getting all her figures wrong. She’s mixing up the $6 billion that the National Party are giving to their rich mates, in terms of the tax cuts.

SPEAKER: That’s out of order.

Melissa Lee: Do you want me to ask again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’ll give you two additional supplementaries.

Melissa Lee: What will the cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media be to New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as costed in the business case, and is it not over $6 billion between financial years 2027 and 2051?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The cost of the merger will be $40 million over the next four years. If you are adding up the investment, which is what the member is doing, because she’s trying to sound all brilliant, and saying 200 times three, at 30, well, you work it out.

Melissa Lee: Point of order, sir. The question was very specific, and it actually said, “What will be the actual cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media to the New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as specified and as costed in the business case?”—specific years.

SPEAKER: He definitely answered for the next four years, and also addressed the rest of the question.

Melissa Lee: OK. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that the merger of RNZ and TVNZ is not a number one priority for the Government; if so, why is the Minister so insistent on rushing the $6 billion-plus spending plan through before the next election, when the cost over the next three years alone could fund at least three new regional hospitals in rural New Zealand?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The member continues to spout out absolute nonsense. This Government is totally committed to the cost of living. We had a wonderful announcement over the weekend, where we talked about subsidised family care. The cost of living is our number one priority. We’ve also had a 43 percent increase in Pharmac, billions of dollars’ investment in health, and a record investment in Māori. The member does not understand—

SPEAKER: The time for general debate is after question time. I’m tempted to give more supplementaries, but I think the Minister might see it as a reward!

Melissa Lee: If the RNZ-TVNZ merger isn’t a number one priority for the Government during a cost of living crisis—if so, will he stop this wasteful spending plan and stop the merger?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, no, the merger is so important in terms of the future of New Zealand’s identity. As our Prime Minister said, we want to futureproof our New Zealand media. That is under threat from huge global companies like Netflix. We’ve got pressures on them that they’ve never had before. We must look after them. We must create our new identity. We must show more of a Māori voice, an Asian voice, a young person’s voice, a woman’s voice—voices that were all missing when the National Party was in charge of TVNZ and RNZ.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Associate Minister of Local Government: What recent announcement has the Government made on rural water supplies?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Last week, when I was visiting the greatest little town in the country—Eketāhuna—I made a $10 million announcement for the Rural Drinking Water Programme. Most rural water suppliers are not impacted by the proposed reforms of water services, so this programme will help them with treatment systems, training, and maintenance to help them keep their water safe as well as meet the new regulatory requirements and drinking-water rules. This programme provides direct support to those rural communities who rely on these water suppliers for their drinking water.

Willow-Jean Prime: How does the programme help with capacity building in rural water suppliers?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Under the Government’s proposed water reforms, many rural water suppliers will not be included in the water service entities. This means that they will have to upgrade water infrastructure themselves in order to meet minimum standards for safe drinking water. Many rural communities can’t connect to council supplies and so are dependent on small rural water suppliers that often rely on volunteers. This $10 million programme will build capacity and capability of water infrastructure installers, operators, and maintainers in rural areas. It will train suppliers to maintain the infrastructure, and make the process of meeting standards consistent across the country as easy as possible.

Willow-Jean Prime: How does this announcement respond to the feedback the Minister received from rural and provincial councils?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: On my tour of 54 rural and provincial councils, I heard that some rural water suppliers were concerned about the cost of upgrading their infrastructure and were unsure about what upgrades would actually be needed to meet the minimum standards. This announcement responds directly to that feedback, and will help rural suppliers provide safe and affordable water to rural consumers into the future. It will also mean officials can work directly with suppliers to outline what is required. In many cases, the suppliers won’t actually need to change much in order to meet the standards.

Willow-Jean Prime: What specific support is provided under this programme?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the Government, through Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP), will install new drinking-water treatment equipment that meets proposed new drinking-water rules from Taumata Arowai to ensure water is safe to drink. CIP will maintain the equipment for five years and provide training to help keep the equipment running smoothly. This includes pumps, UV filters, and new technology such as remote monitoring. Once the equipment is installed, rural suppliers will own the drinking-water treatment equipment.

Willow-Jean Prime: How can rural water suppliers access the support?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Rural water suppliers are asked to register at ruraldrinkingwater.govt.nz. Crown Infrastructure Partners will then make contact with the supplier and visit their site to find out about the scope of the rural community needs. CIP will then work with the supplier to confirm a detailed design, which will be followed by installation of equipment, training, and support.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 10 November for the third readings of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill, the first reading of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill, consideration in committee of the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and the second readings of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

SPEAKER: Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I call—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I thought it was me?

SPEAKER: —Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I have so called.

SPEAKER: Too late; I’ve given it to Duncan Webb.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He didn’t call. I so call.

SPEAKER: He did so.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He said, “Mr Speaker.”

SPEAKER: I called him.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, it’s you—sorry, it is you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

What an outstanding Minister of Finance we have. I am proud to be part of a Government that is absolutely on top of its game. Today, we—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, you’ve been promoted, Duncan!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Minister. I am so proud of the childcare support package that we have announced because we know that childcare is one of the biggest barriers to participating in the workforce, not only for women generally but particularly for Māori and Pasifika women. This is a package that has been put together by the Minister, with a great deal of thought, and it will open up the workforce to many, many more people.

What’s more is that this is part of the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s fantastic programme working towards moving more and more people off main benefits. We have absolutely made unbelievable progress in this—progress that that lot on the other side of the House went backwards on. We are a Government of progress. We have taken steps and have moved the needle on every social indicator in respect of every measure of child poverty.

What happened on that side of the House? Absolutely nothing. What did they do about housing? Worse than nothing: they sold off our State houses. This is a Government which at last has built State houses when we need it.

Whilst we’re here, we accept that there are cost of living challenges. This is a Government which is stepping up and addressing the cost of living challenges. We are taking steps to alleviate that not only through things like the winter energy payment, the cost of living payment, half-price bus fares, and much more, but also by a long-term approach that sees a strong and resilient economy—an economy which keeps people in work. When people have jobs, we can sustain and ride out these difficult times, because people are in employment with rising wages. In fact, despite the naysaying on that side of the House, wages are rising faster than inflation, and have been for the past five years, whereas under that lot, wages went backwards.

What’s more, along with this, we are lifting the wages of workers not only through lifting the minimum wage but also by the fantastic fair pay agreement legislation that’s been put through that will see our lowest-paid workers being able to deal on equal footing with employers. That is a huge leap forward.

This Government—every member on this side of the House—is committed to seeing a highly employed, well-paid workforce, and one where people who haven’t got jobs, who can’t get into the workforce, are looked after properly and with dignity. Every Minister in this House is working towards an equitable New Zealand and one where everybody is looked after.

So whilst childcare might address one part of the workforce, it’s an important part of the workforce.

Barbara Edmonds: That’s right. It gives choices.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Once again—that’s right, Barbara Edmonds. We’re giving choices to women: the choice to work if they want to, the choice to be a caregiver if they want to, the choice to contribute to a stronger, more equal, and fairer society in the way that’s right for them and right for their whānau. This is a Government which will remain committed to it and it will go to the public and go to the nation, and say here’s what their choice is: a choice that wants to give you a flourishing life, or a choice which wants to give your rich mates more tax breaks—and that’s not going to happen on this side of the House.

We are committed to an absolutely equitable system of tax and an equitable system of employment, as well. So I’m very proud, particularly, of the Minister of Social Development and Employment, who has worked tirelessly to make sure that things like illegitimate sanctions are taken away and to make sure that abatement rates are appropriate and help people into work.

This is a Government that’s going to go to the nation very soon—a real Government and a real offer—and that lot over there have nothing to offer, other than to say, “We’re going to roll back the advances that this Government has made.”

SPEAKER: Order! Slow clapping is out of order. Counting down, as I’ve said a number of times, is also out of order. Let’s not do that again.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): If that contribution is Labour’s answer to New Zealand’s problems right now, then I’ve got to say they missed the question, because the question that New Zealanders are asking is “How are we going to get through this?”, because New Zealanders are going backwards. They keep on saying to me, “We can’t go on like this. The cost of living is biting us, and as we look to the future, we don’t see hope. We see interest rates rising, we see our mortgages becoming less affordable, and we see prices continuing to rise.”, and do you know what New Zealanders are doing about it? They’re voting with their feet.

In the last year, more than 60,000 New Zealanders left this country for good. We’re now at a position where we had 10,000 more people leave than arrive, and that’s people’s indictment on this Government. You know, it’s actually very sad, because the people who write to me now about rising prices and what it means for their family are using words like “scared”, “worn out”, “anxious”, and “worried”. They’re worried because they’re having to choose on a weekly basis which items they take out of their supermarket trolleys. They’re having to decide which child is going to get their holey shoes repaired and which one will miss out.

These dilemmas are because there is a severe cost of living crisis that the Government doesn’t seem to have woken up to, because if it had woken up to it, would these be its priorities? Would it be prioritising a merger of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand? If it was really worried about the cost of living crisis, would it be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into that project? If it was worried about New Zealanders’ ability to pay their bills, would it be focused on new hate-speech legislation to regulate what New Zealanders can say and when they can say it? If it really cared about the cost of living crisis, then would it be focusing all its efforts on a mega-merger of water infrastructure in the three waters reforms?

You know, the sad thing is I do think that at the weekend, at the Labour Party conference, they got a memo. I think the memo said, “Wise up: the Government should be focused on the cost of living crisis.” So we’ve seen a new playbook.

Now, the first page in the playbook was played by Grant Robertson, and his page said, “Do some name-calling. Come up with some sort of schoolyard nicknames for the Opposition—that’ll help Kiwis who are struggling.” Well, actually, I don’t think that tool works, so they discarded that one. People didn’t like the name-calling—didn’t think it would really help them pay the bills.

So then they got to the second page in the new playbook, and the second page said, “Do some tough talk, because the Prime Minister’s really good at talking,”—not so great on the delivery—“so focus on the tough talk.” So what have we had? We’ve had tough talk. The banks: they need to be careful of their social licence. We’ve had the wringing of the hands—no action, mind you, but some tough talk.

Well, here’s a prediction: whether it’s next week or the week after that, we will see the Prime Minister at the podium of truth. She’ll be doing some tough talking, and she’ll say, “Inflation, you no longer have a social licence.”, and that’s how she intends to scare it away from our economy.

Then we had the third page in the playbook, and that was evasion. That was evasion and no accountability, because the truth is—and New Zealanders understand it—that when the Government goes on a massive spend-up, prints tens of billions of dollars, and borrows tens of billions of dollars, there is a price to pay, and we are paying it with high inflation. But has there been any accountability? No, there hasn’t. Well, I have some advice for the Labour members: you can’t spend and regulate your way out of a cost of living crisis.

Here’s what the members opposite could do that National would do. We would stop the wasteful spending. On our watch, we won’t take taxpayers’ money to spend $2.1 million on a swanky office in Freemans Bay to house 350 consultants to advise on a three waters reform no one voted for and no one wants. We will let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn, because we believe that when New Zealanders are doing it tough, they’re owed more than a Government obsessed with spending, addicted to spending, and unable to deliver.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There was a little bit of confusion before. I think I was a little bit unnerved by the very friendly event that we’d had earlier, where we were celebrating having 50 percent women in this Parliament. It’s a little bit unnerving when I’m standing next to Louise Upston and we’re kind of cuddling up and we’re actually happy to be in the same space together, and when you’ve got Elizabeth Kerekere sitting next to the deputy leader of the National Party, Nicola Willis. Elizabeth actually looks happy to be sitting there, but Nicola is still not smiling yet, though. So I was a little bit confused when I came into the House, but I’ve found my feet.

We had a lovely conference over the weekend. It was wonderful to be able to meet with our members in person, to be able to celebrate the many wins and the progress that has been made under this Government over the course of five years, and to look ahead to the next year and beyond with what we hope to be able to deliver for New Zealanders. I was very proud of the policy that the Prime Minister announced. It was a very smart policy; in fact, I haven’t even seen the National Opposition come out against it. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said there was nothing wrong with it; that’s because there’s not. It responds to the cost of living for many whānau with children.

One of the biggest in-work expenses is childcare, and we know that that is the case. We know that back in 2010, the then National Government froze the threshold so it stopped going up. Effectively, we saw $57 million cut from childcare assistance, and that hit the pockets of whānau with children. It also impacted many people’s ability to be able to work, with many of them being women and many of them forgoing the opportunity to work because they would be no better off due to the cost of childcare. Now, with the introduction of that policy, not only do we give them back that opportunity but we’re hoping to respond to some of the work shortages out there when those—predominantly women—who have been forgoing that opportunity take up the opportunity to get out and work.

The one example I’ll share is the example of the couple working 40 hours a week each on $26 per hour, who are currently, under the current settings, not eligible for any subsidy and who will be eligible for about $252 per week towards their childcare assistance costs. That is good for those parents, that is good for those children, that is good for the economy and the workforce, and that is why I say that it’s a smart policy.

We heard from the deputy leader of the National Party, just before me, about the cost of living crisis. I can barely stand listening to it because it is so disingenuous. They talk about the cost of living as if that has ever been a priority for them with regards to the low to middle income earners of this country, when the reality is they didn’t support benefit increases, they’ve never supported minimum wage increases, they’ve certainly never supported the living wage, they didn’t support fair pay agreements—they have supported nothing that actually contributes additional dollars to the pockets of low to middle income New Zealand people. They need to stop contradicting themselves with regards to what they support or don’t support, and then what they go on to say in this House and to New Zealanders.

I believe New Zealanders will see through the National Party and see the insincerity that is seeping from their mouths every time they stand up to speak. On top of everything else, they know full well that the inflationary increases that we are experiencing here are part of global inflation increases. It is not just New Zealand that is experiencing an issue with the cost of living. The Government is not responsible for that. However, if they were in power, then they would be driving up inflation, because their light bulb idea is that you increase taxes for the most wealthy in the country—as if that will do anything for low to middle income New Zealanders—and that we will somehow be better off, when, in fact, that is the measure that would drive up the costs for everyday New Zealanders. They are insincere and out of touch.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to speak about the really dire state of housing for disabled people in Aotearoa, stories that I don’t think are heard enough in this country, or understood by those of us who don’t experience those barriers, but are evidenced through research backed up by the UN and are the subject of years, if not decades—actually, just decades—of advocacy for change from disabled people. I want to start this contribution by saying that recently, the Greens have been having some online Zoom meetings, enabling space for disabled people to share their experiences of those barriers to housing. I want to share some of those stories, as well as some of the stories in the research, because I believe really passionately that more of us need to be aware of this and join them in the push for change, because what is happening is just unacceptable and we need to have urgent change.

So some of the stories are of a woman whose leg was amputated and she managed to access ACC for 80 percent of the minimum wage. Rocketing housing prices meant she couldn’t afford a house any more, and she ended up in a tent in a campground. Her health was suffering, there was violence around her in that space, and she felt incredibly unsafe. Through winter, she was getting up and moving and walking through the night on an amputated leg because she was so worried about hypothermia. That is happening in our country.

Another: a 31-year-old woman with a spinal cord injury, who was placed in an old people’s home because that was the only space deemed appropriate for her to live. When she moved in there was no Wi-Fi. There are set meal times. There is her and the other youngest person was a 60-year-old—with organised activities in that space that are inappropriate to a 30-year-old.

A person who had spent their whole life working managed to have money to buy a house. A genetic disease kicked in and it meant that they had mobility issues where they couldn’t be in normal, standardised housing. They were lucky enough to have the resources to buy a home and access home ownership—really exciting opportunity. They got in there, but the processes were so set that the builders insisted on building an inaccessible house. They wouldn’t even agree to not putting in the inaccessible bathroom or kitchen that would enable this person to just modify it when they took over. So they had to wait until they’d finished, pull out the kitchen, pull out the bathroom, and wait three months before they could move in, and they paid for those costs on top of the cost of the house. That is how our system is set up at the moment.

We had people who have been—and this is such a common story—in emergency housing and unable to get into housing, because only 2 percent of our housing stock is accessible, and then they finally get into a Kāinga Ora house, because, basically, that’s all there is, and then it’s still not fully accessible. Eighteen months on, they’re waiting for the retrofitting to make it accessible.

People are having accidents and injuring themselves further because of the way that the system is set up. Huge numbers of these people are in mouldy, damp houses because that’s all there is. They have no choice about what suburb they live in or whether they are close to family, because we have such a scarcity of accessible homes, and that means that, let alone the precariousness of fearing that you’re going to lose this house that gives you shelter, you lose family, you lose friends, and you lose opportunity for work and connection.

People’s entire lives are being shaped by the fact that we have set up a system to work against their inclusion, and to isolate them and deny them their basic rights. The United Nations has called this country out to say that Kāinga Ora should be building 100 percent to universal design, as opposed to the 15 percent target—target—that they have now, and we need to be implementing the 2004 Act rather than just delaying it and delaying it, as has been happening. Disabled people have rights in law and we need legislation—an accessibility Act that will enforce those rights—and not continue—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a word for people that complain and complain and complain and never come up with an alternative idea, and that term is “whingers”. That is a perfect term to describe the National Party, and if you need an example, you only need to listen to their first contribution to this general debate, from their deputy leader, Nicola Willis: lots of whinging and very little ideas.

I did find it interesting that the one policy that the National Party have, she omitted to talk about, and I wonder why. I wonder if that’s because their policy of giving tax cuts to the highest earners, when they’re talking about the cost of living—I wonder if it’s because they’ve worked out that giving thousands of dollars a year to the highest earners and $2 a week to most of us isn’t going to make any difference to the cost of living. I wonder if that’s why they keep it quiet.

They are crying crocodile tears about the number of New Zealanders that are going overseas. They’re saying that New Zealand isn’t competitive, yet every time this Government has attempted to raise wages, they’ve voted against it. They have voted against minimum wage increases. They have voted against benefit increases. They voted against the winter energy payment. They know that when wages increase so too do the pensions that are paid to superannuitants, and yet they oppose it every single time. They opposed the Best Start payment. They opposed fair pay agreements, despite the fact that the countries that we are trying to be competitive with have fair pay agreements.

Every single step of the way, they have opposed attempts that have raised wages in this country, because they want to focus on the richest. They want to focus on cutting taxes so that Chris Luxon can get thousands of dollars a year while the people that have served us through COVID as essential workers get two bucks a week. That is not going to assist with a cost of living crisis. They are all talk, with no ideas.

It’s exactly the same with housing. They say the Government should do something. They ignore the fact that there are 10,000 more social housing places in the last five years. After nine years of that Government, when numbers went backwards, they say we should do something about houses. We said, “We agree. So what we’re going to do is extend the brightline test.” They said, “Oh no. No, no, we don’t like that.”—even though they introduced it in the first place.

We said that we were going to remove interest deductibility so that we don’t have landlords fighting against each other and driving up prices—driving investments in new builds instead. They said, “No, no. We don’t like that. Here’s an answer: we’re going to give them a tax cut, because that worked in the past.” That worked when they were in Government—yeah right, it did! We saw a massive housing crisis, which they refused to acknowledge, and then they have the gall to turn around when this Government is doing something about it and complain—with no ideas, complain. That’s all we’re hearing.

We’re hearing complaining about health. They wanted to keep the DHB structure. The DHB structure that did not serve rural New Zealand and that meant that those of us who live in rural and regional New Zealand were at the back of the queue for getting the treatment we deserve—they wanted to keep it. They said, “No, no, everything’s fine.”, despite the fact that when they were in Government, funding to DHBs went backwards in real terms, and then they turn around and complain that this Government is restructuring things to make it even work. They’re stuck in the past. They’ve got no ideas. All they’ve got is whinging.

What about education? They opposed free lunches in schools, then they have the gall to stand up and say attendance isn’t great after defunding truancy services. It’s like they assume that people have no memory.

They assume that if they’re going to whinge, then they won’t have to come up with any ideas. We still don’t know what they’re going to cut to pay for the $11 billion in tax cuts that they’re proposing, and we had to rely on someone else to work it out because they were refusing to work it out themselves. They’re trying to keep people in the dark. They hope that we get to the election and people will have forgotten that they have promised tax cuts but haven’t told us how they’re going to pay for it.

They have assumed that New Zealanders are do dumb that they’re going to believe their claims that they can cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce debt. It doesn’t add up, and people know it. They know that unless they give them the information, how can they be trusted?

They refuse to cost it. They refuse to tell us what’s being cut. The only example that Nicola Willis gave cost $2.1 million. There’s a fair bit of difference between $11 billion per annum and one $2.1 million piece of expenditure.

I wonder why they refuse to give examples. I wonder why they refuse to talk about it. How many ideas have they given? None. All they do is complain, and Kiwis will see through it.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Today, in Christchurch, there is a proposal to close down a mental health facility, with the reason being that that facility is only currently staffed by 50 percent of the staff it requires to operate. Today, on the North Shore, there are mental health patients being admitted to the emergency department who are waiting four days in windowless rooms in the emergency department before they get admitted to a ward. That is the reality of mental health under a Labour Government, and you will not find an issue more emblematic than mental health than five years of failure by this Government.

Remember when this Government came into power in 2017, promising to transform the mental health system? Yet only a Labour Government can spend $1.9 billion and no one knows where it’s gone. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, in its first, damning report, found that despite the $1.9 billion, there have been no material improvements. How can you spend $1.9 billion and not make a difference? A Labour Government can, and it’s soul-destroying for the thousands of New Zealanders who turned up to Labour’s mental health inquiry five years ago and told their heartfelt and often painful stories.

Do you hear about that inquiry’s recommendations today—the 58 recommendations? No, because they were quietly shelved and not talked about again.

The reality is, under a Labour Government, when you start the comparison after five years—under six years of the last National Government, access to child and adolescent mental health specialist services increased by 91 percent. That’s the reality, and what have we done under the Labour Government’s spending of $1.9 billion? Access has increased less than 2 percent. It was 91 percent under the last National Government versus 2 percent under the Labour Government. That is the difficulty, as many vulnerable New Zealanders can’t access the valuable services they need.

The issue we have got in New Zealand through their lack of leadership and their lack of a clear plan for mental health is now we have a mental health workforce crisis that sits solely on the lap of this Labour Government. In the last five years under this Labour Government, when they took office, mental health nurse vacancies have increased by 52 percent, psychiatrist vacancies have increased by 58 percent, and look at psychologist vacancies: they have blown out by 140 percent since Labour took office—$1.9 billion, yet massive blowouts in our vacancies, and the biggest obstacle to vulnerable New Zealanders accessing services today in New Zealand is there’s no workforce to see them. Five years, and the waiting times are ballooning, the costs are skyrocketing, and vulnerable New Zealanders can’t get access to the services that they were promised.

Then we find out the mental health facility in Christchurch is operating at 50 percent staff vacancies, and we wonder why we’ve got a high burnout rate in the mental health sector. Well, that’s because the already stretched staff are covering more vacancies. The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists has come out this week and said that if those beds are closed down, those beds will be lost. Under a Labour Government, we are losing mental health beds. Then we find on the North Shore, in their emergency department, vulnerable Kiwis are turning up to the emergency department and waiting four days in a windowless room to get to a mental health ward. That is the reality of mental health under Labour.

They promised so much. They said that they would transform the mental health system. They announced $1.9 billion, which they paraded around like a trophy. That $1.9 billion is now a millstone around their neck as five years of failure in mental health under Labour.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): That last contribution was complete rubbish, In fact, if the last National Government had actually invested into mental health like they should have—if they’d actually invested into health infrastructure, full stop—and if they didn’t have a couple of years where they spent nothing on health infrastructure, we wouldn’t be standing here talking about the big hole that there was to fill in our health system. We wouldn’t be standing here talking about the fact that we don’t have a mental health system that’s responsive to the needs of New Zealanders, because they could have and they should have done something, but they didn’t. They didn’t—they sat on their hands. They’ve waited until we’ve come into Government.

We are the first Government to take mental health seriously in New Zealand, and, yes, we’ve spent a lot of money on it. But, actually, a lot of that money went into just filling the hole in the first place that had been left by the previous National Government. In Rotorua, we have turned the sod on the first mental health inpatient unit: $31 million has gone into that. There are lots of these initiatives all around the country that are slowly rolling out, but it’s going to take time.

I’m not here to talk about that; I’m here to talk about the economy, because, actually, it’s about the economy, stupid. Actually, the economy is doing really well under a Labour Government, considering we’ve just come out of a pandemic and considering we’ve actually just had two years of incredibly traumatic events happen to our economy.

More specifically, I want to talk about the visitor economy, because back where I come from, in the geothermal paradise of Rotorua, we’ve got a festival going on right now. We’ve got the Crankworx festival going on. It is the Olympics of mountain biking, and we have visitors coming in from all around the world to come and travel around New Zealand as well. They don’t just stay in Rotorua; they travel all around the country, and they spend money.

The Crankworx festival has been given funding by the Major Events Fund here in—well, it was actually our Government that has given them $8.1 million over the next five years to be able to sustain their event, and it’s been a game-changer for them to be able to engage in some decent planning over the long term to be able to build this event, build it to be bigger than it’s ever been before, and it’s happening right now in Rotorua. So for those people that can get to Rotorua, I encourage you to. For those people that can’t get there, switch on the TVs because it’s being broadcast all around the world, to the USA, to Canada, to Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Indonesia, and Australia. This is an event that has a huge economic impact on the community and the country at large, but it’s been because of our Government’s investment into these events that this has been able to happen.

Let’s talk about the numbers. The numbers, heading into this summer, are looking strong. There were 145,000 overseas visitors who arrived in the four weeks to the start of November. Over 10,000 working holiday visa holders have now arrived in New Zealand. International card spend is at 88 percent of pre-COVID levels in the four weeks to the end of September. An economic boost is expected from cruise ships that are docking into all ports all around the country, and their expected spend is anything between $350 million to $510 million. That is huge, and we know that around 19 percent of total bed nights booked for 2022-23 are from international visitors.

Finally, to my beloved hospitality industry—the faces of our visitor economy—I’m pleased to see that wages and salaries across the hospitality sector continue to increase, despite businesses having to battle through the tough trading period that was COVID-19. The average hourly wage in hospitality is up $2, to $24.43. Both the minimum wage and the living wage, including the new living wage rate of $23.65—that kicked in from September.

The problem of staff shortages has been addressed with recent changes to immigration so that we can attract capable chefs into kitchens in our restaurants all across Aotearoa, and locally led initiatives like the one that we had in Rotorua, down on Eat Street, where we had businesses come together with our chamber of commerce and come together with the Ministry of Social Development to actually say, “We are open for business. If you need a job, come and sign up.”—actually, there was incredible success that we had from that local initiative.

It is going to be a good summer. Our visitor economy is looking strong and we’re seeing numbers in tourism and hospitality returning to the numbers that we had prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m looking forward to a really good summer on behalf of all of those people that will be staffing up and will be getting ready for a huge summer ahead, not least back home in Rotorua. I hope that over the term of the school holidays and over the time of our Christmas break, actually, our visitor economy does as well as it possibly could. Kia ora.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Firstly, can I just acknowledge the previous speaker Tāmati Coffey’s comments around the amazing mountain biking in Rotorua. As the secretary of the inaugural Rotorua Mountain Bike Club and having spent many, many hours building technical tracks to the Redwoods, I have to say that it is a world-class mountain biking Mecca. I want to acknowledge Tania Tapsell, who’s just become the new Mayor of Rotorua, and, of course, Todd McClay, and I’m looking forward to all of them working together to make Rotorua the world-class tourist destination that it has always been.

What a soup sandwich on the other side of the House today. We saw Duncan Webb get up. He redefined “possum in the headlights” —he didn’t know what was going on. Carmel Sepuloni was rushing round doing some sort of damage control over there—I’m not sure what—but then she got up and, I tell you what, I bet you anything you like, Megan Woods was straight on to her office after Carmel stood up in the House and she gave away their campaign strategy for next year. She said, “The campaign strategy for next year is that we hope that people see through National.” So the strategy is that they hope that people see through National.

I’ve got some bad news for them. Have they heard of the emperor and his clothes, because, I tell you what, I bet you it’s getting very chilly over that side at the moment. People are waking up to just how poor this Government is and how little they’ve actually been able to deliver.

Then we had Kieran McAnulty stand up—Kieran McAnulty. He started talking about Nicola Willis. He referred to her as “her” which, by the way, apparently, is gendered language, because in this House, when I referred to Poto Williams as “her”, I was pulled up by the Speaker—the then Speaker. Mr Speaker, we’re very happy and pleased to see you in the House. You have returned dignity to the Speaker’s seat; there is no doubt about that.

SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into the debate, thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: But I was pulled up for using gendered language, for using the term “her”. But I just had Kieran McAnulty standing in here, the senior whip—oh no, sorry, he’s a Minister now; he’s an Hon—referring our deputy leader as “her”, which is gendered language, and then he finished his speech talking about Nicola Willis, as well. It sounds to me like Nicola Willis has got some rent-free space in Kieran McAnulty’s head.

Talking about rent-free space, what about Grant Robertson at their conference? Instead of standing up and celebrating their fantastic record, he was obsessed on our leader, Christopher Luxon. We lost count of the amount of times that he mentioned Chris Luxon. Chris Luxon appears to be getting rent-free space in Grant Robertson’s head as well.

Then, funnily enough, this morning on the radio, on the Mike Hosking show, which I do on a Wednesday morning—sometimes with Megan Woods, sometimes with Chris Hipkins; it depends on who gets put up—Chris Hipkins, as the Minister of Police, said to me, “I’ve be going all around the country visiting police stations, and all the police officers are sick of you slagging them off to me.” Well, I’ll tell you what, I find it very unusual that the police Minister is going around all the police stations and wanting to talk about me. It appears that I’ve got some rent-free space in Chris Hipkins’ head, as well.

I have to say that I’ve been to every district in the country, visiting our police staff. We never talk about Chris Hipkins and we never talk about what this Government’s doing. For some reason, there’s no appetite for that. Quite simply, I check in on them and I want to know what they need and what they want from us, if we’re successful and we’re lucky enough to be able to return to Government next year.

Finally, I just want to highlight the question that was asked in the House to the Minister today about how many businesses in Hamilton have been helped with ram raids. Sadly, Hamilton would probably be the ram-raid capital of New Zealand at the moment. They’ve got this serious burden of ram raids and youth offending and juvenile offending. Do you know what the answer was from the Minister? After a big, long-winded “Oh, this business has been visited, that business”—two businesses don’t even qualify. Do you know what his answer was to how many businesses have been helped through their $6 million policy that was announced several months ago? The big red zero—none, zip, nada.

So, Mr Hipkins, instead of going round the country and talking to front-line police officers about me, how about you actually get on with your job, you recognise that we’ve got a massive problem in this country with increased violent crime, with youth and juvenile offending going through the roof, and you actually turn your mind to that. You actually turn your mind to what you need to do in terms of serving the people of New Zealand, because you don’t seem to want to get out there and actually speak to them and meet with them. You actually turn your mind to supporting a police service that is under enormous pressure—the thin blue line is stretched to breaking point—and actually looking at what you can do in Government to fix the atrocious policies that you have put in place to create this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our Public Service is world class. New Zealand is lucky to have thousands of talented people working on our behalf every day to make our lives better, safer, healthier, and more prosperous. From the members of the Supreme Court to the clerical assistants in a tiny remote office, these people serve us: the public. They are our trade negotiators, who are respected globally; they’re our diplomats, who do such brilliant job helping Kiwis abroad and representing interests of our small country on the world stage; they are customs officers and Ministry for Primary Industries personnel, who protect our borders and also protect our agricultural industry from threat; they are the labour inspectors, who protect our vulnerable from exploitation; our corrections staff, working so hard in prisons and in courts; our scientists; our food safety specialists; and the people who help us protect our natural environment.

Behind each one of these public servants is a great New Zealander. But these are normal people with normal lives—people who love cricket, surfing, reading, watching Netflix; people based in practically every community around the country, not just in Wellington—and through their work, they make Aotearoa one of the easiest places in the world to do business. They help implement our key policies to address the cost of living challenge like our short-term cost of living payment, the winter energy payment, the extension of our fuel tax cuts, our reduced road-user charges, our half-price public transport, and our recently announced policy to increase the family tax credit to make early childhood education more affordable and more accessible to families.

Our public servants deserve respect. They deserve better than the derogatory language used by the National Party to describe them. National’s deliberate use of the term “bureaucrat” is designed to divide. Just yesterday, I heard Chris Baillie from the ACT Party, Chris Penk from National, and Tim van de Molen use the word “bureaucrat” to describe our public servants, and then, today, in question time, the Leader of the Opposition used the word “bureaucrat” to describe our hard-working public servants. The Prime Minister said in reply to his question that she will not use the term “bureaucrat” to describe the Public Service, and neither will I.

The word “bureaucrat” has a long history. It started off as a translation that was neutral, but now, and quoting from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it has a distinctly negative connotation—a distinctly negative connotation. When the National Party are talking about bureaucrats instead of public servants, they are choosing to speak about them with a distinctly negative connotation, and the National Party know full well what they’re doing. Their words take away the agency and voice and expertise of the Public Service, and help to dim down the public perception of what they do. National has repeatedly used this term for months, and, let me tell you, words matter. Words can bring people together, but they can also divide us, and National has chosen to divide us.

We have seen this playbook before: dehumanise the Public Service, then run it down, and then, with their unfair, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders, they intend, if they are lucky enough to be elected into Government, and I certainly don’t think they will—and I hope that they won’t—they would take an axe to the Public Service. Underfunding meant when that Labour took power, we inherited a mess, but we have made progress on our big problems, not just on COVID, but on child poverty indicators, social housing, and climate change measures. We need a strong Public Service to achieve all of this.

So, on this side of the House, we believe that our public servants should be treated with respect. They are good people, who work hard every day to make New Zealand a better place, and it’s my view that they deserve better than what they’re getting from the Opposition.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, after years and years of fumbling around and spending millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars, Labour has, at long last—along with the Prime Minister—found a way in which they can sell their three waters reform, and they throw this line up wherever they can. They say that rates for Kiwis will skyrocket and that the only way to stop this is Labour’s three waters reforms, so over the next few minutes I’m going to give you a bit of an overview in terms of why this little bit of language is a cynical piece of political spin.

The statement first assumes that the Government’s three waters reforms—which include confiscation of community assets, the introduction of co-governance, and the mandatory centralisation into four mega-entities—is the only reform option on the table, but we know there are many alternative models that exist. Communities 4 Local Democracy, who represent 32 different councils, have tabled an independently reviewed alternative model; the three mayors, only a fortnight ago, have tabled alternative models; a number of councils during the select committee process have tabled alternative models; and we also know that in Hawke’s Bay, the four councils are already operating a council-controlled organisation which is delivering the services, but they are going to have to break that up. The model that they are operating allows them to spend the capital expenditure that this Government believe is required while keeping those assets in local hands, and without raising water prices or council debt limits.

Alongside this, the National Party is working on developing a three waters alternative model, which will achieve infrastructure outcomes without the costs and complexities of this Labour Government’s three waters reform, and yet, the Government continues to ignore it. “Alternative models don’t exist”, they say, which is simply not true. If we pretend for a minute that Labour is right that there aren’t any other options—which, of course, there are—will stopping three waters actually make rates increase? Well, firstly, it’s important to understand the two bottom lines of this Government’s reform process: co-governance and a mega-entity merger into four entities. Having fifty-fifty co-governance will bring more complexity to the governance models of these water entities, slowing down decision making and increasing costs. It is more bureaucracy and is taking away the local voice.

This is a bird’s nest of governance complexity and this will only actually increase the costs, so stopping co-governance will not increase rates. To further prove this, we heard today that $2.1 million was spent on a swanky Freemans Bay office building in Auckland, premium office space which will house consultants, bureaucrats, and advisers all trying to do three waters reform across this country before the second reading of this bill has even come back into the House.

So will stopping centralisation of water entities into four mega-entities actually make rates increase? Well, again, the answer is no. The cost benefits on which this reform are based upon are based on the Scottish water model, and that has been independently peer-reviewed to say that the assumptions that that model uses are materially misstated. Big is not always better, and New Zealand is not Scotland.

The reforms assume that the new mega-entities will be able to make a 62 percent saving in operational costs and a 50 percent saving in capital expenditure costs compared to the status quo. Independent assessment has said that the economies of scale from capital spend are not available as outlined in those assumptions in the New Zealand water services sector, except for minor changes, potentially, in procurement.

The benefits of centralisation assume no loss of headcount, which is normally the way in which you make savings through this type of reform. This Government have a track record of doing reform that doesn’t deliver benefits and increases bureaucracy, and just look at the polytech reform that we’ve all seen.

National will implement a model that will absolutely ensure that water assets stay in local ownership, that will have no co-governance, and that will leverage water quality and economic regulation. That will make the changes that will also support sustainable funding and financing. As we have outlined, the words from the Prime Minister and others say that this is political theatre designed to scare Kiwis into supporting these reforms. A National-led Government will do the right thing alongside our water assets.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa’afetai lava, Mr Speaker. I am so pleased with the recent announcement of a childcare support that will help alleviate some of the pressures on our whānau. The increases to the Working for Families tax credits will give almost 60 percent of New Zealand families that sort of buffer to help receive that and also to focus on other things, and that will definitely support the whānau. I also look at how we’re playing catch-up with how National froze in 2010 indexing the income threshold. So I’m very pleased that that has gone up as well to give that wage growth to over 10,000 additional children estimated to receive that support.

I just want to highlight some of the other measures that this Government has invested in in terms of the Budget, in providing for our health and social services providers for the work that they do on the ground. But before I do that, I just want to thank my medical colleagues whom I met last week who provide GP services across Tāmaki-makau-rau in terms of our Pacific peer group, who are also connected to the Pacific network across Aotearoa in providing COVID-19 support and also, post-COVID, the work that they’re doing and the lessons that they’ve learnt through that space. I just want to say a huge fa’afetai lava to those workers on the ground.

As the chair of the caucus committee for health, social services, and wellbeing, we travelled to Whangārei last week and met up with four providers supporting our whānau on the ground. I just want to say a huge acknowledgment to the local MP, Emily Henderson, for her connections and relationships with those providers in doing the work for our whānau.

We met up with Tokotoko Solutions, and I just want to say a shout-out to our Tokelauan brother Isopo Samu, who’s now a new Tupu Aotearoa provider. I also acknowledge Minister Aupito William Sio and the work of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples for doing that connection with Tokotoko and the work that they do with our youth and the way that they do it in the context in Northland. I’m so proud that they’re doing that work and also learning and getting the feedback in the way that we can improve our services on this end.

Whangarei Youth Space was another provider, and I just want to say a huge thankyou to Dauwie Morgan and their team. They provide that youth one-stop shop, and with the money that has gone in from this Government to support that kaupapa, 3,000 young people a year go through those doors, and 81 percent of rangatahi are Māori. I want to acknowledge the huge work that they do on behalf of their whānau.

Ngāti Hine Health Trust and the mātuas that we met last week and the services and facilities that we witnessed, it was a huge privilege for us—beautiful facilities, and also the work they do with our whānau there. Being the largest Māori provider for Northland is huge, and I just want to say a huge thankyou to them, again, looking at where we placed the money and budget through to our providers, and then the feedback loop and how we can improve our services as well.

Our last provider that we met up with in Whangārei was Fale Pasifika, and, again, I acknowledge Johnny Kumitau and his team for providing services to our Pasifika aiga up in Northland and Te Tai Tokerau. The people that they see who come from the Islands may have language barriers, and the way that they connect with those aiga is huge for them as well. They also engage with youth using the science, technology, engineering, and maths funding from this Government, and I’d like to say that what we heard and the feedback we got from them was that it’s working and it’s providing a way that they can go into training, education, and further employment, just with that engagement with our Pasifika aiga up there.

I look at our Takanini community and the measures that this Government have put in place. We’ve already heard from colleagues about the short-term cost of living payments that have helped many of our whānau, the winter energy payment as well, also the fuel tax cut, and also the half-price public transport for our community services card holders. These are all the different measures that this Government has put in place to help our whānau, and I’m especially pleased because it gets to help our whānau in Takanini who are doing it tough in certain parts of our electorate. So I’m so thankful this Government is a Government for service and delivery, while the other side is only delivering tax cuts for the wealthy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To close up the general debate today, I’d like to shift the House’s attention to an issue that is front of people’s minds in Hamilton, and that is the out-of-control crime wave—especially youth crime and retail crime—that is ruining livelihoods and the reputation of the city. Mayor Paula Southgate has recently said that the situation is “beyond urgent”. Since Labour got into Government, we have seen a 400 percent increase in ram-raid occurrences around the country—an average of 10 a week.

In Waikato, there were 81 ram raids that were counted from May to October. Just a few weekends ago, there were seven businesses, as we would have seen in the media, targeted by ram-raiders in one night—seven in one night—and 29 retail burglaries occurred in the week leading up to it, and I thought I would just show one example of a shop in the Hamilton West electorate. [Holds up photograph] This is an upstanding citizen here who is waving a machete, and he’s smashed his way into the store, smashed through a whole lot of bottles—it’s a bottle shop, obviously—and then chased the retail worker that was there and swung it a few more times, and it, luckily, missed the retail worker. We’ve since learnt that that particular upstanding citizen was arrested in the Chartwell mall, but as to whether or not there are any consequences, we don’t know yet. We haven’t actually been able to find any of that information.

So there are businesses that have been repeatedly targeted by youth criminals. As I said, for one dairy owner in Te Rapa, it was 10 times in a week. It is absolutely out of control. A manager of a jewellery store I spoke with had just finished cleaning up after a smash-and-grab and went to her car in the evening in the car park, and was then the victim of an armed robbery—on the same day. The owner of a sports shop in Victoria Street, after his third ram raid, basically gave up and said, “I can’t do this anymore. We won’t be here next year. This is just too much.”, and I remember one sports shop in Hamilton West had had up to 10 smash-and-grabs.

In question time, I asked about the Retail Crime Prevention Programme. It actually astonished me how much of a fail that has been, and certainly that was the impression I got on the ground talking to business owners who have tried to go through this process. I did expect there to have been—I mean, I couldn’t find one, speaking to owners, but I thought, well, someone must have had something installed through this programme in Hamilton. But, evidently, the answer from the Minister today is it’s zero, which is astonishing. So of 18 stores visited, and that’s assessments done, 16 were determined to be eligible, and there are issues with their eligibility—you know, if you’ve got one business with multiple outlets, they can’t get any attention, because it doesn’t matter how much their revenue is or their profit, they’re considered a large business and, therefore, they won’t get any support.

The Minister, as he responded to my question in question time, said that they won’t consider reimbursing business owners, who have just had to bite the bullet—not literally, luckily—and go and get the funding themselves and go and sort it out privately and get bollards installed, and some have actually done a bit of number eight wire on that. So perhaps the Government wants to have a look at that.

In addition to the rise in thefts, burglaries, stolen vehicles, and ram raids that is destroying my city’s reputation, another issue at the top of everyone’s minds and central to this is: where are the consequences? Ram raids are being carried out by the same hardened group of young people, quite often, who face no consequences. Considered too young for prison, of course, they’re known to escape from youth justice facilities—assuming there’s even enough space for them—and often they are sent home to families where they have a lack of guidance and discipline.

Wraparound support is important, but I think that for repeat youth offenders, wraparound support should also include ankle bracelets, especially if they’re just going to be tagged and released into the community to terrorise business owners and retail staff. We would ask where is the escalation—where is the Government’s escalating response to these youth criminals?—because, at the end of the day, if they’re just going to get tagged and released, then one day they’re going to be 18 and will hit the adult justice system, and then things get real and people will ask why this wasn’t this dealt with and why wasn’t this sorted out.

Hamilton has, sadly, become a ram-raid gravy train that is facilitated by this Government. However, there’s a big opportunity in Hamilton West. It is a staging ground for what is to come next year for this Government, and I’m standing to represent local people and local issues and to be their representative to send their message to the Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 October.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith has six minutes and 13 seconds remaining to speak—OK, Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand here to make a contribution on the second reading of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, Ginny Andersen. She also chairs the Justice Committee, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee that has brought this bill to the House for the second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the work of the officials—the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and Parliamentary Counsel Office—for their contribution also. I’d like to acknowledge the 25 submissions that the select committee received, and the select committee heard from six of them.

Although I was not in the select committee, in reading the information, I am confident that the voices of those submitters are reflected in the report of the select committee. So the Labour Party supports this bill, and it will help protect all New Zealand children from harm. This is especially important—especially with the online platforms’ increasing use amongst our young people. With this opportunity also comes the increased use of the opportunity of harm from others. So, as I said before, Labour supports this bill, and we are committed to protecting children from harm. The Prime Minister refers to New Zealand being the best place to be a child, and that includes every sector of our lives, and this is definitely one which is really important.

As shared by the sponsor, Ginny Andersen, in her first speech, she spoke about the surveys that have been conducted. One survey conducted in partnership with NetSafe and the Ministry for Women on the experiences of teenagers with online risk found that seven in 10 teens surveyed had experienced at least one type of unwanted digital communication in the past. Also, it found that nearly 19 percent of teens surveyed had experienced unwanted digital communication that had a negative impact on their daily lives—most of which involved being contacted by a stranger, by someone they didn’t know. So 19 percent of young people surveyed had been asked to share images that should be private. The bill, therefore, introduced aims to protect all children who are at risk from harm of exploitation through digital communications.

Following the select committee process, the Justice Committee had decided that any new offences should cover digital harm as well as any other type of communication or conduct with a young person that leads to harmful prohibited behaviour. I refer to the experience in Blenheim where there was a teacher who had admitted to sexually abusing two schoolboys and was convicted in the Blenheim District Court for two years and six months in jail for offending. Because there were no offences that covered her grooming the teenage boys and communicating digitally and providing harm, those charges were never laid—because there were no offences at that time. So what this bill does is that it actually makes it an offence to communicate digitally with young people.

In the select committee, as I will cover in my speech, they talked about the inclusion of in-person grooming behaviours. We like to think that we live in a nice, safe country here in Aotearoa, and we like to think that we trust those who are teachers—or, in a case in Whanganui, there was a dance tutor who also had sexually abused young girls and was never charged for grooming. So what this bill does is it actually recognises that those harmful behaviours exist, and the select committee has diligently covered all those points. In reading some of the submissions from the submitters, like I’ve said before, the submitters support this bill. They support this bill, and they acknowledge too the ever-increasing threat of online harm.

One submission spoke about the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children overseas, which records data about referrals from agencies regarding online abuse—a huge, huge number of abuse that has doubled since 2019. Actually, the numbers are huge. In 2021, it was 9,971. And it is ever increasing. I’ve mentioned the case in Blenheim where the teacher was first convicted and charged and the dance teacher in Whanganui who also was not charged for grooming but was convicted of other charges—and the reasons for that—and, as I said before, this bill would make it an offence. And I will go to the notes from the select committee where the select committee recommended replacing clause 4 of the bill with the committee’s proposed clause 4 to insert a new section, section 131AB, into the Act. This section would make it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to communicate by words or have conduct with a person under the age of 16. So the Justice Committee recommended unanimously that the bill be passed, and they recommended all amendments unanimously, replacing two offences with a single offence and including in-person grooming behaviours.

As introduced, the bill focuses on digital harm. The committee heard from a number of submitters, as I have said, who define grooming behaviour as broad strategies to facilitate sexual contact, which happens both online and in person. The committee believed that any new offences should cover digital harm as well as any other type of communication or conduct with a young person that leads to harm or prohibited behaviour. A sexual grooming offence should align with existing offences in the Crimes Act. The bill, as introduced, proposes that section 126A and 126B offences would be inserted in Part 7 of the Act under “Crimes against morality and decency”. As I’ve said before, the committee had considered, in depth, that these proposed offences should be replaced with an offence that closely aligns with existing section 131B of the Crimes Act under “Sexual crimes”. Just a reminder: section 131B is a sexual grooming offence that requires the groomer to meet or attempt to meet the young person. The new offence will similarly capture grooming for sexual conduct but would not require the groomer to meet the young person. So as I’ve said before, the proposed new offence is in section 131AB, and the committee found that much of the behaviour the bill intends to capture would be covered under existing legislation.

I would like to move on to the convictions. A person convicted of an offence under the proposed clause 131AB would be liable to up to three years’ imprisonment. So this would align with penalties for similar existing offences in the Crimes Act and Harmful Digital Communications Act—also, deleting the proposed increased penalty under section 131B.

As I conclude, I want to acknowledge all the victims—young children and young people in New Zealand—who have suffered through trusting adults or communicating with adults or people older than them. In my experiences working as a social worker and as a manager at Oranga Tamariki, I know that these harms continue on through generations, and I want to acknowledge Ginny Andersen’s attempt to make grooming an offence. I want to commend her on that. And, again, my thoughts are with those who have experienced harm through no fault of their own, and I commend that they seek help. It is never too late to seek help—even in adulthood. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki. I think that the last piece of advice she gave was a very good one, and that was: never be afraid to step forward and seek help. I’ll share a personal story of mine, shortly.

But I do want to acknowledge the member Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill as a member’s bill into the House. She’s also the chair of the Justice Committee. She’s done a very good job on this.

Can I thank the other committee members. I am a member of that committee. Like the previous speaker, can I acknowledge and thank our advisers on this bill, because there were some technical parts of it that we actually had to work on and work our way through.

I said I was going to share my own personal experience around not necessarily the grooming but certainly the risks that our young people are exposed to. I’m sure that anyone in this House that has children of their own, or nephews or nieces, has probably had some sort of experience. But mine related to my daughter when she was 15 years old. We live in a golden age, without a doubt, in terms of communication and the ease of communication and all the different social platforms that are available that we can use. But with that, of course, now comes enormous risk, as well.

My story was quite simply about my 15-year-old daughter, whom I’m very close to and raised as a single dad for a good period of time through her lifetime, and I felt that she would always come to me and she’d always feel confident to be able to confide in me. But I started to notice in her all the classic symptoms of when something is going wrong in a young person’s life, and that was a withdrawal. She was a very outgoing and confident young woman and she started to withdraw. Alongside of that was weight loss; she started to lose weight. Of course, like any of us as a parent, I tried everything. I tried to see, if she didn’t want to confide in me, would she confide in my mum or my sisters or other adults in her life that she trusted.

But, anyway, finally, there was a circuit-breaker and she did confide in me. Quite simply, what had been going on is that she had been bullied online by a boy at school, and other kids had joined in. She didn’t know how to deal with it and it had created massive stress and anxiety in her life.

Once I was aware of it, we took steps to try and address it. As hard as we tried to address it through the school, it was actually very difficult. I think that’s another issue, another problem that we have to try and constantly deal with and work out in terms of how we can provide leadership inside our schools so that we can move towards a zero-bullying policy, whereby every child in this country can get out of bed in the morning without having the fear of being bullied at school—whether it be physical bullying, verbal bullying, or bullying online. Look, I couldn’t sort that issue out for my daughter until I actually ended up having to go direct with the parents myself and highlighting the behaviour and encouraging an intervention to ensure that the young man involved understood the harm that we was causing, the inappropriateness of the behaviour that he was engaging in, and to try and get a change in that behaviour.

But the reason why I raise that as an example is because grooming of young people generates the same type of response where, often, they won’t share it. They can be living in the same house with their family members, and the family members will be completely unaware of, actually, what’s going on and the harm that’s being created.

What Ginny’s done is she’s identified the fact that there was no actual legislation or law that was able to deliver with the front end of this offending, which is the grooming. So there are laws that are on the statute book that deal with the actual offending of engaging in an unlawful behaviour or contact with someone under the age of 16, but there’s no legislation that actually deals with the grooming and the actions that are taken leading up to that. So this bill here actually does a very good job of filling that gap and now making it an offence for someone to actually groom a young person online.

The only thing that I would say—and it’s a message that I’ve relayed to my children and tried to teach my children from a very early age—is that if you’re using email or social media, whatever you choose to put out there, once you press the send button, even if you feel that you’ve got a high degree of trust in the source of whoever’s receiving that email or photo or information, or whatever you may be sending, the minute you press the send button, you have lost control of it; you no longer control it. So don’t ever send anything that you aren’t prepared for the whole world to see, because you do not know where that is going to end up—that piece of information, that photo, you don’t know where it is going to end up.

By the way, when I ran my own company, that was actually something that I’d regularly send out to all my employees and my team: a reminder around email protocol. Email is not there to solve problems. Walk out of your office and go down and sit with someone. Email is quite simply a way of sharing information. And, by the way, again, do not press send on any email that you’re not prepared for the whole world to have a look at.

But coming back to the bill, some of these numbers are actually quite sobering, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge you and your past experience as a law enforcement officer and dealing with some of these issues. Seven in 10 teens have experienced at least one type of unwanted digital communication in the past year. So just think about that number. Seven of 10 of our children have experienced some type of unwanted digital communication. Nearly 19 percent of teens experienced an unwanted digital communication that had a negative impact on their daily activities, the most common of which involved being contacted by a stranger. So almost 20 percent of our young people are being contacted intentionally by a stranger, and that’s having a negative impact on them. Nineteen percent of young people have been asked to share nude or nearly nude images of themselves. This is something that I feel really strongly about in terms of communications through the school, through parents, through mentors, through positive role models in our young people’s lives, coming back to the fact: please, double-check and think before deciding to take a photo and share an intimate image, because you never know where that might turn up, or when it might turn up. Just double-check.

The bill seeks to help protect children from harm online and is modelled on recent Australian legislation. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to provide for additional offences relating to persons over the age of 18 using electronic communication, such as a social media platform, to make false representations relating to their age or identity, intending to meet with persons under 16, and to procure or plan to cause harm to persons under 16. It then goes on to say that although—like I said earlier in my contribution—there are laws in place right now that deal with the Act, there weren’t any laws in place to deal with the actual grooming or the actions that were taking place before the Act.

So, look, I’m just very happy to stand and take a call in support of this legislation. I think that, as members of this House, we put a member’s bill in because there’s something that we’re passionate about, we think we can make a genuine, real difference and contribution—in this case, to making our young people safer. I’d just like, again, to acknowledge Ginny Andersen in bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too want to add my voice to the voices of the previous speakers in thanking Ginny Andersen for bringing in this bill, the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. She is the Hutt South MP, who works hard, and I’d like to thank her for her diligent work in bringing this bill to the House. Ginny talked about being inspired as a mum to do this, and the online activity of children today is a nightmare for every single parent in Aotearoa and beyond. Having all of the House of Representatives coming together and doing this is quite commendable, and I’d like to thank all the political parties for agreeing to support this bill.

It’s an open secret that our children spend significant time online, often unsupervised, which means they are exposed to unimaginable harms. There are evil-minded people out there and their sole intention is just to prey on young children and to harm young children, who can’t see bad from the evil.

The recent online harm against children today is rampant, and the social media companies have failed to do anything about it. That’s why we need the proper tools to deal with this evil, and I believe that this legislation is going to achieve that. The bill will help to mitigate these harms against our tamariki. As introduced, it intends to protect children from the harm—primarily focusing on the harm of online grooming, to be specific. It’s good to see that some good work is being done in this space, because, as the previous speaker Mr Mitchell has mentioned, there has been a gap in legislation, and now it’s good to see that something is being done to deal with this phenomenon.

The bill aims to protect children who are at risk from harm—harm that’s caused by exploitation committed through digital communication. The bill also introduces into the Crimes Act a new offence in new section 134AB, in clause 4, of grooming for sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 years, where a person commits an offence if they communicate by words or conduct with a young person and do so with an intention to engage the young person in conduct that would be an offence. The bill also creates a new defence for the offence, which is that before they communicate, they must have reasonably taken steps to find out the young person’s age, and at the time that they communicated they believed on reasonable grounds that the person was over 16 years old.

The Justice Committee have done a good job in terms of hearing from submitters, scrutinising the bill, and eventually making recommendations. The committee unanimously recommended that the bill be passed.

The committee also recommended the following amendments. Initially, the two offences were increasing the penalty for intentionally misleading a young person about their age or identity and subsequently meeting or arranging to meet them—this could have caused up to seven years’ imprisonment—and a person over 18 years old who digitally communicates with the young person intending to cause harm or who is reckless as to whether the young person is harmed or not also could cause imprisonment for five years. The select committee recommended that an offence include all types of communication but need not require the grooming to meet the young person. The committee obviously recommended this—to repeat what is in other legislation because it’s better-aligned with existing legislation, and because the policy intent of this legislation is to protect children from harm. Much of the behaviour covered in this bill is covered by existing legislation, in the Crimes Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. Penalties are less and better match other penalties of this type—up to three years of imprisonment.

The submissions from various organisations defined child-grooming behaviour as broad strategies used to facilitate sexual conduct, and this includes online and in person. Other related information included, obviously, the survey done—this is quite alarming—by the Ministry for Women and NetSafe, which found that seven in 10 people have experienced this one type of unwanted digital communication. Obviously, not all of this resulted in harm or distress. Māori, Pasifika, and other minority children are highly unlikely to report the unwanted digital communication, and this is for quite obvious reasons. Also in the survey, two in 10 young people had experienced unwanted digital communication that had a negative impacts on their lives, probably for the rest of their lives.

The general reports showed that harmful digital communications have increased by 24 percent. This should worry all of us, and we should be doing everything we can to fight this.

Between 2015 to 2020, about 200 people have been convicted—this is according to NetSafe—but NetSafe also said that they have supported about 14,000 victims of harmful digital communications. This is a very, very scary number.

To mention some examples that the media have reported: for example, we can mention the schoolteacher who groomed two 15-year-old boys. It started with a text message and gradually became explicit photos. This eventually culminated in her having sexual intercourse with two boys in a locked car in a public place.

A mother found out that her son was being groomed online by looking at the phone. The 14-year-old had an Instagram account to, obviously, keep in contact with gaming friends, which is quite innocent. Messages from a random girl of apparently the same age, or claiming to be the same age, who had the same interests quickly became explicit.

I want to acknowledge everyone who contributed to this bill. Obviously, there are the submitters—the 25 people who submitted, who were interested and took time to submit on this bill, and six of them submitted in person—the select committee members, the clerks, and everyone else who contributed to bringing this bill in front of the House. But my specific acknowledgment is to Ginny Andersen, who not a long time ago brought another significant bill in front of this House, which was the miscarriage bereavement leave bill and which was passed by this House. Ginny, as the mother of young children, has done a good job. It took interest and it took time in putting this together—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Omer, can we just use surnames, please, just for the dignity of the House. You’ve several times gone to first names—so just full names, please. It just maintains the dignity of the House.

IBRAHIM OMER: Thank you. I apologise, Mr Speaker. Ms Andersen has worked diligently to bring this piece of legislation in front of this House. My acknowledgment, again, is to all the House in coming together to support this bill, because this is not any bill; this is a bill that deals with the issue that affects our most vulnerable—our kids—at a time when social media and smartphones have changed everything.

I’d like to say how similar this phenomena is: leaving your child to use social media unsupervised is like dropping a piece of meat in a river and expecting the crocodiles not to eat it. So I hope that every parent pays attention, but I hope also that this legislation gives every parent here in Aotearoa and beyond peace of mind, because this will deal with the issue that we are dealing with. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise and, to begin, would like to congratulate my friend and the chair of our Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen, for having her bill, the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill, drawn from the ballot and progressed in this way—it seems with consensus across the House at this reading, as well as at its first reading.

This is a bill that creates two new offences, as others have said, to try and capture the types of activities that, for years in the courts, we’ve described as “grooming”—communications that are intended to mislead a young person about the offender’s age and subsequent meetings and arrangements with the young person with the aim of, and the result of, sexual abuse. When I practised law, we did have an understanding—those of us who worked at that front line of the justice system, and all of the service providers and people entrusted with the work of dealing with sexual abuse of young people—that grooming is a really big part of that. All of these types of activities, whether it was by text message, whether it was in person, and increasingly in online spaces, are complex and often far more hidden than what parents, supervisors, and others might have access to. It existed, for example, as part of a trial to show that the offending had taken place, and by that point we’re talking about far more serious offending. It existed at the sentencing stage, as an aggravating factor. It, again, showed the lengths that the offender had gone to, to facilitate their offending, and the premeditated nature of the offending that would have eventuated in each case. Again, by that point, we’re talking about far more serious offending and assault and rapes and other types of sexual exploitation of young people.

It wasn’t quite adequate to say that we’re capturing it at that point, because, of course, it meant that we didn’t have a way of capturing this type of activity as harmful in itself, and we didn’t have a way of capturing or intervening with an offender at that point, including in terms of rehabilitation, but in particular in terms of keeping young people safe from the much more serious offending. So this makes sense, but it increasingly makes sense in the context of the lives that young people now lead, almost as much online as not, and in terms of the ways that they are increasingly vulnerable to sexual exploitation in those online spaces, with all of the different pressures to share their information, to share images, to appease their peers—and, when I say their peers, I mean obviously including the type of person who may not in fact be their peer but is online, passing as what a person under the age of 16 might see as part of their community. That’s where the harm comes in, and that’s where the vulnerability comes in, and all of those pressures needs to be captured by our justice system.

I do want to just say, though, that what we know about any kind of activity—in particular, the type of activity that aims to victimise and marginalise a vulnerable community—is that criminalisation in and of itself isn’t enough. So what I would hope is that we will continue to do the work—and I know that we have, for the first time ever, in this Government, a Minister for domestic and sexual violence, the Hon Marama Davidson—of capturing that community support, empowering the service providers and the people who have been doing this work of keeping our different communities, in particular young people. But, again, young people across different communities have different vulnerabilities, have different support systems, and have different mechanisms that we as a Government and Parliament need to resource, highlight, amplify, and support in order to ensure that young people are safe.

Criminalisation has its place in terms of the type of offending that this bill captures, but, for example, I would notice, again with dismay, that New Zealand still doesn’t have standardised courses in school that include consent education, or sex education at all. Our sex education that we provide in schools is not standardised. That’s a failure of successive Governments, and it persists. So we have different community groups come into schools and provide it, but we have no idea what standard is being provided, what information is being provided, whether or not it captures the needs of young rainbow community members, whether it resonates with our young migrant background communities, or Māori, or whether it even includes issues of online sexual exploitation. In particular, it doesn’t include consent, and that is a huge gap.

So we’re talking about protecting young people in online spaces against predatory behaviour, but we haven’t necessarily empowered them to know what that looks like and what they can do when faced with it. So resourcing that education in an inclusive and accessible way would also work, to do the work of this bill. But we also know increasingly that people become isolated in online spaces, including young people, and again young people are impacted in different ways depending on their background, depending on the other aspects of their community. Whether it’s lower socio-economic background, whether it’s children, whether it’s Māori, whether it’s migrant communities, whether it’s religious minorities, we know that they become isolated and have different needs and have different means. When this House came together and I had the privilege of working with women across this House to sponsor a bill on female genital mutilation, we were moved to do that by members of the communities that are actually impacted by that kind of harm. So we know that that type of empowering action—that culture—exists within all of our communities, and we can empower those voices and those communities and those young people by resourcing and bringing their voices into this House and keeping their work going in their communities, as part of this work.

This is a good bill; I do commend it to the House. I would just say, on behalf of the Green Party, that there is much more we can do beyond formal criminalisation.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Fa‘afetai lava, Mr Speaker. As always, it’s a privilege and an honour to take a call in this House of change, especially on members’ day and on this, the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill.

If I can first—she’s not here in the House—congratulate my colleague and my friend Ginny Andersen on bringing this bill to the House and passionately shepherding this kaupapa through. I know Ginny Andersen feels very passionately about this bill and its kaupapa, to protect our tamariki and our rangatahi not only because that’s what we do on this side of the House—the Labour Government want to protect our babies—but also as a mother. Myself as well, as a mother of three, we know not only wanting to protect our kids but the challenges of parenting young tamariki in this day and age.

I know many before me have said it’s always more challenging—every era—to parent your children. But I must say with the internet, what’s available to them, it is really scary. Before the internet, you had a little bit more control, I guess. If your kids were doing anything naughty—not that I did, mum and dad, just to make that clear—you had the neighbours down the road, you knew more or less where your kids were at; you did have that community feel.

Well now, with the internet, that community is much broader, it includes all kinds of overseas groups that, as a parent, makes you so nervous. At the same time, online is the way of the world. So of course, you want to be able to support—and I know Ginny’s the same—our children online, but safely as this bill talks about.

So that is the conundrum and like I said, our kids—and actually, society—spend massive amounts of time online, our children, especially, for entertainment, education, and socialising. So parenting and keeping your children safe while they are online is a real challenge in this day and age.

That is why this bill is great. It will help keep our kids safe from harm online, and it is super important. Unfortunately, there are many stories of our young people with the grooming online, being bullied online. And we know that, unfortunately, there are many predators out there—and again, as a mum it freaks me out, just being really honest—whose sole purpose is to dupe, sexually exploit, and bully our children online.

So, like many, unfortunately, we are all too often hearing of those stories and I also happen to know of someone who was quite close to my family—a young Māori, Pacific, and at the time she was 12, beautiful young girl who was navigating all of that: what it meant to be a young woman; what it meant to be a 12-year-old, a tween; what it meant to be Māori; what it meant to be Pasifika; and what that meant for her and her family’s life; what that meant for her and her friends’ life; but also what that meant for her on her online world, as I call it.

While she was working all of this out, she met a friend online—and this was about a six-month period. So she met a friend online, was speaking to this friend, quite quickly that became her boyfriend, they were sharing photos, and quite quickly they started sharing more than photos of just them hanging out. He was able to convince this beautiful young girl to share photos of her in her undergarments, and then unfortunately he convinced this young girl to share more than just that and baring a bit more than that.

I heard across the House, as Mr Mark Mitchell was talking about, once those photos are online, that’s it; they’re there forever. Like I said, this young girl was really swept up and had this beautiful young boyfriend online and was really willing to do whatever it took to hang in there and carry on with this young man.

So during this time, I just want to make it really clear that her whānau were doing the right thing, so far as the internet goes. They were spot checking her social media, they had passwords; so doing all the NetSafe recommendations of young people being online. They were checking all of her social media—or what they thought was her social media—and the passwords to all of what they thought was her only social media.

But as I say, in that six months, this young boy had groomed her so much that she had another social media account that her family didn’t know about, and that was where she was sharing a lot of those photos as well. Of course, unfortunately, there was some really sexual language that went along with that as well. And I just want to remind the House: this was a young 12-year-old girl.

She trusted everything that this young man—or young boy—had said to her online. And when her family started to notice that she was isolating herself straight after school, she’d lock yourself in the bedroom, wouldn’t want to come out to family gatherings, didn’t want to do anything in the weekend, they were getting more and more concerned.

Again, she had that secret social media account. Without knowing what was happening, they started to limit her time online. What that did was: this girl was so under the control of this young boy—she’d been groomed that much—that she started to steal phones. She stole phones of her family and she stole phones from school—anything to get online to talk to her young boyfriend.

It got to the point where this young girl started to access online at school, and so that is when NetSafe had gotten involved—because it was the school system—and the school system was shut down. That was over a period of six months that this person was able to come in and groom this young, beautiful 12-year-old girl.

Once NetSafe came in, a detective spoke with this young 12-year-old girl. Even after they said to her that the boy wasn’t a boy—he was in his fifties, he lived over in America, he now had these photos of this young girl forever, all of that—she was still convinced that they were lying to her and that her beautiful young boyfriend—you know.

So that took some time. Again, as a parent, the mental—and actually the physical, because you become unwell on that—the physical abuse was really far-reaching in just the six-month period. That young girl is now 15 and only just starting to come right from that.

Again, that’s another example of how important it is for kaupapa or bills like this. I know I keep banging on about being a mum of young kids; we want to make sure that they can go online. That is the online world, we want them to be educated, we want them to be connected, but we want them to be safe. And that is what this bill does.

Just in my last couple of minutes, while that was an example of someone overseas, we know that we have, unfortunately, many examples here in Aotearoa New Zealand. And unfortunately, they are rising. So many of them are these similar situations that I just described.

This bill will, in real life, be able to deal to some of those who are out there grooming and they will be able to be charged with a crime of digital online grooming and abuse. Just going to the bill, one of the things this bill will do is: if a person’s first offence is the digital communications for a person under 16 with intent to mislead—which means that someone who is 18 years or older, who digitally communicates with someone who is under 16 with the intent to mislead them about their age or identity, and then meets or wants to arrange a meet with them—the person can now be imprisoned.

We want to prevent that from ever happening, but if that does, we know that this bill will make sure that they know—us parents know—that we’re taking this seriously, that digital harm or digital abuse and grooming is a real thing, that we won’t tolerate that here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a great piece of legislation; awesome member’s bill. Again, I just want to congratulate Ginny Andersen, say thank you to her not only as a colleague and a friend but as a mum of young children as well. I really look forward to watching what happens with this going through select committee. Kia ora.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill at this, the second reading. We support the bill and the amendments that have been made at select committee, and I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the officials that have done a lot of work on this bill. It was a complicated bill, and not only did we have to rearrange it but we had to understand it and its flow-on effects with other pieces of legislation. So in that respect I’d like to acknowledge Chelly, from the officials, and I won’t give her full name but she did a really good job there helping us to understand the changes that did not occur and the changes that did occur.

I also would like to acknowledge the submitters that came to select committee: 25 gave written submissions and six came in for oral submissions. I’d also like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. We’ve worked well together on this piece of legislation, and it’s pleasing to be able to come to the House where we all support a good bill as it passes through. Finally, I’d like to acknowledge Ginny Andersen, who brought this bill to the House. She said she did this as a mother; she did this for all mothers. She did it for all grandmothers, for all the women out there—and the men—who have children who are being affected by what’s occurring now in this digital age. We’ve heard personal stories from across the House about how young ones in the lives of our members here have been affected by digital communications, by people who pretend to be someone that they’re not. What I’ve picked up in just the few speeches that we’ve heard tonight is there are signs there for parents to look out for, and they’re common signs; when your child starts to become reclusive, when they start to lose weight, when they don’t stop looking at their phones and in fact start stealing them from others—these are standard signs that we as parents and grandparents can pick up on to make sure we can protect our youth, our rangatahi, as they move forward in what is becoming a very digital world.

I’ll get to the bill now. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1961, so it will protect children who are at risk of harm from exploitation through digital communications. When presented at first reading, the bill was set to introduce two new offences. Both were to protect under-16-year-olds from sexual exploitation and grooming. The first proposed offence was if someone over 18 years old who communicated with an under-16-year-old by digital communication—so that just means communicating by text message or through social media, as an example—so that they are intentionally misleading the young person as to the older person’s age or identity, and then arranging to meet with them, that would have made that an offence.

The second offence was for someone over 18 years old to communicate with someone under 16 years old by, again, digital communication, with, again, the intention of causing harm to or being reckless as to whether or not that person is being harmed. I’m reminded here about a case we heard during the harmful digital communications bill recently, where a parent sent their own child sexually explicit photographs of the other parent in order to harm that other parent. The result was that the child was the one that was harmed, and should never have been sent such messages.

This bill also sought to increase the penalty for an existing offence in the Crimes Act whereby the author of the bill wished to increase, from seven years to 10 years, the penalty that relates to actually meeting up with a young person following digital sexual grooming. After hearing from officials and submitters during the select committee process, the bill was changed to replace those two first offences with just one offence, and the proposed increase in penalty from seven years to 10 years was dropped because it didn’t align with the existing penalties for similar offences that are already in the Crimes Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act. So as a select committee—with advice from officials and after hearing from submitters—we agreed to change the two offences by making concerns coverable by one offence, which is new section 131AB, which is headed up “Grooming for sexual conduct with a young person”.

The changes we made will mean that if a person is aged over 18 years and they communicate by words or conduct with a person who is under the age of 16 and they have the intent of engaging them in or being part of conduct that is explicitly outlawed within the Crimes Act, then they can be prosecuted. So it’s taking the best of those two proposed first offences and placing them into one.

Those crimes, already explicitly outlawed, refer to certain clauses detailed in section 98AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, and include dealing with a person for the purpose of sexual exploitation where selling, buying, transferring, bartering, renting, or hiring a person for that purpose; also where a person is detained, confined, imprisoned or kidnapped; and where a person is removed, received, transported, imported, or brought to a place for sexual exploitation; and where a person is induced to sell, rent, or give themselves for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This added clause makes it clear that a potential victim does not need to have responded to any of the grooming attempts, they just needed to be a participant in it.

For those with concerns about knowing the age of a person they may be interacting with, there is a defence to this new clause and that is that the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the young person and they believed, on reasonable grounds, that the young person was over the age of 16. A former police officer told me the story of a case some 20 years ago where a 33-year-old male who called himself a photographer advertised in the paper for young models. With promises of fame, he arranged for photo shoots with many of these young girls in a dirty garage. Only one girl complained, but many lives were affected by that one person. The same police officer told me of another story about how a 26-year-old chef was dismissed after it was found that he had been text messaging a 14-year-old girl. Thankfully, that was stopped before anything major happened.

These are the stories of near misses, and we don’t get to hear of all the ones that we could not stop. This bill will make a difference to the lives of our youth, and gives consequence to those who take advantage of them. In that respect, ACT thanks Ginny Andersen, again, for bringing such a good bill to the House and for getting cross-party support for something that will help all parents in this country feel safer for their children. On that basis, ACT commends this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): As a member of the Justice Committee and as a backbench MP—actually, let me just start, as a backbench MP, by expressing my deep admiration and envy for the luck of my colleague and friend, and chair, Ms Ginny Andersen. Luckily, the bills she draws are exceptionally worthwhile, otherwise one would really be wanting to spike her on the way to the ballot box.

But, leaving that personal—and yet, deeply felt—moment aside; Ginny, we don’t hate you, but do it again and you’re in trouble! Apologies, Mr Speaker. This is a really important piece of legislation, and having worked with Ms Andersen—I believe when she was in the process of formulating this bill or thinking about it; actually, I think it had been around for a while. But in the process of thinking about it through the Harmful Digital Communications Act that we worked on, the amendments to that, with Louisa Wall; this topic of grooming and the misuse of the digital space to exploit, particularly, young women, but also young people and particularly young people from the rainbow community came up again and again and again, and it affected all of us quite deeply.

So it is a real pleasure to stand here, as a member of the committee that was able to then work on this bill with Ginny. And I think it does talk—as Ms Ghahraman said—to the Government’s wholly new steely determination to deal to sexual and family violence; not to wring our hands or to engage in mere talk, but to actually roll up our sleeves and settle into trying to change something that is deeply rooted in a toxic attitude to sexuality. Unfortunately, it’s a toxic attitude towards masculinity that has infected so much of our culture, to the detriment of so many of our young women, but to the detriment of so many of our men. I think when we talk about sexual offending, we need to recognise that. Sexual offending comes from many places and I think this is important to recognise when we look at why it is important to have what is really a kind of a precursor, or an add-on offence.

We have the big ones, right? We have rape, we have sexual exploitation, we even have arranging to meet and meeting a young person with the purpose of committing a sex offence. Why is it important to go back and take a look at the precursor behaviours? The reason is because they are so insidious, and they are so deeply rooted in the culture of toxicity towards sexuality—and the sense of entitlement that lies behind it—that we really, really do need to take these multiple steps. And I really commend and admire the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Marama Davidson, for what she is doing to try and craft a whole-of-society response, and we on this side of the House are wholly behind our Minister there in the work she is doing.

Let’s think about grooming. Grooming is the act, as has been said by many of my colleagues—the process of trying to convince a person to engage in sexual conduct. And if you spend any length of time in the criminal courts—or indeed the family courts—working with sexual offending, it becomes extremely familiar to you, because it is so common as a tactic.

So it starts small. First, the person attempts to inveigle themselves into the lives of a likely victim. And let’s make no bones about it; these people do actually seek out, deliberately. They deliberately seek out vulnerable children, often those who they know have been abused previously, compliant children, isolated children—and they befriend. They befriend the parents first, then they befriend the child. Touching, innocent touches, normal touching, such as any child should be able to accept from an adult, an arm around the shoulders, gradually progresses. And it is normalised, and it is normalised, and it is normalised, and then the sexual touching begins, and the sexual talk. And before you know it, the poor child—as in the example of my colleague, Teresa Ngobi—may even believe that they welcome the advance, they may even believe they are in control of the relationship; they are entangled and enmeshed and it is all downhill from there. And unfortunately, we have multiple examples of that happening.

It is a deeply deliberate behaviour by sex offenders. Now, I’m not going to say in all sex offenders, because I think there is quite a lot of evidence about sex offending that says some of it is about, often, men—usually men—who have not themselves got good boundaries around what is sexual touching and what is affectionate touching. And we all need affectionate touching, but where you’re told that the only touching that is appropriate if you are a man is sexualised touching, then we have a recipe for disaster. But for many of them, that is a deliberate act. And that is why I think that what Ginny Andersen is doing here is so relevant. This is an offence that targets people when they start to communicate and they start that very common grooming process. Kudos to Ms Andersen—when she saw the whole situation and she got the submissions back, she did not limit it to digital, which was her initial intention; she moved it wider to all forms of grooming, because it is often a mixture. It is often a mixture. It is subtle. It can take months. It can take years. We need an offence that captures it all.

But the particular reason that I am wholeheartedly in favour of something where it might seem like a small tag-on—and as an ex-prosecutor, I suspect that this will be what will happen. We’ll have the actual offence of assault on a child under 12, sexual assault on a 12-year-old—and then we will tag on to it the offence of grooming. And that will be where Ms Andersen’s section stands; it will be a tag-on. It is relevant, though, because it does something that I often criticise the Nats for wanting to do futilely. I think this is one of the very few times I have seen, in my vast career in this House—it is one of the very few times I have seen a piece of legislation that aims at deterrence and might actually get there.

I’ve many times said deterrence is a fool’s errand, because most offending happens in the spur of the moment. It’s done by people who are being stupid, and stupid people are rarely amenable to reason. And the exceptions to that are white collar crime—there’s an offence that actually can be deterred, because most of those people are thinking long and hard about what they do—but the other possibility is sexual offending, because a lot of sexual offending is actually premeditated over months and years. And these men know what they’re doing. They may even target multiple children at the same time. That is why this is such a great thing to do.

I actually have some hope that when this passes, as I hope it will, this offence, properly publicised, will actually put the fear of God into sexual predators. Those sexual predators who are currently looking for their next victim or set of victims to offend against, my hope is that for those people this will actually put a little kink in the sails, and they may in fact pull away from doing this, because if there is a record of the contact that they are trying to make with their would-be victims, then it should be reasonably easy to get them on that. And my hope is that by doing that, another small chink in the armour of sexual offending falls away, and we can shine light into a very dark, dangerous, and sad place for so many of our children and our young women.

So on that note, I really do want to commend Ms Andersen. It was a pleasure to work on the bill, it was a pleasure to see her pivot, as she did, to this inclusive and more useful form, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Joseph Mooney for five minutes.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in respect of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I commend Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill before the House and guiding it through to this point in time.

This bill has had a little bit of a journey through the Justice Committee and we now have new section 131AB—in clause 4—inserted into the Crimes Act. There is currently a section 131B in the Crimes Act, which is a sexual grooming offence that requires the groomer to meet or attempt to meet the young person. The new offence, new section 131AB, would similarly capture grooming for sexual conduct but would not require the groomer to meet the young person.

Under this bill, a person aged 18 years or over will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years if they communicate by words or conduct with a person under the age of 16 years and they do so intending to facilitate the young person engaging in or being involved in conduct that would be an offence against this part. It includes Part 7 of the Crimes Act, relating to “Crimes against morality and decency, sexual crimes, and crimes against public welfare” and paragraphs of section 98AA of the Act, relating to sexual exploitation of a young person.

National supports this bill which draws on an example of recent Australian legislation to protect children and young people across New Zealand for those who look to do them harm. Its journey has been focused on trying to address the issue of children being contacted by online groomers, although I note that it’s not limited just to that now, the way it is phrased.

Our kids certainly are becoming more connected and engaged with technology than ever before. Unfortunately, that does mean there are also predators online who take advantage of those tools, and there need to be rules in place to capture the people who would do harm to our children. While social media has given our kids many positives—such as the ability to make new friends and learn remotely and play games online, etc.—it has also opened doors, unfortunately, for people with bad intentions to prey on young people. A NetSafe and Ministry for Women survey revealed that seven in every 10 teens have experienced some form of unwanted digital communication over the last year, and nearly 19 percent of teens had experienced unwanted digital communication which negatively impacted them.

So online predators, unfortunately, do have the ability to target children through tools available online. This is a small but important little change that will make it easier to hold people to account who try to prey on our young people. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I stand here this afternoon actually wearing my inclusive rainbow pin on my suit. This represents not only our pride community, but as we become far more inclusive as a community, this pin also ensures that that pride is a broad, broad church—there is the transgender community, there are people of colour who are queer, there’s our intersex community, and the list goes on. As I read this legislation and looked at what it does and who it aims to protect, I could only look at it from an inclusive rainbow lens.

I am someone who comes from this community. I know, thankfully not for myself and my age in life—I didn’t have the challenges that exist today when it comes to this online existence and this online world. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but I’m grateful to Ginny Andersen for bringing this to the House and taking it through. I’m grateful for all members of Parliament and all parties for supporting this this afternoon as it’s being ushered through the House.

It’s so important, because for me and my experience and as a member of the rainbow whānau, so often—so often—things have been done in secret, and we’ve heard stories of that this afternoon, of people who have had secret accounts or a 12-year-old girl that’s got herself into a situation. But within our rainbow whānau, I know that the secrets are often because you might feel shame. You might be afraid. You might wonder if you’re going to be rejected or cast out of your own whānau and your friend groups. So, often, living in the shadows has been something that my community has experienced and has lived in.

So as I look at this legislation and think of young people, of teenagers, of children in our rainbow communities around Aotearoa, I think not only is there the challenge of them discovering themselves, becoming affirming in who they are and who loves them and who they can love, I also think they have this added extra thrown on top of it when it comes to this online world. I do often wonder if, in a decade’s time, we’re going to look back and think, “What the heck was that experiment we were playing in terms of social media and this online world?” There is an ability to be so connected, and yet the World Health Organization talks about the epidemic by the year 2030 of loneliness around the globe that gets greater and greater, the disconnection, even though we’re so connected.

The Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill goes some way to protecting our young people, to protect our children. It’s about protecting their wellbeing. It’s around protecting their innocence. It’s around protecting their childhood. I know that all generations have had their crosses to bear and their experiences to get through, but I think it seems so much more heightened in the 21st century, when in your pocket is a device that gives you access to the world, in your pocket is a device that means you can connect with people not only in your own street or in your own school but on the other side of the world. But it doesn’t protect you. This device doesn’t protect you from online predators, from people grooming, from people who create fake profiles. So I look forward to us moving quickly through so we can pass this into law, so we can make sure that the predators out there, those out there grooming, don’t maintain power and don’t maintain the secrecy that the online world often brings. For the rainbow whānau, for my community, I support this legislation because I know it’s one part of the shadows that we’ve often had to hide in that we need not hide in any more. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): As has been offered by all, it sounds like, across the House, we’re supporting this, the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. Of course, it’s just returned from the Justice Committee and it’s important to acknowledge the member sponsoring this bill, Ginny Andersen. It’s been my observation sitting on that committee that not only she has to balance the chairship but obviously her personal views on this and she’s done that very positively and also demonstrated, I think, the passion behind this.

It ended up as quite a discussion of how to make this work. I think it’s fair to say the committee was in agreeance that this should go forward; it was just a matter of how to make it happen. And so, without taking away from the intention, which was excellent, a lot of work was undertaken particularly by advisers to give us a way through. Fundamentally, what started as two proposed provisions has now seen the select committee in effect trying to tie this amendment bill back to existing laws.

Joseph Mooney, who resumed his seat earlier, noted that one of the critical points in this is making it clear that those who are involved in grooming of young people—so under the age of 18. Actually, I should make the distinction. To be quite clear: those over 18 involved with grooming those under 16—the grooming itself is an offence. The meeting is not a necessary requirement any more. I think that’s quite critical as obviously it’s what this bill’s trying to achieve, but the other thing is, of course, we don’t want these people meeting the under-16-year-olds. It was one of the very quick discussions because we were all, I think if memory serves me right, in agreeance—the idea that one would have to just wait for the groomer to go and meet this young person to trip the current law just seemed wrong and inappropriate. So it’s good that that is there.

There’s been talk about the penalties that are in play. These are now more aligned to equivalent offences, I think, rightly. The initial presentation of this law had much higher fines and I think even the suggestion of seven years in prison. That’s been dialled back and I think it’s important for those in the public to understand this is not the Parliament at this point suggesting we should be soft on these forms of crimes but more that we want to align the penalties with what already exists.

So it’s a good bill. I think it’s actually a really positive example of a good member’s bill. There’s a lot of stuff that comes through—by all parties, I’d better add—that can be seen as superfluous. This one is not. But it’s also a very good example of a very good intention, which has, if you will, shown the best qualities of a select committee, their advisers, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and others to actually bring about some workable aspects.

My final thought, though, is—well, I think it’s complementary to what others have said. Look, ultimately, this is sort of not quite ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, but it’s trying to stop something which is already in train. And the only thought I’d give this House is that when we come to think about who we are as humans, our relationships, our families, sexual relationships and others, that needs to be grounded in values and ethics and morals. Now, there’s not one moral or ethical code, but that needs to be grounded in some sort of values.

The more modern view, and we’ve heard it from some speakers much earlier who are wanting to reduce relationships to, effectively, transactions that can be taught, consented to—you know, attend a few classes in school and all will be well. That has failed, dismally failed, over many, many years. So if we want to continue to address child exploitation, family violence, and the like, it’s certainly my view that we need to return, as I say, to a view of family and relationships that’s based on a value system and not simply on transaction.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is an unexpected call to be given—to speak the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill—but a good surprise and one that I’m pleased to speak on.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Ginny Andersen. This, as we’ve heard for the last few hours, has been an excellent piece of work lead by herself and the Justice Committee, which she chairs. I had the fortune of working with Ginny in the New Zealand Police service well over a decade ago now. We worked on many things, but one of Ginny’s great skills was to work on policy and to get things right and to look at the detail. This comes as no surprise to me, knowing Ginny like I do.

It’s also been noted that it’s come with the full support of the House, so I really want to say congratulations. That must be rare for the select committee—common on select committees that I’m on, in terms of the Māori Affairs Committee, for example—but I think it’s good if we can reach this point. Well done to members from across the House. We’ve heard that the advisers were great too in terms of getting those technical aspects worked through.

Ginny was inspired by her children and, I guess, the potential harm. I know that many MPs will have stories from their constituents, from their family lives, and I’m no different. I’m father to a seven-year-old, and his knowledge of the device is impeccable—better than mine. He will know how to change the password very soon, but I don’t want him to get to that just yet. Like many other parents of young people, young children, it’s what they’re connecting to which is of concern. I hear many noises and all sorts coming out of that little iPad and the Nintendo Switch, and so I regularly check when I’m home, or on the weekends, and think, what is going on here? “It looks innocent, but how would I know?”, I sometimes say.

What I do know, and what’s been said by others, is that we are in the digital age and we are having to bring ourselves to confront digital communication. For some of us, it’s a bit more difficult than others. It’s been interesting. I’ve been attending prize-givings across the electorate lately, those that I can get to, and it’s of no surprise that this has come up. When I was interviewing for my Youth MP this year, this very question came up—how do we manage, I guess, the child exploitation and the abuse online at that very young age and grooming resulting in sexual abuse, and what is the mechanism for containing this? This bill goes a long, long way to doing this.

The last speaker raised a good point from one aspect, and that is he mentioned the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. I more like to refer to this as there’s a challenge there now to communicate this bill to the very people who can make the difference and to paint the consequences early, to let people know that this is the law, this is what is unacceptable, and this is what you can do about it if you are going through this and you are experiencing this, but as we’ve heard, you may not know or you may have an inner belief that everything is absolutely OK until you reach a time when it is not.

I was reading an article from the Wanganui Chronicle. I just went through some of the quotes, and some of those had things like, “‘I had eventually worked out just what happened to me.’ ‘I had been heavily groomed and brainwashed. I didn’t understand that it was sexual abuse—in my mind, it was a “relationship”.’ Looking back, she can see how easily she fell into it.” In this particular story it mentions “following the dream”. When I just had a brief look at some of these examples, I thought, too often we can be consumed into “the dream”. I know that looking at this bill, it will go some way to ensuring that we protect New Zealand children from that harm.

The other interesting aspect was mention of a survey in partnership between NetSafe and the Ministry for Women of the experiences from teenagers with online risk. It talked about, as a previous speaker has said, nearly 19 percent of teens surveyed experienced an unwanted digital communication. I think it’s probably more than that, because a couple of the words I had come to write down as I was preparing for this was the “stigma” and the “shame”. I really hope that this bill goes some way to addressing the stigma and shame of this and the inability to articulate what is happening and to tell those who are close to you. Interesting, again, in this article, again, it talks about, “There were times when I really wanted to share it with my best friend, but I told no one.”

So there’s proof there, from several stories that these issues come with the stigma, come with the shame and so it’s vital that that communication of this member’s bill is articulated at the right people. That’s, of course, parents but also those—I mean, maybe it’s an online messaging campaign. If NetSafe have worked with the Ministry for Women, maybe that’s a good place to start in terms of saying that once this has been adopted, then the communication plan for this is just as vital. I think that’s what the previous speaker was saying.

I know too there has been previous talk already that the select committee had replaced the two offences with one single one. I think that’s a great idea. That’s the value of having a select committee look at this and undertaking a process where, I think the number was 25, people submitted. I know that there would have been more. I know that when I talked to others about what the member Ginny Andersen was working on, I always got the “Oh, I would have submitted on that, too.” Six came in, I think—yep, six—and good on them. As I’ve said, I’ve talked about the stigma and shame; I think it’s great that people have, I guess, the guts to say that this is so important I’m going to come in and talk about it.

There is much more I would like to say, but what has been said has been said by my colleagues from across the House. I want to reiterate the great work and support of those who have supported the member Ginny Andersen in making sure that this bill is robust, that it’s relevant, and that it has the necessary impact to make the change for those little people of society and in our lives. I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move, That the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Today is a pretty happy day for women in Parliament. Today, we are celebrating having achieved 50 percent women in this House of Representatives. It has been a long time coming—women in New Zealand first fought for and gained the vote way back in 1893. We were one of the very first self-governing entities in the world to ensure that women had the vote. But it took until October 1919 before women were allowed to stand for Parliament. So it took quite a bit longer before we even had the right to be on the floor of this House. Then, from there on, the first woman MP was only elected in 1933: Elizabeth McCombs for Labour. From then on, there was only a handful of women in the House. In fact, it took until 1981 before more than 10 percent of the House was female. It waivered and waned a bit over the years. When MMP came in, we got more women in the House. By 1996, the House was 35 percent women. We had our first woman Prime Minister in 1997, the second in 1999, and the third in 2017. But in terms of getting to 50 percent women in the House, it has only happened in the last few weeks. At the 2020 election, 58 women were elected; not quite there, we need 60 women to have half of the House. But with the way that MMP operates, in that people come and go during a term of a Government, we have finally reached the stage where there are 60 women in this House—50 percent of this House is female. I salute, in particular, my own party and the Green Party for the heavy lifting they’ve done on this. It has taken a long time for this big achievement, step by step by step, and there is still so much more to do; in fact, that is the case with all sorts of issues that concern women. Today, this bill, the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, takes another one of those small steps for women. It is a bill which makes a small improvement but it has large implications.

The basic proposition of this bill—and it has come back from the Education and Workforce Committee with this basic proposition untouched—is of extending the time during which a person may take a personal grievance for reasons of sexual harassment. As the law stands at the moment, if a person has experienced sexual harassment, and, because of that, they wish to take a personal grievance, they can raise that matter within 90 days of the last instance occurring of sexual harassment. That’s not very long. It’s not very long for a number of reasons that I will set out in a moment. But if this bill progresses through Parliament, as we hope it will, then that time will be extended out to a whole year. So that is the proposition of this bill, and, as I said, it has come back from the select committee unchanged.

The select committee has done a wonderful job of clarifying some of the matters, of ensuring that the bill specifically addresses some issues that had not occurred to me as I drafted the bill. But the select committee has examined them and has improved the bill in this regard. I’m sure that the members of that committee will talk to those improvements as they take their turn to speak on this bill.

But let me tell you why I regard this as having large implications, even though it is such a small matter. The large implications are because extending the time for raising a personal grievance from 90 days to a year recognises the special nature of sexual harassment. It is insidious. It is shaming. It occurs because of a power differential. It is traumatising. All too often, it is not all that obvious; a person cannot quite understand what has happened to them. All too often, sexual harassment is just brushed off—“Can’t you take a joke?”, “It’s just a word.”, “Oh, it’s just a small pat on the back.”, “Oh, come on, you really want it.” Those sorts of attitudes are used to brush off sexual harassment and treat it as being of no moment. That means that the person who experiences it sometimes goes, “What’s happened to me? Was that real? Did it actually matter? Maybe I’m just making it up.” When that happens, and if the sexual harassment is particularly bad or pronounced, it can be traumatising. The reason it can be traumatising is because the person who experiences it is disregarded, is treated as an object, and is treated as being of no worth—or, if they have worth, it is only their sexual value that matters. That is why it can be important to have the longer time available.

The other thing about sexual harassment: it can be an employer—and that’s a common enough case—a boss, a manager, a fellow employee, also a customer, perhaps someone who’s just bigger and stronger, perhaps a fellow employee who is just making those truly nasty jokes. It can come from any direction.

Now, the important matter here is that it is sexual harassment that occurs in a workplace. Employers have an obligation to provide a safe workspace for their employees. So there is no personal grievance for sexual harassment that occurs outside of a workplace, but if it occurs in the context of a workplace, then a person can take a sexual harassment claim. So that is the basic nature of this bill.

You might be saying, however, “Is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Do we really need that time?” I contend that we do because of the traumatising nature of sexual harassment, but I also want to point out that it is not a rare problem; it is not unusual. If perhaps this only occurred very rarely, then perhaps we might not worry so much. Though, I suppose, I would still argue that we need to give people the proper amount of time.

But there was a 2018 law society survey done by Colmar Brunton, and what they found was that 31 percent of women and 5 percent of men working in legal environments suffered from sexual harassment. That’s the interesting thing about sexual harassment. I began talking about this bill as a step for women and that sexual harassment is a problem for women, but it is a problem for men too. Men do experience sexual harassment. But, like all of us, men may end up—even if they don’t experience it themselves—in a workplace where it is tolerated or accepted or part of the general atmosphere. For many, many men, that is a deeply uncomfortable place to be. So it’s not just that men can also be victims of sexual harassment; like all of us, they may have to tolerate a workplace where it occurs. So if we can fix this problem and take some steps towards fixing this problem, then we take steps for men too, because, after all, the patriarchy does harm men too. That is why this is a good bill.

In concluding my time, I want to thank a few people who have been so important in this bill. I want to thank lawyer Zoë Lawton, who ran a MeToo blog and collected stories, in particular from the legal profession, about where sexual harassment occurred. Zoë advocated for a change in the law. It was Zoë who proposed this change and discussed the bill with me. So, Zoë Lawton, thank you for your work in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I am very proud to have taken this work forward on your behalf.

I would like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee—ably, indeed brilliantly, led by Marja Lubeck—who worked through some of the issues in the bill and clarified it. So it is now a better bill than when it first appeared in front of them. I’d like to thank the officials who assisted with that.

I would like to thank my intern from the Victoria University programme, Rowan Selwood-Eyles, who spent part of her internship working on this project with me, which I know she found satisfying and enjoyable. Rowan, thank you for your help.

Most importantly, I would like to thank the submitters who submitted on this bill. I read all the submissions. There were 43 of them—39 in favour, three against, and one irrelevant. There was overwhelming support for this bill. Many of the submissions—26 of them—wanted the bill to go further. I trust that the members of the committee will address some of those in their speeches today.

So thank you to the submitters. Thank you to those who brought this issue to me. This is another small step for you.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill that the National Party will continue to support. We are, of course, like all New Zealanders, concerned about sexual harassment in the workplace. To be honest, I’m very surprised to hear the previous speaker, Dr Deborah Russell, and backer of this bill being surprised to discover that men might be the subject of sexual harassment as if this was a new discovery. Of course that is the case. Men have always also been victims as well as perpetrators of sexual harassment, and that should come as no surprise to anybody who’s been in the workplace for a long time. This affects potentially all New Zealanders and all people who work in our workplaces. It’s a sad reality, and I, certainly, myself, as a young worker, have experienced it and wouldn’t wish it on anybody. So we’re all conscious of the impact of unwanted sexual advances in the workplace and want to ensure that the laws that we have in place give the opportunity for people to deal with that effectively.

So the proposition here is that the current laws enable a complaint to be made and a personal grievance to be made on sexual harassment grounds, but it has to be done within 90 days of the incident occurring—or becoming aware of the incident. You might ask, “Surely that’s the same moment”. During the select committee, we, of course, were referred to things like if there’s been communications emails passed around which amounted to sexual harassment that somebody became aware of a month after it had occurred. Well, then it’s from that point. That’s where the dates come in to impact.

That 90-day limit is the basic cut-off for personal grievances throughout the piece of legislation, and we think that is generally appropriate, because, again, you’ve got to think of the context of, particularly, small businesses. If there is an extended liability and period of uncertainty around personal grievances generally, then that can have a huge difficulty for small businesses who are overwhelmed with all sorts of uncertainty and uncontrolled liabilities, as it were, and this is one thing that they certainly wouldn’t appreciate having extended across the board. But the case was made by Deborah Russell and by this legislation for treating sexual harassment cases differently and for extending that period out beyond 90 days to a year. The case that was put forward was this is an offence of a special nature. It does take time for people to reflect on it and consider it. It’s difficult to come forward, it’s complicated, and the member has outlined all the range of emotions that go through them. In most cases, the reality is that people don’t do anything about it. That is something that is changing for the better over time, and more people are coming forward, not putting up with it, and raising their case, and things have been done.

This legislation—my hope is, in supporting it—will lead to more people coming forward over time, behaviours changing in the workplace for the better, fewer people being subject to this sexual harassment in the workplace, and fewer people going through all the difficulties that flow from that—particularly where they have few opportunities or few choices to do something else or go somewhere else or get another job or just depart from it. Those people who are trapped in a situation are the ones who are worst affected. We certainly see the logic in that. That’s why we’re broadly supportive of this legislation.

There was sort of debate throughout the select committee around just how targeted this is, and the person who brought it forward, Deborah Russell, did make the point that it was her expressed desire in this legislation to have this extension focused exclusively on sexual harassment. A number of people made cases for other grounds for personal grievances—whether it was bullying, whether it was general personal grievances, or a number of other matters—and we certainly weren’t in support of that for the broader reasons around being mindful of the uncertainty that many businesses—particularly small businesses—face. We were reassured that the member did make it clear that this bill had a narrow and singular focus on this area. That’s why we are supporting it. We’re looking forward to the discussion.

I do also want to take the opportunity to thank my fellow members of the Education and Workforce Committee—I’m not a permanent member but I subbed on to it for the discussions—

Marja Lubeck: We miss you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —well, thank you——on this legislation, and it was a nice contrast to many of the other bills that we’ve had to deal with, which are slightly more contentious in that area. We certainly don’t do this lightly. We are very conscious of the pressure that many—particularly small businesses—are facing right now. They’ve been through very difficult times with COVID. They are struggling with broader cost of living pressures and with additional expectations being put on them on a regular basis by this Government. In general, we’ve been pretty critical of those. We’ve been critical of the sort of almost casualness with which this Government has added to the businesses: “An extra week of sick leave? Sure; fine.” Extra holidays, higher minimum wages, now fair pay agreements—a whole series of things which individually are well motivated and sound fine but collectively just make it so much more difficult for those small business to keep going and, collectively, certainly add to the overall cost structure and the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are facing. There’s no sort of free lunch. If you do add substantially to the costs that businesses face, it does flow through to the prices that people pay, and that is something that is not recognised generally.

So as a general rule we are pretty careful—pretty cautious—about adding either direct costs or adding extra uncertainty on those small businesses. Now, this bill does add a little of extra uncertainty around liabilities for personal grievances. It just means that there is a longer period when people can bring cases forward, but we think, on balance, that is justified because of the nature of the particular area that’s being covered—sexual harassment. And it has, of course, as I say, had an impact on people, and it’s had terrible impacts on many people—mainly women but not entirely women as the point I made: men also—over many decades. I think we have made improvement over the last decade or so. People are much more willing to stand up and say, “No, it’s not appropriate.”, and to put more pressure on the employers—and not just employers but the general culture of workplaces—to have less tolerance for that behaviour. We think this is a useful step along that way. So we do support this legislation.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.

First of all, because it’s the first time I’ve spoken on this bill, I would like to congratulate my dear friend and colleague Dr Deborah Russell, who has been in charge of shepherding this bill through the House. And as we have heard from my colleague previously, she has done an excellent job in doing so. As we’ve heard, our Education and Workforce Committee received a total of 43 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and the vast majority of those who submitted supported the bill.

To put it very simply, this is a bill that puts in a very minor change to the Employment Relations Act, but it is an important change. The problem that this bill deals with is that in the current legislation an employee who wishes to raise a personal grievance that involves allegations of sexual harassment has a period of 90 days to do so. What this bill does is it amends section 114 of the principal Act to extend the period within which a personal grievance must be raised from the current 90 days to 12 months, where that personal grievance involves sexual harassment. This will ensure that employees will have time to process the experience in their own time.

The issue with doing this within the current 90 days is that often coming forward to report sexual harassment can be very difficult, and it’s common for victims of sexual harassment to wait for a long time to come forward, if they come forward at all. The most common defence to sexual harassment, in fact, is that the employee has not raised the issue with their employer. In cases of sexual harassment, 90 days is simply not enough time to raise a complaint. It’s important that employees have time to consider what has occurred and feel safe to raise it with others, and this bill will ensure that they have time to process and proceed in a manner that suits them best.

In a paper attached to the Auckland District Law Society’s (ADLS’s) submission on this bill, Simon Schofield, who teaches employment law at the University of Auckland, says that the 90-day deadline for filing personal grievances fails the victims of sexual harassment. It does not reflect the way sexual harassment plays out in practice, says Schofield, who’s a former member of the ADLS employment law committee. Victims deserve better, and the law ignores the reality of sexual harassment. Schofield says: “The truth is that the longer the law carries on in this unsatisfactory state, the longer that sexual harassment will continue to thrive in the shadows; the longer that perpetrators will avoid accountability on technical grounds and the longer that victims … will … be denied access to justice.”

In Schofield’s view, a major reason for the delayed reporting of complaints is the power balance in the employment relationship and a fear of retaliation. Complainants also fear generating ill feeling amongst co-workers. Instead, they will avoid or try to appease their harasser and often suffer from self-blame and guilt. The idea of reliving the experience in a courtroom can be traumatising. While the 90-day rule ensures employees can remedy personal grievances quickly, the argument isn’t relevant in the context of sexual harassment for the reasons mentioned.

We also heard this from a submitter that was already mentioned by the member in charge of this bill, Dr Deborah Russell. Zoë Lawton from the #MeToo Collective told us that “sexual harm is prevalent in New Zealand yet one of the most under reported forms of harm. With little accountability, many perpetrators develop a pattern of behaviour and sexually harm multiple people throughout their careers, in their communities, or in their personal lives. A major contributing factor to low reporting rates is that coming forward as an individual can be very stressful, isolating, and, ultimately, overwhelming.” She says it takes time for people to come forward for a wide range of reasons, including the psychological toll.

Zoë Lawton set up an online platform in 2018 to raise awareness about the prevalence of sexual harm in the legal profession and to enable people to share their experiences. She subsequently lobbied for amendments to legislation to increase access to justice for those who have experienced sexual harm, and that includes the amendments that are part of this bill. Several accounts from individuals that were posted on this platform were referred to by Dr Deborah Russell in her first reading speech on this bill. And it makes it clear that the change to this legislation will be welcome.

Our select committee heard from several submitters. I want to mention the PSA Women’s Network, who brought several women with them, all making personal statements. Thank you, Margaret, Nancy, Sonia, Michelle, Leota, Alice, and Nia. I’d like to echo the comments made by Deborah Russell before. We are very grateful to you and all those who courageously shared their very personal stories with the committee to ensure that their voices and those who were not able to speak up were heard.

One of the stories I would like to recall is one from a woman who at 18 started her first job as a receptionist. She experienced sexual harassment from an older male colleague. As a much older woman now, she has experienced sexual harassment on numerous occasions throughout her life, and stated that she has learnt through hard, bitter experience to stand up for herself when subjected to such inappropriate behaviour. In her submission, she told us that she is determined to do everything she can to ensure other people do not suffer the same fear, distress, and sense of vulnerability that she has.

I want to quote from her submission. She said, “When one is young and relatively inexperienced, it can be difficult to understand what is happening if you’re being sexually harassed by someone and even more difficult to know what to do about it. You need time to process the event, seek help, and find an appropriate and safe way to make the perpetrator accountable.” Another woman told us about her sexual harassment incident, stating, “It took me four months to get my head around how inappropriate a workplace incident it was. And then it took me a further three months to find another job to replace that one so I had enough money to live before I could move on and get out of there just so I didn’t have to face that person again.” So in her view, a year wasn’t even that long.

Another submitter we heard from was Fleming Singleton Law. They informed us that taking sexual harassment cases takes time and a lot of the complaints are usually years from when harassment first began. It takes time because before raising a grievance, the employee will have tried a lot of other mechanisms to deal with, and Dr Deborah Russell spoke about this already previously. It includes things like laughing it off, joking, brushing it off, minimising the experience, avoiding, attempts to stop it, then asking for an investigation. And after all that, people will then come for legal advice. And of course, by that time, the 90-day period is well exceeded. So regularly, people will be out of time before they can raise their personal grievance.

We also heard from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission. They talked about the significant barriers victims face to disclose harassment. They said victims do not feel empowered to come forward with complaints for a range of reasons, including feelings of shame, denial, fear of consequences, hopelessness, helplessness, and fear of facing scrutiny and blame.

Dr Deborah Russell alluded to some of the amendments that our select committee made, and we are reporting this bill back with them, so I just want to mention a couple of those. First of all, making the term “relevant period” specific to the nature of the personal grievance. So that means that it’s 12 months for personal grievances for sexual harassment, and continues to be 90 days for any other personal grievance. Our select committee initially also queried about the potentially retrospective nature of the bill and the member in charge clarified that is not the intention. So therefore, in the Schedule, clause 17 of new Part 4, inserted into Schedule 1AA, needed to be more specific, and that is how we have reported this bill back.

This bill will improve the personal grievance process for victims of workplace sexual harassment by allowing them time to consider what has happened to them before deciding to come forward. Everyone has the right to feel safe in the workplace and, more importantly, have time to safely raise an issue with their employer. What this bill will do is it will significantly impact workplace cultures of silence towards sexual harassment.

I would like to finish my contribution by again acknowledging all the submitters for their courageous stories and coming forward personally and in their papers to share those with us, the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and members on the Education and Workforce Committee, who all worked so collaboratively on this bill. It is great to see that this bill will receive cross-party support and I, again, congratulate Dr Deborah Russell for bringing it to the House.

Our select committee recommends unanimously that the bill be passed. We also recommend that all amendments unanimously be passed. And it gives me great pleasure and it’s an extreme privilege to be able to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate interrupted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted. I will resume the Chair after the dinner break at 7 p.m. Thank you.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. When we rose for the dinner break we were considering the second reading of the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and speak on this, the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill in this, its second reading. First of all, I pass on my congratulations to Labour MP Dr Deborah Russell who was fortunate enough to have this member’s bill pulled out of the hat—out of the biscuit tin, I apologise. So well done to Deborah for getting that opportunity.

The bill was examined in the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am a member. There were 43 submissions, 19 of those submissions were made orally, and, as Dr Russell said, the vast majority of them were in support. The bill is relatively straightforward; it is raising the number of days that a personal grievance alleging sexual harassment can be taken, from 90 days to one year. This will create an amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000.

National is supportive of this bill because none of us feel that sexual harassment is acceptable in any context, and, of course, in the employment context particularly so. In the first reading, my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith spoke about sexual harassment not being a new thing, that it had been around since the dawn of time. And I actually wanted to speak about an experience my mother had in her first job. This is my late mother; we are talking 75 years ago. Her first job was in the telephone exchange, and for those young people around, you might not realise that back then you actually rang and the connections to another line were made by a person in the telephone exchange. She was the first woman in Southland to hold that job, and she struck a situation where her supervisor—her boss—was a male who pestered her to go out with him. She didn’t take kindly to the pestering and refused to go out with him and found herself working mostly night shifts and weekend shifts after that. So indeed, sexual harassment in one form or another has been there for many, many years. Unfortunately, my mother didn’t have access to a personal grievance with 90 days—or a year— but she did the next best thing and got a job elsewhere for more pay. So I guess there were ways around it.

I was somewhat alarmed to hear Dr Russell talk about how prevalent sexual harassment was amongst the legal fraternity. In the 23 years that I was an employer in the tertiary education sector, I’m pleased to say that sexual harassment cases were very few and far between. Where there were cases—there are, of course, many ways in which it can be dealt with before getting to a personal grievance stage. We would all hope that any employer that finds an instance of, or is informed of, a sexual harassment incident in their workplace would move quickly long before it got to the stage of a personal grievance. But we know that that isn’t always the case, and the imbalance of power—often a supervisor has considerable power over a worker, and that sexual harassment in those situations, particularly, is very, very damaging.

So we fully support that this bill will provide for those that consider they have been subjected to sexual harassment and may not be able to bring themselves to take the personal grievance within those 90 days. With this legislation passing, they would now be able to have up to a year to prepare and get themselves into a space where they were comfortable and prepared to raise a personal grievance.

We want victims of sexual harassment to be in that space where they feel safe to speak up, and sometimes it isn’t until they have got a new manager or have perhaps got themselves a new position, a new role, that they feel that they are in a safe enough space to be able to bring that action. So we are very pleased to support this and to show that the select committee process did have some input to this. We perhaps made more clear, more explicit, the retrospectivity clause—clause 17—where we were a little concerned that perhaps it wasn’t entirely clear and so we sought to get an amendment which has come into the legislation saying, “in respect of a personal grievance if the action alleged to amount to the personal grievance occurred or came to the notice of the employee on or after the date of commencement of the… amendment Act.” So it’s important, of course, that anything that might have occurred prior will be dealt with under the legislation as it was at that time.

So as I said, I am pleased to endorse the fact that National supports this bill, and we commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my great pleasure to rise to take a call on this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, brought in the name of Dr Deborah Russell, one of my Labour Party colleagues. It’s especially pleasing to be able to take a call on this today, having just left an event celebrating the fact that we now have 60, or half—50 percent—of the Parliament being women for the first time in New Zealand’s history. I think that the fact that we do have support across the aisle for this change and, hopefully, support from the other parties yet to speak on this too, and I think the fact that we do have that gender diversity within Parliament has allowed bills like this to proceed without too much difficulty, because I think there’s a shared recognition within the House of the importance of addressing sexual harassment, the prevalence of sexual harassment, and that we need to do more as a society to address sexual harassment. Many members of the House would’ve been aware of the Me Too movement, and the Me Too movement in New Zealand submitted on this bill and was fundamental in advocating for this change. So I think it does this House and this Parliament a great service, the fact that we’ve recognised this important matter and that we are acting on it.

Now, I was part of the select committee that considered this bill, the Education and Workforce Committee, and I do think it was a very useful process to go through, and I think that was due to the goodwill generally across the committee to get this bill to a place where there could be cross-party support for it. But I also think it was to do with the way that Dr Deborah Russell shepherded this bill through the House. You would’ve heard from previous speakers, and in reflecting on the content of the submissions, that there were 26 out of 43 of the submissions that asked us to go further. They would’ve liked to see a longer period to bring claims in relation to other types of serious discrimination claims, like racial discrimination. I want to acknowledge those submitters and also the serious issues that they brought to us. Those are important issues. There are additional challenges within our employment relations system in relation to other forms of discrimination. But Dr Russell was very clear that this bill addresses one thing and that is sexual harassment, and so that is why we have kept this bill limited to claims of sexual harassment. I know that might be disappointing to some people, some submitters, but I would encourage them to think about how beneficial this change will be and the fact that we are able to have this cross-party support to get this through the House.

I wanted to touch, if I may, just on the fundamental issue of this bill, which is time limits in employment disputes. I, prior to my coming into this House as an MP, worked in employment law and took a great many claims for people both here and when I worked in England and Wales as an employment and discrimination lawyer on lots of different matters, including sexual harassment. I think that if we look internationally, we can see that our period of 90 days, which applies to all claims that you need to raise as a personal grievance in order to protect your limitation rights, is quite similar to some other jurisdictions. For example, in England and Wales, it’s three months less one day—which is, effectively, the same thing but, actually, you have to file something in the Employment Tribunal in order to maintain that. So we do see that there are similar limitations that apply across different jurisdictions.

I think there is an argument to say that sexual harassment—and I think this is what Dr Deborah Russell said in her speech, which I listened to earlier in the debate—should be treated exceptionally. There are reasons for that in terms of how the victim or survivor of a sexual harassment experience—and these will be workplace experiences in relation to the content and the matter that we’re discussing today—that harassment and how that will come to crystallise in their mind as an actionable act.

It may not be for all people who experience sexual harassment that that is an immediate realisation. With some sexual harassment, people aren’t even aware that it’s occurring until perhaps they explain annoying behaviour to someone else, and there’s a reflection that, actually, that’s not appropriate within a workplace. Often it’s not reported to people’s employers, and often it’s just brushed away, but I think that the great thing about this bill is it will—and I’m sure of this—allow more people who have experienced sexual harassment to obtain justice, because it will remove the barrier of 90 days, or three months, and allow that period of time to be there.

Now, that is not an indefinite period of time, as you will know—it’s limited to that 12-month period—but I think it reflects better the real nature of experience of [Audio missing] particularly with workplace sexual harassment, which comes with power dynamics between the employer and the employee. It comes with power dynamics even within different colleagues. So I think that that’s especially important.

We did hear some submitters who said that there should be no time period. I am not entirely convinced by that idea, and one of the reasons for that is that we know from evidence that things become quite difficult, and that’s especially so in a workplace, where people move on. Employers have a civil responsibility, and it’s very different from a criminal case in relation to the evidential burden—it’s a much lower level—so I’m not 100 percent convinced by the argument that did come through in the submissions of not having any limitation period times at all. We obviously didn’t accept that in relation to this particular bill.

But one thing that we did do is really clarify that—and I say this. This hasn’t come up in the debate so far, but pre-emptively, if other speakers are to address it, nothing in this bill fundamentally changes anything else in employment law, apart from the time period. So everything else in the Employment Relations Act and in all of the other different sections that we changed or recommended should be changed as a result of the select committee and the position put forward by Dr Russell—it was to only change the time period for claims of sexual harassment, obviously, within a workplace context. So everything else is the same. All of the other potential issues that people may have with the bill—well, you probably will have those with the Employment Relations Act as well, because it’s the same wording throughout, and I do commend the member Deborah Russell for that approach. I think it made it really straightforward, and it meant that when we were looking at it, we were really looking at the one fundamental change that she wanted to happen.

We did look at the retrospectivity aspect of it, and—to be clear—this bill is not retrospective. It won’t affect anything that happens prior to it coming into law, and that was an important clarification that was made with Dr Deborah Russell and the select committee. I think it strengthens the natural justice element of this bill, and also unnecessary litigation in relation to serious and sensitive matters that may have impacted on people if the clarity was not there. I personally believe that we do owe it to try and make the legislation clear and accessible and easily understandable in order to allow people to utilise that legislation but also to not clog up our employment tribunals and our other courts and other jurisdictions with arguments that could have been made clearer, had we as legislators turned our minds to it. So I do think that that was a helpful aspect.

Another aspect which I think is in favour of this bill is its consistency with the Human Rights Act. In New Zealand, if you experience some form of discrimination in the workplace, you can choose whether to bring that claim through the Human Rights Act or the Employment Relations Act—you have to make a choice at some point. Under the Human Rights Act jurisdiction, you have 12 months, and under the Employment Relations Act you have 90 days. So there is, in a way, an incentive to utilise the human rights avenue, which is under strain and I think—I haven’t checked this before speaking to this point, but my perception is that it does not have the same resources as the Employment Relations Authority. So we wouldn’t want to create an incentive where people would prefer to use one jurisdiction, but they’re unable to due to the limitations. I think that that is a factor in the favour of this bill.

So, just to conclude, I think that this bill will help survivors and it will help good employers, and I commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Greens are very pleased to rise in support of this bill.

I would like to also echo what others have said around the House about commemorating 50 percent of wahine representation in this House. My maths isn’t good, but I think with the vacancy in Hamilton West, that means we’re over, right? There’s probably better mathematicians around the House. So more than 50 percent representation in the House and that’s a good thing. We’re used to that in the Greens—being wahine-led, where 70 percent of our MPs are wahine. Perhaps just a thought: maybe the world wouldn’t be in such a shambles if all of the Parliaments were like this.

I would like to thank the member Deborah Russell for bringing this bill to the House. The purpose of the bill is to extend the time available to raise a personal grievance that involves allegations of sexual harassment, from 90 days to 12 months. It’s the perfect example of an effective member’s bill that is very simple and addresses a very specific problem.

I would also like to thank the submitters, especially those who gave oral submissions. It’s been a very valuable examination of one small aspect of our response to sexual harassment and our personal grievance system. And Jan Logie, our spokesperson for these issues—in amongst a number of these issues—was our person who sat on the select committee.

The submissions were very thoughtful and overwhelmingly supportive. Though the majority would have liked to see it go further, with the time frame extended even further and the inclusion of racial harassment. Particularly, we want to thank the submitters, women leaders who shared their own stories of sexual harassment, helping to break the silence. So important. Sexual harassment is a high-prevalence offence with low reporting rates.

The 2022 Kantar Public survey, commissioned by the Human Rights Commission, found that 30 percent of workers have experienced sexual harassment—30 percent—and 39 percent racial harassment, in the last five years; and 20 percent have been bullied in the last 12 months. Young people, bisexual, and disabled workers are the most likely to have experienced sexual harassment, yet only 5 to 20 percent of people are estimated to file formal complaints—5 to 20 percent.

Unite Union, in their submission, referenced research that showed 80 percent of workers were not sure what to do, and 45 percent didn’t know what a personal grievance is. Not one person under 20 knew what a personal grievance was when they were sexually harassed. Some did try to raise with management, and 50 percent said if there was more time they would raise a personal grievance. The others were not sure of outcomes, concerns about workplace culture, and didn’t understand the process and they felt like it was too much.

Unite noted it was critical to have more time to disclose and learn about personal grievances. Young people googling rights at work need to have time frames clear and upfront for sexual harassment and other forms of bullying and harassment.

As the #MeToo Collective pointed out in their submission, the Employment Relations Act’s using a finding process of the balance of probabilities, not reasonable doubt. So while there are limitations to the process, it was generally less harrowing than the criminal justice system and offers opportunities to hold employers to account for their decisions and actions not otherwise available.

The law does currently allow for personal grievances to be taken over 90 days in two situations—one of those, with the agreement of the employer. So you can see how many times that’s going to happen—very rarely, obviously. And also in exceptional cases. Trauma is not considered exceptional; it must be circumstances outside of the ordinary.

So this bill does go some way in addressing those concerns. I’m mindful of many of our young people out there in the workforce, and having that clarity for them about their rights and having that extension of time will make it so much easier for them to access justice.

The definition of sexual harassment, I’m noting, is quite limiting, particularly given the 90-day constraints. Amongst many other points, the New Zealand Law Journal article by Simon Schofield from the University of Waikato on the 90-day time frame in personal grievances found the current legal settings do not recognise the delayed reality and delayed realities of sexual harassment.

There were calls also, including from the Public Service Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute—and, of course, Unite—to extend the time frame to 24 months to match the findings of an Australian Parliament investigation. New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union and Aotearoa McDonald’s Workers Council called for a six-year limitation to lodge personal grievances in the authority after it is raised with the employer, and 50 years to lodge a personal grievance proceedings relating to racial or sexual harassment. One of the submitters, Zoë Lawton, suggested that the bill remove the time frame to match and provide consistency with the Criminal Procedure Act.

So we would like to thank the committee and all the submitters, who have put a lot of thought and time into this, and, again, to the member who brought this bill to the House. The Greens, we’re very open—still open—to extending the bill to lengthen the time frame and include racial harassment as well. But because the bill was so tightly and cleverly drafted, it would have required approval of the Business Committee to extend the scope, and sadly, the National Party were not open to that. We are pleased to support this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. As a new kid on the block, it’s always a real privilege to watch great work being done in this House, and to watch and to be taught by the honourable Dr Deborah Russell and the work that she’s done to make this bill come through so cleanly and swiftly and effectively. It is a mighty thing to watch. The bill is disciplined. It is clear. It is concise. We’ve had members across the House already talk this evening about how submitters saw an opportunity to take this issue more broadly, but I think that precision has been very, very helpful, because clarity helps. No one can hide. It’s very simple. Anyone who is behaving badly can clearly understand the process, but, more importantly, for victims, it helps to clarify what they have access to when they are having to make the decisions in really complex and stressful times.

I want to acknowledge the submitters. It’s such an important part of our process. With a bill like this, they brought powerful truth to the process, and it has helped us to clarify pieces of the bill with amendments and also remind us why we are in this House tonight and ensuring that this bill continues on its progress to being passed. We heard from unions, and we heard from individuals, and we’ve already heard tonight about the work that Unite Union have done in doing some research and talking to their members. We heard a description from one of their advocates, about workers in very high-stress situations, as most Unite workers are. It’s fast-food, it’s hospo, it’s casinos—they’re very vulnerable. They are often on very precarious contracts, on minimum pay and conditions, and they’re often young and very inexperienced. When they’re dealing with sexual harassment, they also have to overcome often a significant workplace culture and pressure from employers about how to respond to that harassment. And more time, as we’ve already heard, is all that is being ask from this bill, and it will have a significant impact, to help workers through this additional challenge of culture and pressure from employers.

We’ve heard about the recent survey, and what that did was give us a shocking reality-check about the context within which workers are processing their sexual harassment experiences and getting to grips with what their options are. We’ve heard how most didn’t know, at the time of the harassment, what a personal grievance was—45 percent still don’t know what a personal grievance is. And the thing that really got me, as someone who has spent much of my life working with young people, is that no one under the age of 20 that they surveyed knew what a personal grievance was at the time they were harassed. They didn’t know, and most of them still don’t know. Those who said that they had experienced sexual harassment—all of them were under 40, and 26 percent of them were under 20. These are the kids who would finish school at the end of the day, or maybe they finished a history exam this afternoon and they’ve gone to work—to support their families, to save so that they can travel or so they can continue their education—and they are vulnerable. They are under 20, and that they are being exposed to such behaviour is appalling to hear about—a shock—and it’s something that we need to do something about.

It isn’t just about pushing back against the culture that is around these young workers and that makes them vulnerable to such behaviour, but it is also about education. They didn’t know what was possible until they had support. These victims need time to process, to connect with people, to get support, and to work out what their options are. In this survey, when they were asked about the response from their employers, one person out of everybody surveyed reported that the issue was adequately investigated. So it isn’t just that they’re not using the current avenue—we’re hearing that there are so few cases that get progressed—but they’re simply not acceptable.

We heard from a worker and advocate who talked about—she described herself as being the representative of so many untold stories. She described the topic of sexual harassment as being so taboo and hard for everyone involved. She said it’s hard to confront the issue, because of, you know, the mind-set that it’s just too hard, it’s too much. It’s too much trouble. Now, for a victim to have that added to what they’re going through—that it’s too much trouble—is unacceptable and is why we need to support this bill. She said it’s an uncomfortable topic, and the additional time that would be afforded by this bill will ensure the clarity and the support needed to make a choice. She said it will be massive, the impact.

We heard from a young worker who said despite being harassed and despite attempting to go to management, and the way it was poorly handled—brushed under the table—the culture of silence in this massive fast-food company that he worked in—he said he’s still there. They’re still there, because of financial necessity and because of the support of their union. So a little shout-out to the union movement there—you know, for taking a chance to do that.

We heard from a Pasifika worker about how subtle it can be, and so subtle it can take time to process what’s actually happened. She described the suggestive teasing about how friendly and respectful Pasifika people should be, and it becomes a familiar introduction to often a long, drawn-out process. We heard about how this culture is exacerbated in places where women are in a minority, such as in the trades or where you’re an immigrant and so you’re vulnerable. So we heard about the difficulties there.

This bill is about time: time to realise, to process, what has happened. You know, we hear employees often sort of minimise and joke about things as a way of coping, all because that is the cultural norm and expectation of their workplace—or, actually, wider society, to be fair. This bill is about time: a chance for people to think about what is happening and what is going to happen; to think about their choices and the implications of the decisions that they may make. It gives them time to realise and process. It also gives them time to seek advice and help and to really understand their options and to get support to help them to progress the personal grievance.

It provides time for unions to provide support. We heard from a union delegate who said she’s a civics educator, a lawyer, a therapist, and an organiser. I think it must be really hard for a union to hear from their workers that they didn’t even know what a personal grievance was, and I think there’s a significant challenge there. I guess—again, as a former educator—that we have got so much to do. We have to support our employers to really challenge the culture that is in their workplaces and support them to make the change in that culture. We need to educate our young people. There is no way a young person should leave school in this country and not know their rights and responsibilities as workers. To not know what a personal grievances is is shocking. And we need to take up that challenge and ensure that those conversations are happening in schools and in workplaces. I’ll give a little shout-out to the Young Workers Resource Centre in Hamilton. They do significant work across schools and the wider community about that education responsibility that we have towards our young workers.

This bill gives us hope that things will change, but we have to do more. Like I say, we need to support our employers. So many want to do the right thing, but we have to help them to shift the culture in their organisations. And we have to support our workers to be able to navigate this terribly complex place. It is for this reason that I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT for the second reading of the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, and it is great to see a sensible bill coming from the Labour Party; and, actually, it’s the second one in a row. The last one—the child exploitation one—was great, and it’s certainly one that we will support.

This bill extends the time period that a grievance related to sexual harassment can be brought, from three months to 12 months, reflecting a view that, due to the nature of sexual harassment, victims often take longer to come forward, and the 90-day deadline is a relatively short time frame to advance a grievance, despite that grievance being serious in nature and likely to continue long past that 90-day period.

New Zealand does have a poor record around this issue, and it certainly needs to be taken seriously. There is enough evidence, and we’ve heard enough examples today, to show that a change is justified and certainly necessary. But, while extending the time to raise a grievance involving sexual harassment, the bill will leave other allegations of grievances at 90 days, and we think this is the right thing to do. Sexual harassment is different to other workplace issues, and it should be looked upon and treated that way.

Some submitters wanted a longer reporting time, and some thought that there shouldn’t be a reporting time limit and that all grievances should be extended—that this bill should include all grievances—but we believe that this is a good compromise for the nature of this offending.

There are always going to be concerns and, despite the many people in this House that won’t believe it, the grievance process is sometimes abused, and false and vexatious complaints need to be treated very seriously. Lives can be turned upside down through false accusations, and these need to be actively discouraged. However, this is a good bill, and one that will ensure specific incidents of sexual harassment can be dealt with appropriately within a fair and reasonable time frame. ACT supports this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thanks.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to join my colleagues in congratulating Dr Deborah Russell for bringing this piece of legislation to this House. Madam Speaker, today, while we celebrated a milestone of our Parliament reaching 50/50, and myself and you were part of the delegation that participated in the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, where gender equality was part of the main topic, there are also women out there who are being targeted just for being women. Iran is a good example, and my heart goes out to them.

Prior to coming to Parliament, I was a union organiser, and every day, every week, every month we dealt with issues such as sexual harassment. One of the biggest barriers for victims was the time frame that they are allowed to raise their grievance in. Because of that, there were a lot of missed opportunities for justice, and I do remember a lot of stories of the people affected. Victims are often quite slow to come forward. That could be due to lack of understanding of what happened to them. For many people, it could be hard to grasp what really happened to them. But, also, the power dynamics play a role as well, and the fear for their employment and the loss of income, etc., etc. And there are also cultural norms and shame that deter people from coming forward.

This bill is all about extending the time allowed for people to make their personal grievance from 90 days to 12 months in the cases related to sexual harassment explicitly. As my good friend Camilla has mentioned, it’s not going to be retrospective, and the Education and Workforce Committee has done a good job making sure that it won’t be retrospective. There are, however, some conflicting views and opinions that it should be more than 12 months and it should also include other aspects. For example, some submitters wanted the deadline to be pushed beyond two years or more, and others wanted the legislation to include bullying and racial discrimination and other forms of disadvantage. The member in charge, Dr Deborah Russell, however, made it clear that this bill only deals with sexual harassment. If needed, other work could be done in other areas.

The select committee has scrutinised the bill. It discussed it thoroughly and it made some good recommendations, such as the definition of “relevant periods” of personal grievance versus personal grievance for sexual harassment, for example, and inserting “applicable employee notification period” and defining the true difference as well.

This bill is very, very important. It’s common, as we all know, for victims of sexual harassment to wait a long time to come forward, if at all. This bill allows employees to have time to consider and process their decision and make sure that their families understand what’s happening to them—and their families probably even come on board with them. In general, they have to feel safe to take a step. There are many reasons, obviously, for this, and there are stories and evidence that back this. For example, according to Zoё Lawton from MeToo—her quote—“It’s really hard to speak out when the person who is bullying or sexually harassing you is paying your salary and controlling the type of work you do or you’re getting and have the potential to ruin your career.” There is a lot of evidence for this as well.

That’s why the Labour Government is taking a lot of steps to make sure that we deal with the violence and sexual harassment against women. For example, Labour aim to end the violence against women. Women are not the only people, obviously. I think the Hon Paul Goldsmith alluded to it before. He said that women are not the only ones. Yes, that’s the case, but also women are the majority of the victims. In 2018, the Labour Government announced a joint venture on family violence and sexual violence, a whole-of-Government response made up of 10 agencies. In Budget 2020, an additional $131.9 million was allocated to support a number of successful prevention programmes running in our communities. In December 2021, the Government announced Te Aorerekura: the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. The strategy will span over 25 years, tackling the cause of violence against women in New Zealand. This joint venture will utilise the cross-agency approach to ensure collective responsibility is taken for violence against women.

Eliminating family violence is a long game. It’s one of the greatest opportunities for improving the wellbeing of our society. But it is complex and doesn’t fit neatly into individual agency boundaries. We need a spectrum of interventions that range across preventions, recovery, and healing. This needs to be delivered through a sustained collaborative approach across the Government where tangata whenua and the communities are engaged in decision making.

The submitters were a big part of the select committee’s process, and they have done a good job bringing some real stories to the attention of the committee. But, also, a big part of the submitters were the unions. The first union conducted a survey on sexual harassment. They found approximately about 13 percent of those surveyed reported experiencing sexual harassment of some sort at work; 26 percent reported either witnessing or being reliably informed of someone being sexually harassed at work. In the final comments, however, many said that they all felt unsure that they had experienced sexual harassment, where the other details provided did indicate that they had been sexually harassed. All of the 13 percent were under 40, with most being between 20 and 30. Of those that had experienced sexual harassment themselves, about 17 percent reported having still not processed or understood at all what happened to them to this day.

Most of the workers, or 80 percent, do not or did not know what a personal grievance is. This comes down to, as my colleague Angela Roberts said, education. It’s very important that we educate our kids, our tamariki, starting from schools. At least 21 percent of the workers say that if given more time, they would have definitely raised a personal grievance, and another 17 percent believe they most likely would have.

So this bill, we know, is going to be a game-changer. It’s going to help a lot of people to have enough time to make up their minds, to feel safe, to consult with their families. And education is key. The workers most in need of protection in this format are not currently using this, because, simply, they don’t know. With most sexual harassment being committed against younger female workers, enabling them time to process, seek help, and learn that the personal grievance is an option available to them is critical. It would also give us more time as a union on the other end to reach other people. So the longer the time given, the better.

Finally, I wanted to touch—while this affects a lot of people, it’s also even harder for minorities who come from either migrant or refugee backgrounds. That’s because, simply, they come from places where raising a voice against your employer is not an option. Because of that, they tend to live with the same mentality here, and we have to make sure that people know that this country is not what they come from. They have rights. There are a lot of laws that can step up and protect them. So, with that, this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Melissa Lee—five minutes.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. I’d like, first of all, to acknowledge and commend the work of the select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, who have actually done a very good job. I can’t imagine the select committee process where lots of victims might have actually come and spoken about their personal experiences. And often, I know, when members actually hear their stories, it can be quite an emotional time, so well done to all of the members who were in that select committee.

Although I’m not part of the select committee, it is an absolute pleasure to actually rise to support this, because I think 90 days is probably not a long enough time, in my opinion, to deal with a situation when someone—whether actually male or female—has been sexually harassed. I think it’s not just the domain of the woman. The majority of the harassed people tends to be women, but men also get sexually harassed in a workplace.

And I think the member who just took his seat, Ibrahim Omer, actually makes a very relevant point in terms of people who come from different cultures. They process information differently because they’re coming from a culture that is very different—often not just talking back to elders, talking back to people who are in a higher status, perhaps bosses, or even a male-gendered person who may be doing these kinds of acts to both males and females. The cultural context actually means that they may not be able to speak up or they’re disempowered from speaking up. And their understanding, in the New Zealand context, of their ability to make a complaint or that there are in fact rules in New Zealand to actually help them is actually not properly educated. I think we probably need to do more education in this space so that people feel empowered to make that kind of complaint. I think extending that period of time to a year at least is a way forward so people can actually process that information.

I think when victims first experience sexual harassment, often it comes as a bit of a shock. I think understanding that they’ve just been harassed is also a realisation or a shock, and I think coming to terms with that is actually something that takes a bit of time, because often some victims do not even recognise the fact that that’s harassment because, in their culture, often it’s the norm. It’s the norm, so they don’t actually see it as harassment, and then when they realise that it’s actually harassment and something that they need to bring to the authorities or even complain about, it does actually take time.

It also comes with the whole thing of shame—“Did I or did they, in fact, cause the problem in the first place?”, because often victims are made to feel ashamed when they get victimised, and they don’t feel empowered because of that shame—the guilt that it has actually happened to them. They have no one to talk to, and the whole trauma of that experience can be quite a huge thing for them to deal with. I’m not a psychologist, nor am I an expert in these fields, but I think often there’s the denial involved as well; they want to pretend that it never happened because they need to get on with work and they have to go to work every day to make ends meet for their family. They have to earn a living for their family, and complaining about a person who is actually an employer or who is actually higher status and may have actually created the situation may not be tenable.

I think this is a good bill, and I commend the work of Dr Deborah Russell, who has brought this bill to the House, and the work that the select committee has produced so that all of us can actually participate in the process in this House. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Along with Melissa Lee, I too congratulate Deborah Russell for the hard work she’s done on this bill. It’s interesting, isn’t it—when we talk about limitation, we are arguing strenuously that we should push out the ability to make a claim for sexual harassment to a year. If you flip the question on its head, you can actually ask an interesting question: why do we have a limitation period at all? Because 90 days—in any employment situation—is a relatively short period of time. And I can’t imagine that there are many employment situations where, after three months after the termination of employment, the employee in particular is in a great space to embark upon some kind of complaint or litigation. So it is just worth asking that question, which is “Why do we have limitation?” and, against that question, to measure whether it should be the very short period of three months, or perhaps the period of one year, which is the amendment set out in this legislation, or the three-year period, which is the longstop period under the Employment Relations Act, or a longer period such as the six-year period in the more general Limitation Act, or longer again.

Now, I can absolutely understand the need for both employers and employees to have finality—that they don’t want to part ways, perhaps in somewhat fractious terms, and be wondering about whether some claim is going to be hanging over them. But against that, it’s got to be recognised that limitation, by definition, is an absolute defence to any claim—even the most deserving claim. And at the moment we’ve got a framework which, at least on its face, says that the most egregious sexual harassment would have an absolute defence if the matter was raised 91 days after the employment relationship was terminated, and that can’t be right.

Now, there is a saving provision in section 115 of exceptional circumstances, and it in fact recognises that in cases where there has been trauma—and this might be one of them—the court can give special leave for a matter to be raised. But that is yet another hurdle for the raising of a grievance, a complaint, because you have to apply to the court for leave. And so it’s a barrier in the face of a legitimate claim.

So we need to think very carefully about this, and this is absolutely a good bill that does the right thing in this case, which is where there is a claim for sexual harassment—which, almost by definition, is traumatic—then it should be pushed out, that additional period. Because we do know that in situations like that—and the Act itself, it is worth noting that “sexual harassment” is not some vague term; sexual harassment is actually defined at length in the Employment Relations Act. I think that’s an important point to make, that it’s not just some offhand comment or something like that; it’s a course of conduct that is clearly inappropriate and might be verbal, can be physical, and I think you can probably understand what that definition clause in the Act does.

So this is a very good piece of legislation. It, again, shifts the needle to say to disgruntled and disaffected employees who have been wronged that the door won’t be shut on you to make your claim, to be heard, and your wrong to be properly redressed, simply because the clock has been ticking.

But I do think it’s important to note that this one year is not actually the final length of time. It is, in fact, possible to raise a claim up to three years later, where you can show that there were exceptional circumstances. And I do want to put it on record that in many cases, situations of sexual harassment will fall into that category notwithstanding this amendment. That category still exists and parties should be aware of it, because limitation raises odd issues of being shut out of a deserving claim simply because the clock has ticked past a particular time. A good bill—well done, Deborah Russell—I commend it to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very happy to take a call on the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. Other speakers before me have mentioned that today is the day we celebrated the 50:50 gender split in Parliament, and a great day for celebration. I’d just like to take that a bit further and say isn’t it a great day that that happened as well as a really good woman in Dr Deborah Russell—and I’ve had quite a lot to do with her in previous select committees; she was a great chair of the Environment Committee that I sat on—a great woman, brought a really, really good bill, and it’s worthy of thinking about not only Deborah Russell but other great women in this Parliament who have fought for women’s rights and for the rights of women.

I got to talking to Dame Jenny Shipley, who was around today for the celebrations of the 50:50 split in Parliament. We got to chatting about her time in Parliament, when she was, in fact, the Minister of Health and she passed through the national breast screening service for women in 1995, and then she did it again for cervical screening. So great women in this Parliament, on both sides of the House, doing great things for women, and I have to commend Dr Deborah Russell tonight for bringing what is a great bill.

I’m not going to take a long call, because I actually think we should just get this bill passed. It’s a great bill; we don’t need to spend our whole speeches pontificating. I think we just need to say we commend the bill and sit down. But I just want to make a couple of comments. Firstly, one of the submitters to this bill—and it was passed through my select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee—was Mika Hurbuns, and I want to acknowledge her because she is a student of my local high school, Rangitoto College, a year 13 student, and she took the time to submit on this bill. So I just wanted to mention her name, and to say to her we looked at your submission and I note that she, like many other submitters, wanted the time frame of 12 months pushed out indefinitely. We did consider that but decided, on balance, that 12 months was the right time frame. We did so in acknowledgment that sexual harassment in the workplace is different than other types of harassment in the workplace, in the fact that it can bring with it some shame and difficulty for women to understand necessarily what’s happened to them and to come to the realisation of what has happened, and then take action and look at all of the potential outcomes. So we decided that, on balance, 12 months was a good time for that. So what I say to Mika: thank you very much for your submission, we considered it, and I thank you for being a brave year 13 Rangitoto College student in submitting to our select committee.

We did make some tidy-ups in the bill, in clause 6, where we weren’t sure whether or not Dr Deborah Russell was intending on allowing the employer to—if the employer agreed to—extend the time past 12 months. That wasn’t in her original draft. We clarified that with her, and then added it back in. There were a couple of other minor amendments just to make things more clear and use better language, especially when it came to individual employment contracts, making sure that it was spelt out—the two different time frames: the 90 days for other personal grievances, and the 12 months for sexual harassment—and that’s reflected elsewhere in the bill as well.

So, with that, I don’t think I need to say much more. It’s a great bill. I want to thank all the submitters because overwhelmingly they were in support of the bill. Like I say, we did have a number of them who wanted it extended, and also wanted some of the other personal grievances extended to 12 months as well, but we did consider that sexual harassment is very different and, with that, we decided that 12 months just for sexual harassment was, on balance, the best thing to do. And we also did clarify with Dr Deborah Russell that this bill wasn’t going to be retrospective, and indeed it wasn’t.

So, with that, again Dr Deborah Russell, well done. You are standing with many other great women in this House, for bringing great bills that will affect the lives of many women, as I say, alongside people like Dame Jenny Shipley, who should be acknowledged as well for her great work in women’s health especially. So, with that Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to take a call on something like this because I was an employment lawyer. I have seen a change in the attitude in this area over my practice, and it gives me a chance to really look at that.

That change in attitude to sexual harassment directly relates to the nature of a rethink about the limitation period, because we’ve started to understand the real harm that can be done by this kind of behaviour, but we’ve also understood that part of that trauma is that people take a while to process these particular things because of the nature of them, and so they actually do need more time.

I would like to start by just talking about a woman called Mary Koss, who did some studies in 1987. She’s an American academic, and she did these studies into sexual assault. It’s a really interesting story as to how that happened. She was coming into a new university, and she got approached by one of the male academics. He wanted to do a study on bra size and how it affected the reaction that men had to women. He wanted her to put her name on the study so that he could do that study. She took the study and changed it into the first survey of sexual assault that really had taken place.

Originally, she had very direct questions, I think, but she ended up changing the way that she asked the questions, and she got a really different response because most of the women answering the survey didn’t understand that what was happening to them was sexual assault. They could describe what happened—and that included things like date rape—but they just couldn’t actually name it as such.

I think that I reflect on that as an experience that has actually ramifications for this area too. I don’t think that for a long time we understood what was going on in these circumstances in the workplace. Obviously, we’ve come to terms much more with the power dynamic in an employment relationship. I think that all of us on every side of the House, we now understand that.

When I was practising law, I had a friend who was practising at a big firm—and I’m not going to name anybody in the speech—but actually it was a well-known person to probably everybody in the situation. It was a partner in the firm, and he invited her to lunch with what she thought was the team. When she got there, she was alone. It was one of those things that meant that—she was in her first job. Can you imagine what that does to your confidence when what you think you’ve been employed for is actually your desirability sexually, which is clearly what she thought and what he thought at that point. So it totally undermined her first experience as an employee.

Many years later, we had a very interesting situation where she was practising as a lawyer and she was very good at her job, and she had a confrontation with another lawyer. He was a rather unusual person who started to do things that were less and less acceptable, one of which was to get her to bend down, to sign a piece of wood in a short skirt. She made a complaint and it went through a complaints process. I ended up with her, supporting her through that process.

At first, we put that process through as a professional conduct process. When we were doing the evidence, at some point my friend said in her evidence, “This wouldn’t have happened to me if I wasn’t a woman.” I’ve got to say, my reaction to that, because I was trained and I was generationally challenged on this, was actually my heart sank that she had said that it was about being a woman because that was going to be so much harder to fight than just simply calling it professional misconduct. I’m ashamed of it. That’s what I felt.

In fact, we found really good evidence, email evidence that there were lots of comments that were directed at her as a woman and actually compared her car to the wife’s car in the situation, etc. It was very much laid on and in the information. There was a finding in that situation and it went through a process and actually it all became disclosed—actually quite a lot later in the Me Too movement, as these things move through our profession.

There was a situation where the Law Society said that there were no complaints of this nature. This became a complaint that was thought about and was talked about, because, in fact, at that point, the lawyer’s code of conduct didn’t really have a category for sexual assault and sexual harassment. Everything went through a very much sanitised channel—and it’s changed. The Law Society’s changed, and so has our approach to this kind of behaviour in every workplace in New Zealand.

It is no longer acceptable, but we also need to give people time because these are extremely traumatic events and actually they need time to process it. They need time to articulate it. They need somebody to be able to say, “Well, that’s just not acceptable.” They probably need to get into their next job and realise that the behaviour wasn’t normal, wasn’t acceptable, and wasn’t their fault. So that’s how it relates.

Now, I’ve got to say that Mary Koss has got some really interesting views, and one of them is actually that she doesn’t think things have got much better. She, at this point, doesn’t think that she actually achieved her ends in the change in behaviour in the United States. I actually don’t agree with her. I think I’ve seen a change in myself. I now look at those things quite differently. It wasn’t that I didn’t see them. It was that I suppressed them and found other ways of trying to deal with them. In the case that I’ve described, I did see them, but I didn’t feel that they were par for the main course of society. Now, I’d be much more straightforward about that. I’d simply see it as a case of sexual harassment.

I just want to tell you one final thing about that story, because it broke in the newsletters that go to lawyers. When the story broke, the article went up on the website and it had a cartoon of a woman bending down with a short skirt. That was what the journalist thought it should do with that story. They put up that cartoon, which was a cartoon of my friend in that situation. Now, that’s part of the journey through. I appreciate it, but I would urge people to reflect on that kind of response to the situation, because it certainly did harm.

What did good was actually being able to win in that situation, being able to hold that man to account. It actually took several years because he asked for name suppression. It was possible to go through that process because my friend is like a terrier, she is tenacious, but not everybody in the situation is a terrier. It really isn’t a case of actually having to be the most aggressive person or the most confident person, because the victims in this situation are often the opposite of that. They are often the gentler people, the ones that won’t necessarily take their cases on. I take the point that has been made by my friend Melissa Lee and about this: that this is a problem that we get in different cultures and we have to really make sure that we’re very straightforward in our rules.

Now, there are, of course, options under the Human Rights Act to take these cases, and there have been, and it’s been the preferred method. That’s because it has a longer time that you can take the cases. So this brings us much more into line between the two places to go. I think it’s very important that the Employment Relations Authority does its job in these cases extremely sensitively. I think it’s really important that people are handled with care in these situations. That would be my only other reflection from practice. I saw far too many harsh dealings with these cases and a tendency to settle at mediation for fear of the trauma that would be caused by the case itself and the way it was conducted. So it’s incredibly important that this sends a signal to the Employment Relations Authority that it must absolutely treat people with respect—which I’m sure it intends to do.

I would just finally like to congratulate my friend Dr Deborah Russell for having brought this to this Parliament and for the Parliament for actually, I think, universally accepting that this is a good idea. Thank you. I commend this to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 21 September.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): When this debate was last debated, we were just finishing with a National speaker, and so now I call Shanan Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Kia ora, and thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening, Madam Speaker, on the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to amend the Companies Act 1993 by inserting a new subsection (5) into section 131 of the Companies Act 1993. Section 131 sets out the duty of a director of a company when exercising powers or performing duties to act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company.

I want to acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb, who is the member putting this amendment bill forward. He did a cracker of a speech in the general debate today, and we’re really, really proud of him. But the work that he has done and the simple way that he explained this particular bill to me is that it’s about ensuring that directors are as responsive to the needs of the community and their stakeholders as much as they are about the profit margin of their particular company.

So this new subsection (5) inserts several environmental, social, and governance factors that a director may, when determining the best interests of the company, take into account. Those factors can include: recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi; reducing adverse environmental impacts; upholding high standards of ethical behaviour in their organisation—and when we speak of the last bill that was just read, the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, it’s important that organisations are looking into that piece of work within their organisation; that they’re following fair and equitable employment processes; and recognising the interests of their wider community.

I’ve spent a lot of time working with businesses in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, and we’ve seen growth, I guess, of organisations being far more responsive to sustainability. They recognise that as an important part of their future and an important part of their brand. Second to that is the increased responsiveness to corporate social responsibility that many businesses that I’ve worked with have embarked on. But that doesn’t mean that everyone recognises those key things as attributes of their organisations that they do tend to look towards. Profit is the main driver that measures their success. But I do want to acknowledge those organisations that do do a very good job at what this particular bill attempts to do.

In the first speech, where we listened to Dr Duncan Webb, he shared some words in his opening remarks that I wanted to quote this evening. I’ll try my best Dr Duncan Webb voice, this evening, for everyone—along with his little laugh that he does! “The spark for this little bill was an urgent debate in Parliament on the letter of expectations that the Minister sends to Air NZ every year. It set out some climate expectations, good employer expectations, etc. David Seymour thought this an outrage to divert Air NZ from a maximising profit motive. I thought it nonsensical that there was a debate at all—but thought if there is some suggestion that ‘the best interests of the company’ means ‘making as much profit as we can …’, then we need to clear that up.” I thought that was a great synopsis of what this particular bill aims to do—and a good man behind it.

Just quickly, to go through, there are some changes being proposed—amendments to this bill. In clause 1, it outlines the title clause. Clause 2 is the commencement clause and provides for this bill to come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Clause 3 identifies the Companies Act 1993; this is the principal Act, the Act being amended by the bill. Clause 4 amends section 131. And the important one, new subsection (5): “To avoid doubt, a director of a company may, when determining the best interests of the company, take into account recognised environmental, social and governance factors”, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, the environment, upholding high standards of ethical behaviour, fair and equitable employment practices, and recognising the important interests of their wider community.

Without further ado, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. I rise on behalf of my Green Party colleague Ricardo Menéndez March to support the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill. We congratulate Labour MP Duncan Webb for having his bill drawn from the ballot and getting the chance to debate it at select committee.

This bill seeks to amend the Companies Act 1993 to make clear that in determining the best interests of a company, directors can take matters into account beyond just financial interests, allowing for the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors. This bill is particularly relevant to ongoing discussions around corporates putting profits ahead of people. The current broken economic system encourages this. After all, for companies such as banks and our supermarkets, making as much profit as possible is paramount. It ends up having adverse effects on everyday people, who are seeing the cost of living skyrocket.

This bill won’t bring down capitalism, and we understand that that’s not the Government’s goal, but it does broaden the scope of what issues directors can consider, and for those directors who sometimes do think about climate change or inequality before going to sleep, they will now consider how best they can channel that energy into the directions they make regarding their companies. Enabling directors to consider that broader range of issues will also enable shareholders in civic society to better advocate for companies to stop being so deeply unethical in some of their activities, since directors can no longer hide around just profit as their primary driver.

The Greens look forward to the contributions from submitters on this bill and will continue campaigning to transform the system to one where essential services are publicly owned, instead of run by companies. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this excellent piece of legislation, brought to the House by Duncan Webb, who has had a lot of experience in this area, both as an MP and as a lawyer before becoming a member of Parliament.

First of all, I’d like to thank all of those businesses that operate in New Zealand and all of those directors who direct companies; it takes a lot of courage to set up a business, and I admire and take my hat off to people who take that step, that leap of faith. Often they’re in a position where they’ve been working for someone for quite a while and they want to go out on their own, but it always takes quite a step of courage, quite a leap of faith—often taking out a mortgage on their house to actually get started. We’ve seen a number of very successful businesses here in New Zealand.

I believe at the heart of this bill—and the member might share his views on it when he does the right of reply at the end—is the reason why business exists in an economy like ours. We have an open economy, we have a free-market economy based primarily on a capitalist regime—to a point—but why does business exist? I remember standing in a lounge up in Hamilton a few months ago; there were a couple of fairly well-known businesses represented there and a couple of CEOs were just having a conversation and I was just sort of standing there listening in. They were talking about a contract that was available—I think it was in the civil space—to be bid for and they were talking about who’s going to be successful with the bid, and it really stuck with me because one of the CEOs said to the other CEO: “Well, look mate, at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter who gets the contract, because all of the money we earn goes back to the community anyway.” He was alluding to the work that they do in schools, supporting gymnasiums and other sponsorship programmes; the work they do in terms of employing people, in terms of supporting subcontractors, and all of that. The other CEO agreed because, you know, their philosophy was that business exists for the community.

I believe that that’s at the heart of this bill; that connectedness between business and community. You know, business exists for community. Business needs community to exist. Some of you may have heard about the stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory is a view of capitalism that stresses the interconnected relationships between business and its customers, suppliers, employees, investors, communities, and others who have a stake in the organisation. The theory argues that a firm should create value for all stakeholders, not just for their shareholders, and that if a business only focuses on the shareholders, then it could quite quickly potentially become a sunset business because it loses that connection with the community. First of all, it loses that purpose, the fundamental purpose of serving the community; secondly, it loses that connection. And often it may even lose that access to labour or other resources that it needs.

So the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill—we’ve heard that it amends the Companies Act, and that there are five key areas. First one is recognising the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The second one, in terms of the principles that the directors must take into account, is reducing adverse environmental impacts. Now, the reality is we’ve been dealing with COVID over the past few years. It’s been a huge challenge for the planet. Fortunately, we’re coming out the other side, but the number one issue remains: climate change. I’m pleased that as a Parliament, we have accepted that right across—well, broadly across the House—

Simon Court: Nah, we voted against your climate emergency.

JAMIE STRANGE: Broadly across the House—broadly.

The aspect about climate change is absolutely important. Basically, we’re seeing a number of businesses really lean into this and seeing what their responsibility is for climate change, and seeing what they can do. And look, it’s encouraging to see that. This bill will be another step on the way in terms of putting climate change in the minds of directors.

The reality is, businesses need a social licence to operate. That’s the society that we have here in New Zealand and it’s the way it should be; that businesses work hard for their communities, but at the same time, like I said, they’re very much connected to their communities and there’s an aspect around social licence that’s important. This area of climate change is one of the key areas. I know there’s another three, but I’ll leave it at that one there, that particular aspect around climate change.

I guess, just to summarise, businesses are not a silo, they don’t operate in a silo, they’re connected to the community, and we’re all connected to each other. Thank you.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): The Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill proposes an amendment to section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, for the duty of directors to act in the best interests of the company.

This is a bill that potentially is misguided, potentially harmful, but just not necessary and can open up a Pandora’s box of misery. If we remember that three weeks ago when Shakespeare was attempted by this Government to be buried, he said, “Let every man [and woman] be master of his time.” Well, I say Mr Webb is wasting all of our time with this superfluous bill. If it’s Shakespeare that says, “Pleasure and action make the hours seem short.”, then the bill does the opposite. Shakespeare says, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrown upon them.”, and then some have to write the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill. Alas, Will Shakespeare, we remember you well.

But if it wasn’t for “Lord Grubby Grant” and our own “Lawrence of Arabia”, who’s heading off to Egypt, the numbers for the merry men and women on the other side would ensure that this bill would just wither away and not be seen by the light of day and not take up any more parliamentary time.

“Lord Webb” and co. have this bill and it’s been viewed as misguided and harmful. There does not seem to be a legislative code in the Companies Act to achieve anything related to this. This is just a nudge by doctrine causing conflict in decision makers’ processes, and totally unproductive. The system is not broken, so why would you try to fix it? That’s the reverse psychology when it comes to business with the Labour Party

When you see what it means, it actually reflects the five-year trend of this Government of socialist stakeholder capitalism. Labour actually hates business, and it’s a war on business enlightenment. Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) advocates a return of New Zealand society to darkness. Mr Webb is playing empire with this bill. He’s overturning the enlightenment to the gall of central planning with his ESG and tokenism of Māori reverence. He is rejecting stakeholder capitalism. Not only does he endanger prosperity; there’s not a company director in this country that’s ever been prosecuted for not abiding by these rules. Remarkably, we have a successful system.

The problem with the Labour Party is it just wants to view the world through Karl Marx’s eyes. The Government is never able to reflect efficiency and innovation of the private sector, entrepreneurs, and monitors. It’s because of freedom and prosperity that this has been allowed to develop. The reason why it is: it’s called a company structure. Company structures were tried by the Pope, judges, and priests, to take away the resources of private individuals.

Look at the first line of this bill: “Companies are a useful legal entity for the conduct of many activities.” What does that mean? “What does that mean?”, I ask myself.

So, rooted in Marxism is this agenda to set for stakeholders who are not shareholders in a company. If stakeholders want to be involved in companies, let them buy a share. That would be a great start to the economy, wouldn’t it? It would really give it a boost. Over the last five years, Labour has killed that dream. We created a class of stakeholders who interfere with companies, who are really cultural Marxists like Mr Webb, and, really, they’re shaking down shareholders and wanting things to be done. They’re just a waste of time and have no accreditation and actually are not in tune with the law of the land.

The Companies Act is very specific. Company directors have currency under New Zealand company law; not stakeholder capitalists. That’s why this bill should be rejected by the House.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I don’t even think Roger Douglas would have written that speech, and he certainly wouldn’t have delivered one like that in this House. This is not a return to Marxism in any way, shape, or form. I know David Bennett would cross the floor if that was the issue, and I certainly know that Mr Bayly does not agree with that in any way, shape, or form.

What we are talking about here is the role of the firm in the 21st century, and this legislation, as it stands at the moment, is not fit for purpose. All that Dr Duncan Webb has done is to seek to bring companies law to meet not only the expectations but actually what is going on in companies in this day and age. Damien Smith, I’m sorry, mate: “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) is now how a number of the world’s largest firms assess whether or not they are going to invest in organisations. This is not some sort of Marxist philosophy that has crept into New Zealand company law in any way, shape, or form. The largest venture capital companies in the world use ESG measures to determine how they are going to invest, and the reason they do that is because their stakeholders demand environmental, social, and governance expertise.

No longer is it good enough to take the Milton Friedman quote and say “The role of the company is to maximise profit for shareholders.” Very, very few people out of the Milton Friedman school of thought actually believe that any more. In fact, Michael Porter, arguably one of the greatest economists, certainly one of the most influential economists of the late 20th century and the 21st century, is now talking about the role of the company and saying that the role of the company is in fact to work for the community. And it all starts at the top—it all starts at the top. We’ve got to get our governance right if the companies are going to serve our communities. We do not get our governance right if we say that the role of our directors is to maximise profit for their shareholders. The role of our directors is to ensure that the firm meets the expectations of stakeholders, and I would argue until the cows come home that the stakeholders of the vast majority of companies that operate across the world, let alone in our piece of paradise, are actually our communities.

The interesting thing is that I actually did the week-long Institute of Directors course, and they spoke about Dr Webb’s bill. What they actually said is that this is going to change the way that directors are required to look at the role of the company. It’s going to change the way that directors are expected to put in place the expectations of communities—their stakeholders. So to hear the ACT Party actually say that this is not necessary because it’s Marxist philosophy is completely out of step with every single modern economist across the world—across the world.

Hon David Bennett: Porter’s not a modern economist. He’s a communist from Harvard.

Hon STUART NASH: Oh, so Michael Porter is a communist from Harvard? Well, there’s one for the books! And, David, I know you don’t believe that, mate. I would also argue that one of the most influential economists these days is a woman called Mariana Mazzucato. She is talking about the role of Government. She’s talked about the role of firms, and she’s talked about the role of ESG and also about the role of corporate social responsibility. I would challenge anyone in this House to find an organisation today that doesn’t live the ESG values. I would challenge anyone in this House to find a listed company where the directors haven’t got, on their board minutes, every single meeting, “How is this company meeting its ESG requirements? How is this company interacting with its communities in a way that actually makes a difference?”

So we have heard a speech from the ACT Party that we have not heard since Roger Douglas left. That’s possibly a reason why they are sitting at around 8 percent. It’s possibly a reason why they will get to around 5 percent. But one thing that I know is that party certainly does not represent business. It certainly does not represent our organisations, and it certainly does not represent key stakeholders, key investors, and our communities. This is a very good piece of legislation, but all it actually does is bring company law into the 21st century.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): This bill goes to the heart of trade. This is about being good corporate citizens. That member over there, Damien Smith, is stuck in old historic history. This is about being in the future. When we look to the future, this is what businesses want, this is what consumers want, and this is what businesses expect from each other.

To think that the old-fashioned values have somehow been dismissed. Absolutely we need to drive profit, but beside profit goes good ethical standards. Great businesses do better when we look to the future.

When it comes to members’ bills, I know that Dr Duncan Webb sits down and he listens and his mind’s going, “What can I do next? What can I do next?” And he came up with a fantastic bill, pulled from the biscuit tin, all because of the ACT Party. That’s right, you’re the very reason that—sorry, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party is the very reason that Duncan Webb has come up with this bill. Because he heard—

Damien Smith: It’s not compulsory.

ANNA LORCK: Yes it is. Because when we listen to his first reading, he refers to the comments by the leader of the ACT Party. That’s right, that’s what they did. And he listened to what the leader of the ACT Party was saying.

When it came to that, he was—listen, the spark of this little bill, said Dr Duncan Webb, in his first speech, was the urgent debate in Parliament, which would have been as feisty as this one. It would have gone something like this and it set out the clock, and when they were talking about Air New Zealand, and when they were looking at what Air New Zealand should do, and it set out some climate expectations; good employer expectations.

David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, is the very reason that sparked this interest from Dr Duncan Webb. David Seymour said, that it was an outrage—an outrage—to divert Air New Zealand from a maximising profit motive.

Now, Dr Duncan Webb said that that was nonsensical—and I’d have to agree with him, nonsensical, because that is what this debate has come to the heart of—but thought that there must be a suggestion that the best interests in a company means making as much profit as we can. Then, as Dr Duncan Webb said, “Let’s clear that up.”

That’s why we have a party over there that is not supporting this bill, because they just do not understand the future of business. And the future of business is about producing goods in an ethical way, and it’s about making sure that we do what consumers want. And when consumers go to the market, they are going to look at companies that absolutely do the right thing.

I know that this piece of legislation, when we look back in history, we’re going to think to ourselves, “Gee, this has just become part of business dealings,” because that’s how we will continue to grow an economy that thrives and does well.

Now, going back to the very basics of this bill, it means that we will be able to look at the principles and the guidelines that will make better directors—governance and better directors.

Simon Court: Treaty of Waitangi? What’s that got to do with business?

ANNA LORCK: And I can tell you—perhaps you might need to go and have a bit of a coaching on governance and directorship to see the type of things that are coming through and growing great businesses in New Zealand.

It’s about being competitive on the world stage. It’s about making sure we do the right thing and growing and setting New Zealand ahead in world-class competitive markets. Because we are a world-class country delivering world-class products to the world in an ethical way where companies can put those interests right forefront, where they need to be. That’s why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, what a pleasure to be talking on this bill, the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill, and what an exciting night. I’ve heard it all, I think, tonight. There’s been some interesting contributions. Look, the first thing I want to just talk about—by the way, we are opposing this, just to be absolutely clear.

I love the opening statement on this bill: “Companies are a useful legal entity for the conduct of many activities.”—I assume that’s business activities. Well, isn’t that an understatement? Isn’t that an understatement? Aren’t they the powerhouse of economic activity in New Zealand? Certainly the Government is not going to be the powerhouse; it’s businesses. What I love is “Companies are a useful legal [tool]”. Well, the big, interesting thing—just listening to the debate, you know, it was interesting. I was just looking at the members on the other side there and wondering how many of them have actually run a small business and actually been a director and actually just gone through all that problem of—imagine if they had been running it through COVID times over the last 2½ years; I wonder if they would be so pious and upstanding today, because this is fine, this piece of legislation, when it applies to big corporates who’ve got lots of people doing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) planning and all that sort of stuff, but when 97 percent of our businesses employ 20 or fewer people, that is a different consideration.

So I think one of the big issues in this is that the Companies Act already states that the director of a company must act in good faith and in what the director believes are the best interests of the company. And by that very definition, that doesn’t mean that they can’t have regard to all the issues that we’ve heard today—environmental, social, and governance reporting that Mr Stuart Nash referred to. That is a crucial part of the Companies Act as it currently stands, and, of course, ESG is very common, as members have said, and it’s very desirable. I would say that in most cases, small businesses and, by most accounts, the large businesses—particularly those ones on the list of the stock market who are trying to attract capital—will be trying to demonstrate that they do act as responsible corporate citizens and that they’re doing the best for the employees, because, otherwise, people simply don’t put their money or capital into those businesses.

But the issue with this is that when you are operating a company and you have their choice, what is the primacy of your objective? And if we move away from the prime objective of businesses—to make money, to make profits—then that is an issue, because, otherwise, we’re just going to have a whole lot of companies fail, right? So we must have a primacy around the objective of businesses—and I see Dr Webb scoffing at that—because I think if you do not allow companies to be successful and profitable, then they will not long exist, and that is the simple equation. But the issue with this is that I don’t think for a moment that if I was running a small company again, I’d want Dr Duncan Webb trying to tell me, in a piece of legislation, that it’s important that I have to uphold or have regard for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, that I have to reduce my environmental impacts, and that I have to uphold high ethical behaviour, employ appropriate employment practices, and recognise the interests of the wider community.

What on earth do you mean by that? First of all, what are the principles of the Treaty that a small business has now got to interpret and go away and make sure that they understand and are fully cognisant of when they come to make decisions at the board meeting every month? And what does it mean when you’re talking about the wider community? What is the definition of that? That is the prime reason why we don’t want Dr Webb telling small businesses how to run their companies, because they need to operate, they need to look after their employees, they need to look after their customers, they do have to have regard to their communities, and if they do all that appropriately, they will be successful. And, by the way, they’ll give the money to the Government so we can invest in schools and hospitals—all the good stuff that we need to.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to take a call in this rather exciting debate, where we really are unravelling the difference between our parties tonight, because what I read is quite different from what Mr Bayly reads. Mr Bayly seems to think that there is some sort of conscription in this. In fact, what this actually does is it says that a director may, when they’re taking the best interests of their company into account—their company—they can look at things—

Andrew Bayly: They can do that now.

HELEN WHITE: —like good employment, they can look at the interests of their communities, and—yes, Mr Bayly, you are quite right—they can do that now. But, as you would have heard from the ACT Party, there are some people who believe that they can’t, and I want to tell you a real story about this.

I want to take a moment of solemnity, because when Pike River happened, what I actually got told by a relative—and, let’s face it, we’ve all got relatives like this—was that it was OK that that happened because it had maximised the profits for that company and that company was working in the best interests of its shareholders. Now, that is the classic mistake that’s made, which is that they had disregarded the safety of those workers for the profit motive. In fact, none of us—none of us—in this House believe that that is right, because, actually, a company has many obligations, and these obligations are not inconsistent with best interests.

What Dr Duncan Webb is doing is making it very clear that people have a right to run their business in a modern way, and that modern governance theory has been around for a while, but we have some people in this House who seem to be stuck back in perhaps the 1970s rather than even the 1980s. Actually, it is time to grow up, because the consequences of that kind of thinking were so terrible in this society. We had people employing people at really low wages, which was unsustainable. Now we have the living wage, and that’s the difference between our parties.

For those who are listening, we had employers employing people at the bare bones and destroying communities. We had things like Pike River happen because people weren’t inspecting the mines. People disregarded the rules to maximise profits. That sort of thing is totally unacceptable in my book, and it is not “Brand New Zealand”. It is not going to make our economy better and stronger in the future. This bill will.

This bill will make something really simple happen: we will all actually realise that these companies are a device we use to limit liability. But the people who use them are actually still very much human beings with many, many needs and interests, and they will produce businesses that meet the needs of their communities, that address the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, that are actually concerned with employing on a fair and equitable basis, and none of us will be worse off for it.

I have left the best for last: they will need to address environmental concerns. That is our absolute premium need, particularly this week, when we have COP27 going on in Egypt, and we are behind in our needs in this area. So it is extremely important that every business in New Zealand knows that if it wants to prioritise—and I wish it would—the environment at the top of its list, over and above profit, in fact, if necessary, then it can do so.

This bill reinforces a culture that has grown and has been a damned good culture in New Zealand, a growing culture I am proud of, and that is absolutely wedded to the values of the Labour Party, because that’s what we stand for. We stand for modern, good businesses that do a good job for everybody in this society, not just a few who will cream the profit off the top.

That is why I thank Dr Duncan Webb for his wonderful bill, and I can see the point of reinforcing that when there is such a grey area in so many people’s minds about it. We now are crystal clear that this is the modern way. We’re going to do this better. Companies and directors will be able to actually address the best interests as they see them, and, Dr Webb, you encourage them to do that in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to spend too much time replying to the neoliberals over there. At least they’ve got a theory. As for the Opposition, Mr Bayly, his theory is profit at all costs.

Does this bill make an important change to the law? Yes, it does. It’s a very important bill. It removes any doubt that companies are quite able to pursue wider purposes. It’s a signal that stakeholders are relevant to corporate governance and that the best interests of the company can, in fact, be to promote the interests of others. Companies do not have to have a dominant or sole profit motive. They can be incorporated for any purpose whatsoever, and it’s about time we woke up and recognised that companies whose purpose might be to promote environmental outcomes or to promote social goods, whilst sustaining a profitable bottom line, are legitimate companies.

Now, there’s a lot of commentary out there. I must say I’m caught by surprise at the fierceness of it, but there are some very sensible commentators. For example, Russell McVeagh, a respected law firm, has made some very interesting comments about whether, for example, we should follow the UK line and make stakeholder interest a compulsory consideration or whether there is a balance to be struck between stakeholder and shareholder interests or whether this is an unduly constraining approach and, in fact, further and wider matters ought to be taken into account other than the limited list that’s been set out there. All are useful suggestions and I’m sure the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee will look at them.

While some think this isn’t a necessary change and it doesn’t advance the law, I disagree. I disagree strongly. Not only is it clear that clarification is needed, it’s long overdue. This bill shifts the balance towards stakeholder interests. DLA Piper, an international law firm, has identified quite nicely the reason for this bill when it said this: “As well as providing clarity, this Bill would mark the current transition in how we view companies and the role they play in society. In New Zealand, according to conventional corporate governance theory, companies have traditionally been viewed through a shareholder primacy lens, which usually translates to maximising returns. The proposed amendment would endorse a shift away from shareholder primacy to the approach where the interests of wider stakeholders have an increasing importance when exercising directors’ duties.” Thank you, DLA Piper. That is, in a nutshell, one of the most prestigious international law firms endorsing this view.

Now, some commentators haven’t been so kind. Chapman Tripp doesn’t see it as necessary and they refer to the case of Debut Homes, but they do so in half-hearted fashion. In fact, in that case the court identified the tension between theories of stakeholder interests and shareholder primacy. They didn’t resolve that issue in the case, because it was clear in that case that directors could take into account the interest of creditors, but they recognised that it was the stakeholder theory of governance that allowed wider considerations beyond maximising profits.

This bill makes it clear that the foundations of company law is stakeholder interests and a narrow shareholder view is not going to cut it any more. Many commentators make the point that it wouldn’t be good for a company’s long-term profitability to ignore stakeholder interests, but that’s not good enough. It’s not just about profits.

We have a test. They call it the business judgment test—the idea that you can’t second guess directors. But that presupposes that it’s all about business. What we need is a purpose judgment test: is the purpose of the company properly pursued by the directors when they’re exercising their judgment? And that’s what taking into account these wider considerations mean.

But I do want to put one issue to rest, and Mr Bayly seems to have made this issue. The bill is not some carte blanche to ignore the risks to creditors and to trade in an insolvent manner. There’s numerous protections for creditors. The Companies Act has reckless trading rules, for example, in section 135.

So look, there’s a good number of people also saying, on the other side of the fence, I haven’t gone far enough, that this should be compulsory, that it should be wrong to ignore the wider interests. I haven’t gone that far. Look, we’ve recently heard about mega profits from the banks. Have they lost their social licence? What do they take into account? Do they take into account social goals? It’s time for companies to wake up. This is a shift. This is a change in the balance of shareholders versus stakeholders. It’s a good bill. I’m very proud of it. I look forward to it going to select committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I move, That the Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill.

Tēnā tātou i te Whare. Tēnā tātou e hui tahi nei. Tuatahi, Megan, kei te tangi atu ki te āhuatanga i te rirotanga o tō māmā, o tō kōkā, nō reira, tika tonu kia mihi rā atu ki a koe i te wehetanga o tō māmā i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to everyone in the House. Thank you for gathering together. Firstly, to Megan, I grieve for the passing of your mother, and so, it is appropriate to acknowledge you in that loss tonight.]

It’s a pleasure to rise and introduce my first member’s bill as an MP in Te Paati Māori, the Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill—well, you can see it’s quite a popular bill, because just about every party—Labour, Greens, and ourselves—have all seen this is an issue for us all.

Our electoral law—and I’ve said it in the past, and this is not going to be a shocking fright for everybody—is the most racist law in this country. It was designed purposefully to prevent Māori from participating fully in the democratic process. If we look back to 1867, when the four Māori electorates were established, they were set up as only four seats. This was designed to severely limit the representation we had in this place; given, at the time, we would have held a great number of seats—based on the population, at least 48 to 50 percent. Even then, it was only Māori men over the age of 21 who could vote. It wasn’t until 1893 that Māori women were able to vote. Racism dominated the system from then until now.

Until 1975, the so-called half-caste Māori with one Māori and one European parent were allowed to choose which seat they wished to vote on; blood quantuming, which was a tool used before 1975 to control Māori and first-nations people all over the world. The New Zealand Government did this through a very cruel and ghastly tool, like I said: blood quantuming. The racist tool was used to question one’s whakapapa. This is where the label “Māori elitism” was born. This is a tool that amplifies the colonisers’ favourite tool, which is to divide and conquer. The title “Māori elitism” as a divide and conquer tool is still being used by MPs and parties today.

As members of Parliament, we have responsibility to ensure that Aotearoa has free and fair elections and does not lock anyone out, or a group, from participating. We have an obligation to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and repeal any racist and discriminatory provisions on our law books. Today, with this bill, I’m giving each and every one of you, the opportunity—every one of “us”; sorry, Mr Speaker—to do just that: electoral participation and a basic right for Māori to exercise in Aotearoa, guaranteed in article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and within international law. There should be no barriers put up for tangata whenua to participate in the electoral process.

However, our current electoral system does just that: it puts up barriers for our people to freely engage in politics and elections. Currently, there are only two opportunities for Māori to choose electoral rolls, either at the time of initial enrolment or during the Māori electoral option. The electoral option period only takes place over a four-month period every five to six years; the last one was in 2018, it’s an eight-year lockout, e hika mā. The last electoral option was 2018. People that wanted to change before the 2020 election couldn’t, because the next electoral option is 2024, which means they will miss the 2023 election. So the election of their choice, on the roll of their choice, won’t happen until 2026. What this does, in effect, is lock out the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa from fully participating in our democracy for up to an eight-year period.

Thousands of Māori request to change electoral rolls every year. This has likely led to thousands of Māori disengaged from the electoral process altogether. This is a disgrace and highlights what tangata whenua have to deal with when engaging in this democratic system.

The bill before the House today would once and for all make the simple changes that are needed for Māori to freely participate in the decision making that affects them at every level. It would amend the Electoral Act 1993 to enable Māori voters to switch between the Māori and non-Māori electoral rolls at any time. We acknowledge that the Government followed our lead and introduced a bill to enable Māori to switch rolls more freely; this bill is before the select committee before it enters into the second reading, and which we support. However, I’m calling on this House today to also support my bill through to select committee to enable the debate, because there are other things in my bill that allow us to really home in on the discrepancies and also the discrimination that Māori face within our electoral law.

We also think there should be legislative requirements that if somebody stipulates that they are Māori, when enrolling, but doesn’t choose an electoral roll, that they are placed on the Māori roll. Our research shows that many of our people are being put on the non-Māori roll, the general roll, in this manner, if they sign a paper-based form.

My bill will also change the name of the general electoral district to the non-Māori electoral district—and the voting, all electorates take place during a general election: so you’ve got the general roll and the general election. That must change also. We’re open to the debate as the best way to at least—confusing the name might be, but however we are clear that our people are sick and tired of being marginalised. We are the first-nations people of this land; the status quo cannot continue.

I lay down a wero to all these parties today to support this particular bill. It will allow Māori to freely move in the electoral process of this country and participate in our democracy in a lot fairer and a more inclusive manner in regards to voting not just at local level but at central level. It allows us to participate without being locked out.

Much of the criticism for this proposed law change reveals a shocking level of hypocrisy and double standards. Like I said yesterday, I see that there is an issue around Māori being able to change a few months or a few weeks before a by-election. The thing is that that is already happening with house owners and homeowners all over the country. We know that. Everybody else knows that. If you have an address in another town, you can enrol in that town and vote in that town, and you can do that at any time. There’s no such thing as a month or a week or a few weeks out where you can’t do that; people are doing it all the time. All this is about is about enabling Māori to choose which roll they vote on; no one will get an extra vote.

Any party who fails to support these changes will have made it obvious that they are actively hostile to the fundamental rights and interests of tangata whenua. However, my hope is that we can put aside political differences and partisan strategising and just get this done. It’s the right thing to do. It is time. I am open to debating all the ins and outs of my bill as drafted at the select committee—noting the issue around the timing of when our people could change rolls, especially before a by-election and before the general election. I’m not bound to all of the wording, but I am bound to get this across the line on behalf of our people. I look forward to the kōrero from our colleagues across the House this evening and working together to end racism and discrimination in our electoral system once and for all.

So my plea to everybody in the House tonight, e hika mā: tautoko mai i tēnei pire. Tautoko mai i tēnei pire hei oranga mō tangata whenua, mō Māori kia tarea anō hoki e tātou te whakatutuki.

[support this bill. Support this bill for the wellbeing of the people of the land, for Māori, so that this can be accomplished by all of us.]

The districts also are a lockout because if we have got 50 percent of Māori on the Māori roll, 50 percent on the general roll—let’s just say, in fact, that before the general election, they all change; the 50 percent from the general roll, or vice versa, change—and you get 100 percent on one of those rolls, we can’t change the electoral districts for a five-year period. It’s another five-year lockout. So that should be reviewed before every election—that should be reviewed before every election—to allow Māori a fairer shot not just in the voting process but also our representation in this House, because we know that every five years there is a census and every five years they determine how many people are on the Māori roll and on the general roll, which will determine how many seats Māori get in this House.

So these are some of the things that we really need to look at in terms of the electoral roll. We’re getting one shot. The last time is 1993, e hika mā. We’re getting one shot at this, and I want us to be able to do justice to the changes within the electoral law to allow Māori to be able to vote, to allow Māori a fairer representation in this House, and not only in this House but also councils around this country, because their elections are usually the year before the general elections—or the national elections.

So my plea to this House: support, at least to first reading, at least to select committee, so we can have the debate, and let’s nut it out there. Let’s give a fairer shot for tangata whenua and Māori in our electoral law. Kia ora tatou.

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

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also want to thank my colleague on the other side of the House, Rawiri Waititi, and Te Paati Māori for bringing this bill to the House. It’s sensible and it’s something that as the member Rawiri Waititi previously alluded to, has been called for for a long time. There were 20,000 people—well, just under 20,000 people—in the last election who approached the Electoral Commission and said, “Can we please switch rolls?” Whether it was from general to Māori or Māori back to general, there was a desire for just under 20,000 people to change their rolls, because of many different reasons, and we traversed some of that yesterday.

It is a sensible bill, and it’s, obviously, the member’s first member’s bill as well, so whilst we want to support it, we on this side of the House won’t be supporting it tonight, and for really good reason. It’s because, in this House, timing is everything, and the member’s member’s bill was actually pulled out of the ballot box the day after we had presented our Government bill to address this very issue—the very prior day. So we’re faced with a situation right now where we’ve actually already got a bill in train. The Government is progressing the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill, and a lot of the kōrero today will actually be mirrored by what we talked about just yesterday when we had the second reading of that bill. We’re expecting to be at the committee of the whole House stage very soon on that one. It’s been through the Justice Committee. It’s been open for submissions; people have submitted into the process. There is a potential double-up going on here. We agree with exactly what this member’s bill is trying to address: the fact that many people out there, many people that are of Māori descent, want to be able to change rolls. We want them to be able to do that too, so we’ve got our own piece of legislation to deal with that.

I want to just acknowledge, though, that the status quo is that four months, every five years, is how long you get to be able to decide if you want to be able to swap rolls. And some people catch that time frame; a lot of our whānau don’t. Whether it’s because they’re out there working, taking care of their families, actually, many people miss that opportunity. So as a Māori electorate MP, there’s actually a lot of pressure on us when it comes to actually listening to the concerns of our people, who, for whatever reason, want to have this conversation but only tend to have it whenever election year comes around. And then we have to tell them, “Oh, actually the last time you were allowed to change, it was actually two years ago.”, and they completely missed the boat.

Rawiri Waititi is right: you know, you then have to say the next time that they’re available to do this is 2024. That’s a really long time in-between the ability to be able to change the rolls, and it’s become more prominent because, as we freed up the legislation to enable Māori wards to be in councils all across Aotearoa, actually, there’s a new focus on the Māori roll. We have 66 new Māori councillors sitting around decision-making tables all across Aotearoa, and that’s really important. The only way that you can vote for one of those people who is sitting in those Māori wards, though, is that you have to be on the Māori roll. So, naturally, there are going to be people that want to be able to support their whanaunga, support their friends who are standing for election in local government to be able to stand in those Māori wards, but they want to be able to vote for them too.

As somebody that has stood for Parliament before, in both a general seat and a Māori seat, I understand the frustration. I understand the frustration of those around me who, when I decided to put my hand up for a general seat, everybody that I knew wanted to jump on the general roll—my whānau, my friends—and, actually, they do have that ability to, but the timing of that was all wrong. When I decided to stand for a Māori electorate seat, the same thing happened, but in reverse. This is a system that has been murky from the start, and the prior member, Rawiri Waititi, actually talked about the imposition of the Māori seats on our whānau Māori all across the country. It’s a system that we’ve had to adopt over the course of the years. It was imposed on us at the start, but, actually, our Māori seats are a taonga now. Actually, our Māori communities all around the country said it’s the only mechanism to have guaranteed representation of their voice in this Parliament.

So I support the concept here. I support the concept that our whānau should be able to change rolls freely. We support the sentiment of this member’s bill. But we’ve already got a bill that’s on the go, and, for that reason, we won’t be supporting this bill. It does speak to what we believe in the New Zealand Labour Party to be true, which is that in our 2020 manifesto commitment we included that, actually, we are committed to protecting the integrity of New Zealand elections. We are committed to ensuring that voters, Māori and non-Māori, have access to the polls, and we’re also including in that a commitment to reviewing the financing rules when it comes to elections as well. These are processes that we want to—well, especially this one, in terms of being able to change rolls freely. We want to get this sewn up so that it’s actually in good time for next year’s general election, 2023.

Whenever we make changes in this House to our voting rules, it needs to be taken really seriously. This isn’t something that we should be tampering or tinkering with around the edges; it’s something that needs cross-party support. So I’m proud that the Government bill that pledges to do something about this, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill, has actually had a cross-party approach to it. It has been around the different parties so that they have been able to input into it. We’re still about to approach the committee of the whole House stage, so I’ll probably pass on a message to the member that if there are Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) or amendments that he wants to put in, actually, we have a train that’s already going and a process that’s already going, and I would encourage him to be able to put up those SOPs so that we can have that debate.

Because he’s right: we have to have a good, robust debate about this, about any kind of reform that involves our voting system here in Aotearoa. I want to have that, and let’s have that as a committee of the whole House. Bring your amendments, so that we can actually focus on getting this piece of legislation through in time for the 2023 general election and so that we can actually send a vote of confidence out there to Māori all across the country, who, if we look at our voting statistics, have got a declining participation in our electoral system. Anything that we can do to make it more open to allow Māori to be able to participate in our election process has got to be a good thing.

So this is a very well-meaning bill. It is something that I appreciate the member has brought to the House, but, tonight, we won’t be supporting it because we already have a piece of legislation. It is well in train. It’s ready for the committee of the whole House stage. I look forward to some of those finer points that he brings up that are contained in his member’s bill—I look forward to debating those as a whole House. I commend it to the House—I don’t commend it to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, that was a slightly surreal finish to that speech from the member on the other side, Tāmati Coffey. It’s my pleasure to stand and speak on this Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill in the name of Rawiri Waititi. I do, sadly, have to pass on the message to the MP that we won’t, on this side, be supporting this bill either, for very similar reasons to the previous Labour Party speaker—and, of course, Labour’s votes are essential to passing any bills in this House, as it is with the numbers at the moment. What’s happened, of course, is that the Government has introduced a bill which is dealing with this issue around switching between the two rolls.

The practice up till now has been that only once every five years, at the time of the census, for four months afterwards, people have the ability to choose between the two rolls. The logic of that was because the numbers of the Māori seats were determined by the number of people on the Māori roll, because, fortunately, in this part of government we still adhere to the principle of one person, one vote and equal voting rights—all New Zealanders should have an equal voting right—and so the number of Māori seats should be proportional to the number of people on the Māori roll. So, changing, unfortunately, of course—that basic principle, that foundational democratic principle, is under threat at the local government level, and we’ll be fighting very hard in the next election to restore equal voting rights to that part of our government, but that’s a side issue.

But on this issue, of course, switching between the rolls within that five-year period between censuses could have some impact on the overall proportionality at the second election, but, of course, population changes in general electorates also have an impact as well, and so that’s not a not-overcomeable issue. The primary issue that we had with the legislation that the Government introduced, and which is part and parcel of this bill as well, is that it didn’t acknowledge, in allowing people to switch between rolls at any point, including on election day or the day before election day, and it didn’t allow for the very real possibility of what the previous Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, referred to as “tactical roll switching”, and that is people deciding which vote would have more impact in any given election, whether it’s on the Māori roll or the general roll, and deciding which one to go for in the lead-up to an election. So we weren’t enthusiastic about that.

What we’ve managed to achieve in our discussions with the Government is to ensure that we had the ability to have an exclusion around a period of a general election of three months, and also local elections as well, because that would be inappropriate. The Government did recognise this issue at the time when they introduced their bill, because they had an exclusion around by-elections for that very reason. There was no great logic for excluding by-elections but not excluding general elections and central elections, so the Government made that change and therefore we were prepared to support that bill.

This bill, of course, introduced by Mr Waititi doesn’t have that exclusion, and therefore we’re less inclined to support it. It also has some unusual features: the suggestion is to name everybody who’s on what’s now called the general roll—to divide it between the Māori roll and the non-Māori roll. I’m not quite sure that that’s an appropriate way of doing it. I don’t, sort of, regard myself as non-Māori; I regard myself as a New Zealander, and to sort of describe us as something that we are not is not something that is a very appealing proposition. So I’m not quite sure why he had that in mind. I also think—

Rawiri Waititi: It’s not untruthful; it’s true.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it may well be true, but it’s not—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Time expired]

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member Paul Goldsmith for his comments and I might pick up where he left off, but first I want to mihi to Rawiri Waititi. He is a politician in this House who will go down as one of the best of us. He is a delight around the select committee table, he has a huge heart for his people, he is an incredible orator, and his member’s bill is pretty good but it’s not good enough.

I didn’t know that when we were talking about tactical roll-switching—now, tactical roll-switching is not something I have observed, and it’s certainly not something the Electoral Commission has observed. But this fulla, he is a tactical roll-switcher! Let me tell you about how in 2014, Rawiri Waititi and I worked together on the Labour ticket. We were together out there engaging Māori voters as two young, promising Labour Māori candidates. There’s a lovely photo, and it has Soraya Peke-Mason, me, Rawiri, and our leader David Cunliffe—

Shanan Halbert: And me!

ARENA WILLIAMS: —and Shanan Halbert. We’re all around David Cunliffe, giving a big rah-rah at Koroneihana, and he’s loving it—he is loving it. And it’s tactical, it’s thoughtful—and he is a tactical and thoughtful politician. He’s on that side of the House now, but we know he’s with us; and he knows we’re with him. And that’s why, on this issue, we broadly agree, but the House tonight is debating the question of “Whose bill does it better?” Is it Labour’s bill or is it the Māori Party bill? And on this one I have to say that Labour has landed a position here which is going to pass. And that’s got to be the test—our bill, on this side of the House, has landed on a consensus-based position which we wouldn’t have got to with this one. So I have to say that when we work together—Labour and the Māori Party—we get things done. And I thank Rawiri for bringing this bill, but that’s the reality.

It was a good election campaign, that 2014 campaign. I was a new candidate. I was running against Andrew Bayly; he was also a new candidate. We had a lot of fun on the campaign trail. Didn’t see any evidence of tactical roll-switching, but I saw some tactical switching to me as a candidate—some good National Party heartlanders told me that they were going to vote for me—

Andrew Bayly: Really?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yeah, that’s right! Went down to the local Baptist church with David Clark here, whose parents live in the electorate too, and I think I won the room that day on that debate. It was a good tactical switch—

Jamie Strange: I was in Taupō.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —and Jamie Strange was running in that 2014 election, too; good proper candidates in 2014, I have to say—and Willow-Jean Prime, she beat me on the list. But she did well; she did well. And Rawiri would’ve done well too if he’d gotten up there ahead of Willow, but you know, Willow’s pretty good, so that’s why she’s up there.

Look, I just want to make a quick point further to my point about which bill solves this problem better, and it simply is the Government bill. But what I wanted to talk about a little bit more seriously is an important issue that Rawiri has raised here and has been commenting on in the media, and he’s raised a very useful discussion for us to have in this House, which is how we engage with Māori and how we make sure that Māori have their say in the democratic process.

Now, I know that a lot of that has to do with the way that people engage with their lives and their community around them more generally. It’s not just about politics, but it’s about people feeling like they have a say in the community, they have a stake in the community, that they belong there, that they are valued, and that their neighbours hear them, and that they can talk to these people. But then some of that is about being able to see, in their local politicians and in the leaders of political parties, people who look like them, and talk like them, and think like them.

That is a very real and important role of the Māori seats. It’s one I will always defend. It’s the reason I am on the Māori roll. And though I live in the heart of Manurewa and I cannot and will not ever be able to vote for myself, I believe in the Māori seats because they represent an avenue for Māori to seek the kind of representation which under Te Tiriti o Waitangi we are guaranteed, and this is a very reasonable and rational conversation for us to have about how we best exercise those rights.

Now, there’s something in Rawiri’s bill—it’s clause 5, which inserts new subsection (3) into section 76 of the Act—which I actually think doesn’t really do that. It’s about—if you are Māori, it says “… who possesses the qualifications in that behalf by this Act and first applies to be registered as an elector, does not specify whether they wish to be registered either as an elector of a Maori electoral district or as an elector of a non-Maori electoral district, they must be registered as a elector of the Maori electoral district.” I think that undermines the importance of the Māori seats and the way that they operate now, and that’s why I wouldn’t support it. And that’s why I can’t support this bill.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the member’s bill. Tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki a koe, e Rawiri. Nāu te waimarie i puta tēnei o ngā pire i te tīni pihikete, me kī, engari e mihi ana ki a koe.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, Rawiri. You have been lucky to have this particular bill drawn from the biscuit tin, let’s say, but I acknowledge you.]

I can see there is a little bit of confusion in terms of taking this call, but I will carry on. Thank you to those who have made the contributions before me. What I wanted to add to that is today has been a really significant day for us in Parliament. We’ve had a special photograph taken, celebrating the fact that we are now 50:50 wāhine in Parliament. This evening, in the speeches, we had Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia recognised for the work that she did around—along with others and those that came later—ensuring that women could enrol and could vote. So I want to mihi to that tupuna of ours, wahine mana whai kaha kia tū tātou katoa i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō [a woman whose strength enables us to stand in this House tonight]. Secondly, I want to just acknowledge Iriaka Rātana, the first Māori woman to be elected to Parliament.

Like Arena Williams, I am actually on the Māori roll, and I am the MP for Northland, and there was a funny situation in the by-election, and that’s the point I really want to make around this, this evening. But in the by-election, , there were questions being asked about who I would vote for in that by-election, and I was proud to be able to say that my MP for Parliament was Kelvin Davis and I had already cast my vote. And to everybody’s surprise, they were like, “Ha! You’re not even on the general roll; you can’t vote for yourself.” And, you know, they couldn’t fathom that I wouldn’t be on the general roll and getting that additional vote for myself. I am still on the Māori roll, proud that Kelvin Davis is my MP, and even though I have that ability to switch rolls and to vote for myself, I fundamentally believe in the Māori seats in Parliament and will stay on the Māori roll because of it.

And you know what? It was so special to be able to vote in this year’s local body elections for my four candidates for the Ngā Tai o Tokerau seats in the Far North District Council and the Te Raki constituency in the Northland Regional Council. But I too have long understood the problem—the unfairness that exists—that we can only switch those rolls after a census every five to six years in a very short window of time when you get the little envelope with the orange guy on it; that every time you get it, it’s something a little bit different that you’re needing to respond to; and that within that four-month window, so many people missed that opportunity to switch rolls. Yet if I moved to a different area like I have—I’ve lived in Hamilton, I’ve lived in Wellington, and I’ve lived in Northland—I can change my electorate at any time that I move around. There is an inherent unfairness, and that’s what your bill—sorry, Mr Speaker, what the member’s bill—aims to address. But like has been mentioned in the House, we actually already have a bill which does that and is far more progressed than the member’s.

I am a member of the Justice Committee. We received over 120 submissions. Overwhelmingly, they pointed out the problems that, together, the member and our side of the House have identified and wish to address. If I could just say that in terms of our bill, the one thing it does mention is the by-election, and I do actually support this, because when I stood for Northland, you know, I already elected my member of Parliament—that was Kelvin Davis. To then be able to jump over and elect myself, I think, would be unfair, and you would be getting two bites at the cherry. So I do actually support that there be that restriction, that limitation, around by-elections, because you have already had that chance to choose your person. So I think that provision within our piece of legislation is preferable, but I absolutely support that we be able to change rolls freely and certainly more frequently than five to six years. But, unfortunately, I won’t be supporting the member’s bill because we have one already past second reading. Kia ora.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to do a special shout-out to my friend from across the aisle, Willow-Jean Prime, who has just resumed her seat. Thanks for taking call No. 5. It turns out I was No. 5. But also congratulations, Rawiri Waititi. This is a good bill, and it is not often that members’ bills are pulled from the ballot. Yours was pulled, mine had already been pulled, and then the Government put in their bill. And that’s because this is a good idea. It’s an idea that has been around for a long time.

There is absolutely no reason why those who are eligible to vote on the Māori roll should have to wait five years—and I did obtain, I have to say, as a cheat sheet, my friend’s notes on his bill, because it is important to give voice to all of the concerns here—and sometimes up to eight years, because, of course, if you become eligible to vote right before an election or far away from an election, that five-year period can make it into about an eight-year period where you can’t choose to switch rolls. That is an arbitrary restriction that limits democracy for Māori and that little thing that the Government keeps pushing for and keeps throwing around called “co-governance”.

It is good that there is a Government bill now. It was my aim when I put in my bill, the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill, to give light to all of the different electoral reforms that had been recommended over the years by the likes of the Electoral Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal—all of these things that had been floating around, and successive Governments had politicised: our democracy, the rules that make our democracy fair. And so it’s nice to have been able to give light to some of those reforms and to have this Government pick some of them up, including the electoral funding stuff, including this, including prisoner voting, including overseas voting.

But this is particularly important—constitutionally important—because we know that there was a time when democracy as we know it in Aotearoa New Zealand was designed, and it wasn’t designed with all of us in mind. It wasn’t designed to give voice to all of our concerns, to empower all of our communities, and it was certainly not designed to give force to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding constitutional document. We know that Māori have always had democracy as part of their culture, and we know that tangata whenua have believed in decision making by democratic means in all sorts of ways, for ever. This is one version of democracy, and it was never built to empower Māori participation. We’ve realised that now because we see that Māori participation is unfairly down, and we see that marginalisation is real here.

So this is a good bill, but the Government bill doesn’t quite go far enough. Why wouldn’t we say that someone who has indicated that they are eligible to vote on the Māori roll would automatically go on the Māori roll? Why not? Someone designed the rule that they’re automatically on the other roll, and it wasn’t aimed at empowering Māori democracy. So why not shift it back? Why not call that Te Tiriti - based democracy?

I do find it really a little bit devastating for my friend Paul Goldsmith that that side of the House put him up to talk against tactical voting, as the National Party member for Epsom, the one electorate where tactical voting is all there is. The issue of one vote per person remains with this bill, with the Government’s bill, and with my bill when it comes to the Māori electoral option. We still all have one vote per person. It’s just about giving voice and giving mana and autonomy back to Māori voters. This bill does that far and away beyond the Government bill. We don’t always have to make deals with the conservative centrists; we can make deals with the Greens and with tangata whenua when we agree on things that the House should agree upon.

So I commend this bill, and I commend the Government’s bill, but I wish we were a little bit more progressive than all of that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Mr Rawiri Waititi, we’re not supporting this bill tonight. We’re not supporting the bill, but we do congratulate you on having your bill pulled from the ballot box.

Now, I do want to reply to a couple of things that have been said in the House this evening, including the fact that while some may think that Māori have been disadvantaged in New Zealand with the right to vote, I’m actually quite proud that we are one of the countries in the world that allowed women to vote first. And that included Māori women.

We were also one of the first countries in the world to allow indigenous people to have the vote. It’s not been all bad; it’s been pretty darn good, actually, and something I’m proud of and proud to participate in.

I remember when I first signed up on the electoral roll when I was living in Rotorua, and I didn’t understand the difference between the Māori roll and the general roll. I thought because I was a Māori, I had to sign up on the Māori roll. Then I read the fine print and understood I didn’t have to do that.

I read, I understood, I asked questions. That’s what a lot of people do, and I get tired of being felt like I’m a dumb Māori because I’m a Māori. I think that we need to actually enlighten ourselves and realise we are very capable people, and have achieved a heck of a lot in the 180 years that we have had this constitutional right to be able to vote.

Now, while we don’t support the bill, we do support one concept within it—and not all of it—and my colleagues across the House have addressed this as well. And that is that we do believe it’s not right that you can only change the roll that you’re on every five years.

We think that’s inadequate, it’s not flexible enough, and that that should be changed. And we are debating, at the moment in the House, the Government’s bill that’s going through. We will, as a party, look to address the upcoming Supplementary Order Paper and have discussions around that as well, because we do believe that there should be a change, but not the ability to just be able to change whenever you want over a three-year cycle.

Part of the reason why—and I did go through this last night, but I will go through it for the benefit of this bill. We have a constitutional way of being able to administer how we vote. This includes having a census, which is every five to six years. Then after that, there is only a very small window of four months where Māori can change rolls. The ones I’ve heard of are mostly wanting to get off the Māori roll, not get on it, but it’s a person’s individual choice to make and they should be able to. But that four-month window is inadequate and it’s so small.

The commission then sends the rolls to the Statistician after that period, and the Statistician then sends data back on to the electorates, and the commission then makes up the electorates. So when we look at what the member wishes to do in his second plan—which is to change the redraw of electoral boundaries—it’s actually not as simple as doing that. You have to work within the constitutional process. So we wouldn’t be able to do that piece anyway under what he is wanting.

Also, the third bullet point that the member has wanted to do is put an automatic placement on the Māori roll for members if they don’t choose which one. And I don’t agree with that. The ACT Party does not agree with that, that just because you tick a box that you’re Māori; if you don’t choose which roll you want to go on, you automatically go on to the Māori roll. There were some good examples that were delivered last night as to why that should not happen, including if you move yourself from your own rohe to a new one and don’t wish to vote on the Māori electorate in that new rohe.

Changing the name of the general roll to a non-Māori roll, well, that doesn’t suit ACT’s multi-ethnic society that we believe that we are in. It’s not about being Māori or non-Māori; in fact, non-Māori is absolutely negative—it’s a negative connotation. We would like to see words that are used that encompass everybody—all of New Zealanders—because that’s the way forward in this country.

So while we commend the member for having his bill drawn—because it’s not easy to do—we commend the debate that he wants to have; this is the place to have it. We unfortunately, though, will not be supporting this bill.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Rawiri Waititi, and commend him for pushing through an important area. However, the bill primarily covers an area that is already being addressed through the targeted change that the Government is progressing in the bill that received its second reading in the House yesterday.

I think it’s a really interesting point, particularly the ability to move between both rolls. I think it’s important to note that you always nominate which roll you go on right from the start. You don’t automatically get put on any roll, but you need to be saying which roll you wish to go on, and that’s an important right within New Zealand.

I think it’s been a really interesting discussion through select committee on this issue: the submissions that we heard on the point of being able to change freely between the two rolls, the arguments for and against, and also the argument on whether or not you should have a three-month buffer, as we have arrived at with the bill that will be continuing in its final stages as it progresses through the House. When I think back on the submissions that we received on this issue, one springs to mind. There was one guy, who was particularly lively, who felt it was his right to be on both rolls. He argued really strongly that he had a right as tangata whenua and a New Zealander to be on both the general roll and the Māori roll and, in fact, get two votes. That was—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was that Willie Jackson?

GINNY ANDERSEN: No, it was not Willie Jackson, and it wasn’t your grandmother, either. So I think that it’s an important issue that we do need to address.

My concern a bit about having that three-month buffer zone in the ability to change rolls is that the statistics that were provided by the Electoral Commission show that the big wave of people who wanted to change from either one roll or the other occurred in that build-up before a general election, because that’s when people turned their minds to what was happening, where they were living, and how they wanted to vote. So while there is an argument that people may strategically vote, there is also an equal argument that strategic voting is their right and they can choose to vote how they wish to vote. I think that is an incredibly important point.

I think it’s good to note that, wherever possible, changes to the voting system should be done in a cross-party manner, and that’s why, personally, I was really pleased to see consensus across the House in relation to the Government bill that covers this issue. I think it’s good that we are on the same page on the things that affect democracy and how we vote in New Zealand.

It was always going to be a difficult task for a member’s bill to undertake such a significant change to electoral law. It would also lead to a repeat submissions period for the Justice Committee and would duplicate the public consultation period of electoral reform that the independent review panel currently has under way and is doing.

On the Government bill, the timing of the Māori electoral roll option does clearly create a barrier for Māori voters who wish to participate in the electoral system, and that came through loud and clear in the submissions that we received. I think it’s important that we it take seriously that if there are barriers to people voting, wanting to vote, and being engaged, we have to take every action possible to make sure we reduce those. So this bill—the one that is progressing—will remove that barrier and allow Māori to change rolls more regularly if they wish to do so.

The member’s bill and the reserved provisions in the Electoral Act: the changes made to the Māori electoral option by this bill may also potentially trigger the reserved provisions of the Electoral Act in the same way that the Government bill does. This would mean that should the Māori Party bill make it to the committee of the whole House stage, it would also be subject to the same Speaker’s ruling as a Government bill, and it would be subject to a 75 percent majority requirement if the Speaker rules that the reserved provisions are triggered. So that’s another issue to consider in the context of this.

It’s also good to note the ongoing work in that wider review of electoral reform regarding how MMP is working and regarding that 5 percent threshold and the coat-tailing provisions. It’s always good to continually review how we’re operating and how MMP serves this Parliament. I’d like to conclude by saying that while MMP comes with its bumps along the way, for us to commemorate today having 50 percent of Parliament being comprised of women is largely due to MMP and the changes that that system enabled for a far more representative Parliament to take shape, and I’m proud to be part of the changes that have seen that happen.

So, to finish up, I would like to commend Rawiri Waititi, and I look forward to the Government bill progressing the idea that he supports as well. Ngā mihi.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Well, it’s no surprise—just about everyone in the House is not supporting the bill, but in doing so it is important to acknowledge the member, Rawiri Waititi, because I think we all understand the work, effort, and passion that goes into putting a member’s bill forward, and speaking passionately to that. So I’m looking forward to Rawiri’s concluding remarks.

Look, fundamentally—in concept—the National Party and myself have no concerns about the movement between rolls. The big issue has been around the timing. And as we supported, yesterday, the Government’s bill in this space, it was all about saying yep, a four-month window after a general election is far too narrow, but being able to chop and change, if you will, right up to an election day or a by-election doesn’t cut the mustard.

Just a few other quick points, because I don’t really want to waste the House’s time; there’s been a lot of talk here about tactical voting. Well, that’s how you choose to exercise your vote, that’s not about moving your physical vote around to suit the circumstances. There’s a big distinction.

Obviously, I’m not Māori myself; I’ve said that many times before. But I would just make the point that Māori are not just one single homogeneous group. There are many views within Māoridom, and we’ve heard some from within the ACT Party and others. So I just think it’s important to say that. Just as I’m not able to speak for all good-looking white men! Sorry, that’s just terrible.

So anyway, I just want to end it there. I just actually want to commend the member, I’m looking forward to his response. But in this case, National will not support the bill. But we are pleased to continue supporting what is the Government’s bill at this time.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Rawiri Waititi’s Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill. E mihi atu ki a koe e te tuakana, e Rawiri.

[Thank you to you, my brother Rawiri.]

Thank you for the work that you’ve done behind this. It was only a few weeks ago that Rawiri and myself, Rachel Boyack, Nicola Grigg, and Simon Watts travelled across to Canada as a delegation on behalf of this Parliament to meet with First Nations people, to meet with parliaments in Canada, and, I guess, to share some of the work that we’ve been doing in Aotearoa New Zealand. When we came to meet with different groups, in every meeting that we had, groups were interested in our democratic system and how well our First Nations indigenous people were doing it in Aotearoa New Zealand. We spoke openly about the progress that this Parliament has made in representation, and we started talking about the appointment of our new Speaker, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. We talked about the number of Ministers in this House now that have an indigenous background, through to the 20-odd members that are indigenous in this House, and then Rawiri would jump in and include, as well as—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you just respect Mr Waititi by using his surname, please.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you. Then Mr Waititi would jump in and talk about the only indigenous party in the world and in Aotearoa. While I was challenged by that point at the time, it does reflect the evolution in our representation of our indigenous people in this country. Fundamentally, when we look at this bill, what Mr Waititi and I agree on is better representation and participation for Māori in our democratic system.

The second part in this discussion is how we achieve that. What’s important here is that most of all, the thing that we want to achieve is to increase Māori to turn out and vote come election time. For me, the steps that we make to ensure that we get the best number of votes from Māori in each election, whether that be central or local government, is fundamentally what is important for me in the decision making in such bills.

Yesterday, we went through the Government’s bill and we talked through the opportunity that that presented in a larger scale than Mr Waititi’s bill in front of us, the opportunity that that presents to Māori, and the opportunity that that presents to our democratic system. So tonight I won’t be supporting this bill, on the basis that—

Hon Members: Aw!

SHANAN HALBERT: Tata—tata. I want to acknowledge the work of Mr Waititi, of course, and our goals are the same. I opened with the whakataukī “Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi”—that with my food basket, with your food basket, our community and our people will flourish. The work that we do to achieve the goals for Māori is—you know, one way we can go is via a member’s bill, the other way we can go is via the Government’s programme of work. On this one, my friend, we will be going via the Government’s programme of work, but the important thing is that the outcome and the achievements for our people fundamentally the same.

Just to finish off, as somebody with indigenous whakapapa in this country—to Ngāti Whitikaupeka and to Rongowhakaata— I am on the general roll, and it’s a decision that I made for myself to be represented in that particular space. I also have European whakapapa, and that was the right place for me. But for my father and my cousins, I fundamentally believe that they have the right to decide which roll that they sit on, who best represents them. But most of all, the thing that really counts for me is that they turn out in local and central government elections and that they make their vote count.

So I just want to acknowledge, finally, my friend, my tuakana, Rawiri Waititi, my kaihaerenga and a wonderful gentleman to travel with, and I look forward to having KFC with you after this, but unfortunately I’m unable to support this bill tonight.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Well, I’ve heard many an oxymoron this evening: “It’s sensible, but we will not be supporting it.”

I just want to acknowledge the first speaker, Tāmati Coffey, who actually talked about being on the general roll and the Māori roll. He’s still on the general roll, and I just want to thank him for his vote at the last election. Because he couldn’t vote for anybody else, he voted for me. He was still on the general roll at that particular time. But, anyway, just moving on from that, there was some interesting kōrero. One speaker talked about tactical voting, and the seat that he currently sits in only has tactical voting, and it’s decided over a cup of tea. Yes, I do remember 2014, Arena. When you decide to see the light, the Māori Party will be waiting for you. We’ll always be waiting here with open arms, for all those Māori on that side. Haere mai, hoki mai, hoki mai ki te kāinga.

[Welcome, return, come back home.]

So this has been an interesting process in actual fact. And, just to put on the record, in terms of the Hansard, my bill was drawn out and then, a minute later, Labour announced that they were doing the same thing. I can tell you that it was a minute later, because it’s in our press release that went out at the same time as it was drawn. So it’s an interesting space, but it was not a month after; it was actually a minute later that Labour announced their bill for the electoral roll. So ours was actually drawn first.

Hon Member: Now the truth comes out!

RAWIRI WAITITI: Yes, there’s the truth, and it’s now in the Hansard, and I will back it up with the evidence.

I just want to thank the Greens and Golriz for supporting this particular bill. There are only two parties in this House with common sense this evening, but I do want to have a look at some of the other things. This bill never ever questioned anybody’s whakapapa. It never ever questioned anybody’s Māoritanga, but what it did question was their ability to advocate for their Māoritanga. So this wasn’t about questioning whakapapa; this was about being able to stand up for tangata whenua—being able to stand up for a tangata whenua point of view on this issue. Yes, Labour has a similar bill, but it’s like an empty Christmas tree. This bill was a Christmas tree with all the decorations, lights, and the presents underneath it, and we’ve chosen to ignore it. But it’s OK—it’s OK. We will continue to fight to ensure a fairer democratic system for tangata whenua. But it never took away anything, and it never was about threatening the vote of others that are in our democracy. This was just allowing our people to have a fairer process in this country’s democracy, because, for a long time, we have been shut out. And, like I said, it’s over an eight-year period of being shut out for our people.

So I just want to thank everybody for their contributions. I’m a little bit disappointed that we weren’t able to get this over the first reading and be able to debate the other parts of this bill, which are actually missing from the Labour bill, the Government bill. It would have been nice to be able to sit there, I think, and have a robust discussion and kōrero across all the parties about the other parts of this bill, which are missing from their bill. It’s all about the ability to be able to have these robust debates, but, look, the blocks have been put up and we will continue to ensure that the voice of our constituents, in which this bill was created, on their dreams and aspirations, will have to come through other avenues. But we will continue to fight to ensure that their voices are heard in this particular process.

I can hear that the two major parties didn’t support it. ACT? Well, I wasn’t surprised—I wasn’t surprised. The leader of the ACT Party gives me a serve on the way out. Kei te pai tēnā. Boom! Anyway—

Karen Chhour: Point of order. We don’t actually allow—

RAWIRI WAITITI: I’m still speaking, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s a point of order, sorry.

Karen Chhour: —speeches to mention that somebody is not in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He actually mentioned that he was leaving the House. The conversation was still taking place in the House. So we’ll resume—31 seconds to go, Mr Waititi.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I knew that. I know my Standing Orders. He was on the way out of the House. Anyway, regardless of that, I look forward to other members’ bills. I’m thankful that the karakia were heard for this particular bill. I take it from that that the others didn’t hear the same karakia. But, anyway, it will do for the next member’s bill, to ensure that we are able to continue to advocate for our people and for our constituents in this House. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 12

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

Noes 107

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

Motion not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Good night, members.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2022

(continued on Thursday, 10 November 2022)

Bills

United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill

Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill

Third Readings

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I present the legislative statements on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill be now read a third time.

These two bills have undergone the scrutiny of the parliamentary process. Following the first reading in July, the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where it was exhaustively examined. The committee recommended that the bill proceed with a limited number of amendments related to Part 5 of the bill, “Apple transitional export quota”. Further technical amendments were also made for clarity and consistency.

At the committee stage, Part 5 was split out from the rest of the bill, creating two bills: the United Kingdom Free Trade Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill. This split accords with Standing Order 317, given Part 5 creates a completely new legislative framework in whole, whereas other parts amend existing legislation. Part 5 will also be repealed earlier than other parts of the bill as the apple quota will only be enforced until the end of the third year that the free-trade agreement (FTA) is in force. Beyond that, there will be no restrictions.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of these two bills and in support of the gold standard New Zealand - United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and I’d like to acknowledge the high commissioner, who is in the House today. Thank you for the support.

The UK FTA is a high-quality, inclusive, and precedent-setting agreement. It contains important benefits for New Zealand, benefits for our exporters, for our small and medium enterprises, for Māori, for the environment and much more. Our two countries have a uniquely close bond, including a significant connection between Māori and the UK, given the role of the British Crown as one of the original signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ours is a partnership grounded in common traditions, experiences, and values, strengthened and maintained by deep people-to-people links and made relevant by close cooperation across the entire spectrum of engagement: economic, health, science, innovation, sport, defence, and security. This FTA forms an important new cornerstone—the cornerstone of the contemporary relationship between New Zealand and the UK.

The free-trade agreement is a key component of New Zealand’s trade recovery strategy, which recognises that trade is a key driver of our economy from the economic impacts of COVID-19. It is another big step in providing future economic security for our entire nation. It’s also a representation of this Government’s Trade For All agenda, an approach to ensure that the benefits of trade are channelled to all sectors of our society. I believe that this is the true test of the value of any free-trade agreement.

Trade is also important for building a high-wage, low-emissions economy that supports economic security. New Zealand’s work to provide strategic trade depths, through concluding a series of free-trade agreements with key partners, provides New Zealanders with as many trading opportunities and options as possible. Pursuing high-quality and ambitious FTAs is a key to strengthening New Zealand’s trade architecture and resilience under this strategy. The UK FTA is a significant addition to New Zealand’s FTA network and will contribute to our diversified trade portfolio, assisting New Zealand’s recovery from the economic impacts of COVID-19.

The free-trade agreement will also deliver preferential access to the UK’s $3 trillion consumer market, with over 67 million people, for the first time in nearly 50 years since the UK entered the European Community in 1973. The FTA will create the conditions for New Zealand trade to grow, particularly in areas where it has previously been constrained due to very high tariffs such as beef and dairy, and in new innovative sectors such as gaming and fintech.

The market access package that we have agreed is among the very best New Zealand has secured in an FTA. At full implementation, the UK will eliminate all tariffs on all New Zealand exports, and 99.5 percent of current New Zealand exports will enter the UK duty-free on the first day the FTA is in force, thanks to a combination of tariff elimination and sizeable duty-free quotas. At full implementation, the FTA is expected to boost the New Zealand economy by between $700 million and $1 billion, with New Zealand annual exports to the UK estimated to grow by over 50 percent or by up to, we think, $2.2 billion, and I’m sure it will go beyond that.

The FTA contains significant outcomes for matters of interest to Māori, recognising the importance that Māori place on this agreement. This includes a dedicated trade and economic cooperation chapter that will create a platform for cooperation on a range of issues important to Māori, the inclusion of Māori perspectives and concepts in the environment chapter, and, importantly, the preamble to the FTA recognises the unique relationship between Māori and the British Crown as an original signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. As with all FTAs since 2001, the agreement includes New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi exception that ensures that nothing in the FTA would prevent a New Zealand Government from meeting its obligations to Māori. In addition, the UK FTA does not constrain the New Zealand Government’s right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes.

The deal includes new guarantees of market access and more certainty for our services exporters, investors, and for Kiwi businesses wanting to access the UK Government’s procurement market. It will establish a level playing field for New Zealand businesses operating in investing in the UK. We’ve also agreed to cooperate with the UK in a range of areas, including the digital trade, to assist our growing tech sector. As the first FTA launched and concluded under New Zealand’s Trade For All agenda, this FTA sets high ambition commitments in inclusive and sustainable trade. Trade For All principles and priorities were embedded in New Zealand’s approach to the negotiations from the outset and are clearly reflected in the final outcomes. This is New Zealand’s first bilateral free-trade agreement to include a dedicated chapter on trade and gender equality to support women’s economic empowerment. We’ve also secured equality outcomes on trade and development, small and medium enterprises, trade and labour, and anti-corruption.

The FTA also includes far-reaching commitments on trade and the environment. This includes including concrete steps to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels, provisions to combat overfishing, and specific articles on climate change. The trade and environment chapter will prioritise the elimination of tariffs on over 290 environmentally beneficial products. This is a significant list and is the largest ever agreed by either New Zealand or the UK. I believe trade holds the solution to many global challenges, and our trade and environment chapter is a significant step in addressing climate change at this critical time.

Given the difficulties both of COVID-19 and the challenges to the international trading system, the achievement of this gold standard deal cannot be overstated and speaks to New Zealand’s long history of negotiating high-quality and inclusive trade agreements. The FTA sends an important signal of New Zealand’s openness to trade and signals our ability and commitment to progress and conclude trade agreements that deliver for New Zealand. The UK FTA is one of the best deals New Zealand has signed and will assist the development of stronger trade, economic, cultural, and people-to-people links between our countries. The UK is also in the process of acceding to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and this is a further welcome development. The fact that a G7 economy like the UK is interested in joining CPTPP highlights the value of the agreement and the rules-based trading system.

New Zealand is supportive, as we’ve said all along, for the UK joining the CPTPP as it will build on this bilateral free-trade agreement. It will further deepen trade linkages and embed UK in the economic architecture of the Indo-Pacific region. There are a limited number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with certain obligations in this free-trade agreement. The United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill will both enable New Zealand to implement its obligations under this FTA.

I’d just like to finally say that I must compliment the many, many officials in New Zealand and in the UK, as well, for their commitment. A lot of this occurred by way of Zoom, which was a new and challenging process that required a huge amount of trust. Those officials carried that out in an absolutely professional manner, and I want to thank them—Brad Burgess in particular, who led the charge, but the whole team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I’d also like to acknowledge, as I have, the commitments of both Liz Truss and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in the UK as Ministers who championed this agreement, and I hope that the passage of legislation in the UK will enable this bill to be brought into force as soon as possible. Thank you.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. For any country in the world that believes in the importance of trade, of bringing down barriers, of getting rid of regulation and red tape and that the private sector will create relationships to produce things that people around the world want and produce them efficiently, then today in this House is an important day. This is a very high-quality agreement. It sends a signal to other countries’ Governments who protect themselves and their industries because they believe it is good for their economy that, actually, when like-minded countries come together and spend time talking about how to make it easier for their citizens to trade with each other, there is greater benefit in that than protection. All over the world we see that when countries protect their economies, they don’t grow as quickly as they should, their citizens are not as well-off as they might be, and the opportunity that every Government should be trying to present to its citizens is just not there.

I want to congratulate our officials on both sides of this agreement—in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom—for the judicious work they have done to make sure that we send a signal on the importance of trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand to other countries that they may use this as a model as they go forward and negotiate to liberalise, to bring down barriers, and to actually help. The Minister mentioned that he thinks or believes that most problems in the world can be solved through trade. If only that was true. However, I do agree with him that generally where countries trade together there is less likely to be conflict, and there are many more reasons for them to cooperate than for them not to. So in this respect, with our friends in the United Kingdom, today we do a very, very good thing.

I’d like, rather than talking about the detail of this agreement—because that’s been traversed over previous readings in the House—to talk a little bit about the history and what this means. If we go back to after the last war, New Zealand became heavily reliant upon the United Kingdom for most of our farming exports. And, indeed, when lamb was able to leave the shores of New Zealand and be refrigerated on ships and arrive in the UK market and into their shops, prosperity in New Zealand grew quite quickly. It shows that when you produce high-quality goods and services and are able to sell them outside of your shores, it benefits a country, it benefits the economy, and it benefits citizens, people. And, indeed, much effort was put in to developing the UK as a market and New Zealand was doing well. We jump forward to when the UK decided that it wanted to join what was then the Common Market with a small group of European continental countries and our access to the UK overnight was more than restricted. It dried up and New Zealand was faced with a significant challenge, producing high-quality food for a market, for one market overseas, that we no longer had access to.

Two things happened then. Advice from officials and our trade experts was that we needed to engage with European communities and find ways to access that wider market for New Zealand exporters. In that we were successful, but it did not replace completely what we had lost in the change of the trading relationship with the United Kingdom. The second thing that was decided early on and by successive Governments’ work was the need to diversify so that we were no longer reliant ever again on any one nation or any one area of the world or any one product or produce from New Zealand.

Today, in putting this legislation through Parliament, we are rectifying some of the challenges that remained for all of the time since the UK joined the European Community, because, actually, our access to the UK markets for our export now is the same if not better than it was back then, because there are many more areas in the New Zealand economy that produce goods and services that the UK market will want. And so it is a long time coming but it is very, very good for New Zealand exporters. Where people are able to produce high-quality goods competitively and productively and export them to a market that they can rely upon, then New Zealand flourishes and does well.

Trade agreements are about certainty and dependability. The two sides in this area have made commitments to each other, and our business community can now rely upon those as they invest or they change the way they produce to pivot towards the UK market, or, for British producers, towards New Zealand. That certainty also grows economies, which creates jobs and creates a higher standard of living for New Zealanders as it will for people in the United Kingdom.

I want to say that I’m very pleased that this Government has been able to deliver on this. It was a long time coming. In fact, it was around 2016 or slightly before, when the UK was talking about the referendum and that they might leave the European Community, that New Zealand started to engage with the UK. I had the privilege for a period of time of being the trade Minister and I visited the UK on many occasions to make sure the door was open to talk about the type of thing we should do if the UK was to leave the European Union, and to say to them that, along with the European Union, a trade deal with them would be a priority for New Zealand.

I was very pleased therefore in 2016, I think it was, when the then trade secretary Liam Fox confirmed for the very first time that New Zealand along with Australia would be the first cab off the rank once the UK left the European Union to do a high-quality free-trade agreement. And then the debate went to the quality of that deal, because, as with many parts of Europe, farmers are not as sure as they are in New Zealand of the benefits of free trade, because they have grown up very much in a system of protection and subsidy.

I must say to farmers in the United Kingdom, that whilst they may still hold reservations about whether or not allowing access for New Zealand farmers to their market is in their best interests, it absolutely is. In New Zealand, if we continue to have protection of our farmers and continue to provide subsidies to them, then, actually, agriculture wouldn’t be as innovative here as it is, we wouldn’t be seeking out the markets we should, and we wouldn’t be competing more than fairly, and doing well on the world stage. And so New Zealand welcomes United Kingdom farmers in their efforts to look further than their own market in the European Union to other areas of the world. The world continues to want high-quality protein. They continue to want safe food. They look for food security for their populations. And the UK and New Zealand together can go out and actually provide so very much of that.

An example of how things have changed was when I had an opportunity in London to visit a small New Zealand company called Allpress, and some of you will have the smell of their coffee on your breath at this very moment. In, I think, the east of London, they have set up a roastery there where they roast a coffee, they serve it in a cafe, they sell it around the UK, and they sell their coffee to other parts of Europe. Who would have thought that a small New Zealand company would be roasting coffee in the United Kingdom market and selling it to them? We don’t grow a lot of coffee in New Zealand, but the returns that they get from the work they put in come back to New Zealand and they grow our economy. They have greater certainty now because of this agreement and others in New Zealand have the opportunity to emulate what they’ve done and do a similar thing.

If I may, I will finish by mentioning two officials in particular, but there are very many that have worked towards this success. The first is Crawford Falconer, who was a long-time trade negotiator in New Zealand, very senior. He had done many jobs within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and had left to go to the private sector. When the UK left the European Union, Crawford applied for a job and he became their chief trade negotiator. And so we have a New Zealander sitting there in the corridors of power in London advising them upon trade. That in part is the reason this is such a high-quality agreement. I also did want to recognise Brad Burgess, who headed up this negotiation. This is a significant success for Brad. He, along with many others, is of extremely high quality, very professional, and I thank him and all the others from New Zealand who have put in hours and hours and hours of effort and made commitment over the last four or five years to deliver this. It’s a very good day for free trade. It’s a very good day for those who believe in free trade. It sends a signal to the world and I congratulate the UK and New Zealand for achieving this.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the United Kingdom free-trade agreement legislation bills. The Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has described this as a gold standard agreement that is going to benefit New Zealand a lot. It’s an agreement that is going to deliver for our environment, for our small business enterprises, for our women, and for our indigenous people as well.

The UK is the sixth-biggest economy in the world, which is worth about $3.7 billion, and New Zealand has everything to win from this agreement. It will also strengthen the relationship that’s already warm and strong as well. This agreement means that the UK will eliminate all tariffs on New Zealand exports, with duties removed on 99.5 percent of current trade from entry into force. This will provide New Zealand exporters with more favourable access to the UK market. The agreement will save approximately $37 million every year on goods exports. The economic modelling estimates that the UK exports will increase by 50 percent. This will provide a boost to New Zealand GDP by about $700 million, and $1 billion once it’s fully implemented. It will also cut red tape, allowing New Zealand exports into the UK market on a level playing field—duties and all tariffs removed on 99.5 percent.

Climate change is a big winner in this agreement. It eliminates fisheries subsidies and takes steps to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as well. It promotes sustainable agriculture and underlines the urgent need to address climate change. Animal welfare provisions are also included and recognise both countries’ commitments—New Zealand’s first bilateral trade deal to include an article on climate change. This also allows the New Zealand Government to reserve the right to regulate and target interests. Visas for business persons make it easier for people to get into the UK, with a specific category that includes their family members as well. The investment provisions provide certainty and stability regarding market access in both countries. Intellectual property agreements to extend the copyright terms by 20 years—15 years to implement these changes.

As many have said, this is a big deal for New Zealand. We are a trading nation at the bottom of the Pacific Islands and we have a lot to gain from this agreement. I’d like to thank the Minister for his hard work. Actually, he travelled when COVID was still raging around, potentially risking his life, but he prioritised this and he got it over the line. I’d like to thank the officials, who worked hard, who worked around the clock to make sure that this deal was reached. Globalisation has made everything, movement from countries to countries, from continents to continents, very smooth, and freight is very competitive. The UK leaving the European Union means that New Zealand has managed to get this opportunity to sign this agreement with the UK. So, again, I’d like to commend everyone who worked hard on this and made this possible. It’s a good day for New Zealand, it’s a winner for New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill in their third readings—what a great name. I know that the original bill was split into two bills, and that’s why we we’ve got both of them. But first of all, I just want to say what a good thing this is: a long time in the making, and, obviously, a long history of trade with the UK. We’ve been there and we’ve been away, and now this agreement brings New Zealand back into a direct bilateral relationship with the UK, rather than having to deal through the EU. It is a real milestone, as the Minister talked about in his speech.

England, of course, when you look at the markets around the world, is one of the crucial markets for New Zealand exports, and an important one, particularly, is New Zealand products. Whilst we have a strong agricultural focus and always will in New Zealand, and a lot of that goes to the UK, as the New Zealand economy diversifies into new areas I think the opportunity to deal with more high-tech, advanced manufacturing products, whether that’s in food or in related industries of advanced manufacturing—to trade with places such as the UK is an absolutely fundamental outlet for New Zealand. It’s something that we value very significantly, and I think reflects the strong and enduring relationship that New Zealand has had with Britain over the years.

It’s interesting; I was just looking at the stats and I was trying to work through the specific details, and, obviously, when the agreement comes into force, 62.5 percent of dairy products going in will be subject to tariff. But with the changes, what’s going to happen is that within five years butter tariffs will be removed, and that means that we can start sending bigger volumes of butter tariff-free; 10 years for beef; and, of course, the more thorny issue that has always been very difficult for UK farmers is the issue of lamb. New Zealand lamb, which obviously is an absolutely premium product and one that’s very marketable and wanted by the UK consumer—that has a 15-year lead-in period.

So, initially, it’s most of our products going in, but over time—within five years—99.5 percent of all products currently exported from New Zealand to Britain will be tariff-free, and by year seven it will be getting close to 100 percent. So it’s very important in terms of reducing the tariff, which is obviously quite a barrier and means that New Zealand producers have to carry that cost, but it also opens up the British market. As the Minister said, I’m sure that the value of this free-trade agreement, valued currently at between $700 and a couple of billion dollars, will grow over time, and let’s hope it does, because New Zealand is a trading nation. It’s absolutely essential that we have good trading access to many jurisdictions around the world. Like any company, we need to have diversified markets. We need to have good quality markets and markets that offer security, continuity, and the opportunity to sell product at a high value, and that comes back to selling a product that consumers want and demand that their retailers offer, particularly in places like the UK. So I think that’s good.

Obviously, the speaker before mentioned some of the other aspects, and the Minister referred to this agreement capturing the issue of Māori rights and protecting those in the free-trade agreement, which is significant. The area that I do just want to talk about is, first of all, the copyright rules. As we move forward, the use of intellectual property—the capturing of the value of intellectual property—is so fundamental to the future of New Zealand. Most companies listed on the stock exchange—if we look at their value, most of it comes from the use of intellectual property, and the value of their intellectual property or intellectual assets, and this bill does deal with copyright issues. What it does is, first of all, it introduces a new artist resale right; within two years that will be put in place. But it also extends copyright and related rights terms to 15 years, and, obviously, that’s legislation that will have to go through the House, complementary to this free-trade agreement. There are a number of bills that will have to go through to put all the elements of this free-trade agreement into force, but protecting the copyright rights of artists, in particular, is an important part of it, and I think that in New Zealand we need to make sure that we are focusing much more importantly on intellectual assets, because they are the real drivers of value in the future and will increasingly be so.

The other aspect is allowing investment from UK firms into New Zealand. There’s going to be a change. Currently, Australia has the special exemption. If you are an Australian company wishing to invest in New Zealand, you have the right to invest without, broadly, going through the Overseas Investment Office approval process, up to a value of New Zealand assets of $500 million. There are some complications if it involves land, but in the main what it does is give Australians preferential opportunity to invest in New Zealand companies. Everyone else has largely been operating under a $100 million threshold if they want to invest in New Zealand. This bill introduces an increased threshold for UK companies coming into New Zealand, at $200 million.

I think this is really significant. If you look at renewable energy, we have a number of UK solar companies now trying to invest in New Zealand. They’re captured under the foreign investment rules at the moment, and one of the perverse things that’s been starting to occur as we’re trying to attract solar investment in New Zealand, both domestically—we’ve got a lot of domestic firms that want to invest in solar, as one particular area of renewable. But with foreigners, the current requirements are that you have to assess the lease cost that’s paid by a foreign firm such as a UK solar investor and gross that up, and if it exceeds $100 million of rental income over the period of the lease agreement for the land where the solar installations are based, then that’s captured under the Overseas Investment Office rules, currently, which is increasingly a bit of a barrier. By increasing the threshold to $200 million, this is, hopefully, going to allow for more investment from overseas because it’s investing capital. That’s not to say that New Zealanders can’t do it as well, but we need renewables in New Zealand, and I think this is going to be a helpful aspect in terms of helping to grow New Zealand investment in that area.

The apple quota management is a separate part. As I mentioned before, it allows for the New Zealand Apple and Pear Board to create and operate a quota system for New Zealand exports. It is important that we have the right sort of system in place. Obviously, apples have been a very significant issue for New Zealand in terms of exporting, and, particularly—

Anna Lorck: Absolutely fantastic. They’re grown in Hawke’s Bay.

ANDREW BAYLY: I hear the member for Tukituki referring to the Hawke’s Bay. We’ve got some fantastic exporters of apples round the world, and we need to make sure it’s a growing industry and a very important industry.

So look, this can only be described as a great outcome for New Zealand. We need to diversify our markets. We need to continue to find good markets. This is a good market, it’s good for New Zealand, it’s good for the UK, and it builds some strong relationships. I commend both the Minister and his team for completing this trade agreement, but I do also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Todd McClay and officials that have been involved in this process. It’s a good outcome, and let’s hope that we’re going to see more of these high-quality trade agreements put in place between New Zealand and other countries around the world. Thank you very much.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a pleasure it is on a Thursday morning to speak at the third reading of these significant bills, which my colleague across the House has also mentioned were split into two as a result of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. I join with colleagues across the House in commending the Minister for Trade and Export on his significant work in securing this agreement. I also congratulate my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their examination of the content of this bill, as well. This is an agreement that many have called a gold standard, and that it very much is. Free-trade agreements are, in many ways, the key relationship broker internationally.

I have a habit of, I guess, making sense of the world through metaphor. For me in my 20s, I travelled very frequently to the UK and many places in the world while I was appointed to the board of Amnesty International. It was a time when I was thinking very much about the role that free-trade agreements played in the international space, but it was also a time when I travelled with one item consistently, and it was the multi-plug. For me, I very much see the role that many free-trade agreements play in the international space as being that multi-plug—that framework or that structure that allows us to interact easily with other economies. While I think most people believe that it is purely about economic interaction, the truth of the multi-plug is that there are also significant implications in terms of those frameworks on human rights, on security, and on the security of pipelines for basic goods and services as well. So this is a critical development for New Zealand and for the UK as well.

Pre-COVID, the two-way goods and services trade between the UK and New Zealand was assessed at about $6 billion. This free-trade agreement will provide New Zealand exporters with more favourable access to the UK market, helping to build our trade back up to pre-COVID levels and beyond. In a moment, I’ll speak to some of the detail of what this will mean in practice for some of our key industries in New Zealand.

But I wanted to just stay at the high level for a moment, because I think it is tempting to see free-trade agreements in isolation—very much as the multi-plug that I just described. But, in truth, what we’re looking at is almost an ecosystem of multi-plugs, or a web, where you have hard sets of tariffs but also softer trade provisions which then determine not only the flow of trade but security of supply chains, management of the total economic risk, and the ESG—or environmental, social, and governance standards—that we want to champion in any given space. So if we think of the tariffs and non-tariff barriers as sort of the hard infrastructure or the brick walls of trade, they can either hinder or facilitate trade flows based on their height and how they’re adjusted between partners but also across the web in totality. Similarly, the technical standards, the export controls, the transparency requirements, the investment reviews, the labour and environmental standards—those softer infrastructures can seem less obvious, but sometimes they can be a more important influence on how and where trade flows. So two levers between multiple players will ultimately determine how the world operates in terms of economic growth, human rights protection, environmental protections, and, ultimately, fairness.

I think what I’ve been proud of is seeing the elements of ESG—environmental, social, and governance—concerns being echoed through our trade discussions with various partners. We see it in this agreement. Colleagues have spoken to it in terms of the climate provisions and the animal welfare provisions. I can certainly hear that being echoed in pre-agreement discussions around the Pacific as well. Once again, I would commend our leadership, our Minister, for raising those issues internationally.

If we now look at some of the detail of what this means for industry in New Zealand, the Minister mentioned that tariffs will be eliminated on 100 percent of New Zealand’s goods and exports to the UK eventually. But I think what’s really exciting is that on day one—on day one—99.5 percent of our current New Zealand trade to the UK will enter duty-free, and that is extremely exciting. It’s exciting for various industries like our gin, chocolate, motorhome, and campervan industries, which are currently subject to tariffs ranging between 5 to 10 percent.

It’s exciting for our horticulture industry, as well. I see the member for Tukituki turning around and saying “apples”—absolutely. It is very important for our regions: 99.9 percent of New Zealand’s current horticultural trade will enter the UK duty-free at entry into force, and 100 percent within seven years. That is huge. The tariffs on wine, honey, onions, and kiwifruit will be eliminated from day one. This is significant.

We will then see a follow-on in our fish and seafood industry. About 46 percent of New Zealand’s current fish and seafood trade will enter the UK duty-free at entry into force of the agreement, and 99.5 percent within three years, with 100 percent at seven years.

This is significant for so many industries. It was useful to hear a colleague from across the House also speak to some other industries which will be hugely benefiting, as well. I noted our recording artists being able to actively protect their interests overseas so that music can’t just be played freely internationally without repercussions—without people getting to exercise their ownership rights in that space.

Once again, this is an extremely exciting and it’s an extremely significant change for New Zealand. Once again, I would commend the Minister for his work on this and I would commend these bills to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Golriz Ghahraman.

Hon Member: She’s up.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Sorry—it is a pleasure to stand at the right slot to speak to this bill at its third reading. We’ve heard a lot about this being a gold standard in trade, and I’ll come back to that because ambition is good. But first, to say that we need trade. New Zealand is a small Island nation. We are far away from much of the world, and we do rely on trade. We need the goods, the produce, our kai moana to be the resource that it can be for our people. We also need to bring in the things that we don’t have from elsewhere in the world.

So trade is good; it underpins a multilateral international culture that we support and we rely on. It underpins a rules-based international order, and trade agreements like this reflect that. They reflect a deep generational development of international law that comes through trade probably most strongly, and I say that as a human rights lawyer, because our laws there aren’t all that hard in enforceability. But trade is, and it reflects what we can be as an international community.

The thing, though, that sticks for us as the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is that trade must also be sustainable. It must serve the interests of climate and our people, because we do face a global crisis that can actually undermine our wellbeing in every way, not just economically. So we need to know that these very binding, all-encompassing international law documents like this free-trade agreement also support us to face that other global existential crisis.

People talk about how we shouldn’t include too much in these trade agreements and we should leave out the workers’ rights provision and the human rights provision and the environmental chapter. But that ignores the fact that these agreements already in the investor chapter—the really detailed thousands-and-thousands-of-words bit—impact our environmental protections and our workers’ rights, our human rights. It’s already in there. We can’t ignore that. Those rights and privileges of the investors, of the multinationals, of the foreign investors are protected in very enforceable legal language.

In similar agreements, and this one does differ from the likes of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), but it’s very similar in the language of the investor chapter and in the language of the environmental chapter so I want to compare the way that enforcement has rolled out in that context—86 percent of cases under the CPTPP with a similar environmental chapter were to enforce investors’ rights over environmental protections that Governments had tried to implement after that agreement had been entered into for their nation. So in Indonesia, they had to abandon a ban on particularly harmful types of mining in their national forests because they couldn’t afford the payout of a foreign investor suing them for their profit losses. That’s why we get worked up about these trade agreements, because they do guarantee enforceable rights for foreign investors that tie the hands of Houses of Representatives like this one in the future.

We don’t know how they continue to influence Governments because not everything is litigated, but it becomes a consideration that will sit with Governments from now on, over and above the movements in Aotearoa for environmental protection, for climate action, for workers’ rights—fair pay agreements—and for human rights. So we do need to look carefully, and we do need to acknowledge that that impact is already there.

It’s nice that there is a preamble nod to things like Māori rights, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and environmental issues. It’s nice that there’s a chapter there, and a line, but they don’t meet the standards of our Trade for All agenda, which the previous Government—with Greens in there as confidence and supply partners, which we are no longer—committed to. It’s a little disappointing that we would commit so much resource from our experts across sectors, including trade experts, to sit down and come up with what sustainable trade looks like for Aotearoa in the future—that they would detail that, and that we would ignore it. So that’s why this gold standard agreement falls short. It doesn’t even accord with our own trade for all agenda, not on the environmental chapter, not on the Māori protections.

I will come to democracy: it doesn’t accord with what those experts and sector-based people told us we need and the Government previously agreed to meet in terms of democratic engagement in the making of trade agreements. The Minister has said that this has had thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Well actually, the bill has, but the trade agreement that underpins it—that already bound us to draft this bill in exactly the way that it was drafted—was drafted, negotiated, and agreed upon in secret, without parliamentary scrutiny, without the type of scrutiny that the Trade for All agenda prescribes.

So we’re still falling short. We know, because we saw it written—though, unfortunately, we weren’t able to hear him—from the late, great Moana Jackson that there wasn’t really any Māori involvement or input in the substance of what it would mean to meet Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations in trade in this agreement. So we can’t say that a gold standard this is, because it’s only a gold standard by comparison to previous agreements that fell so short as to actively cause a global financial crisis.

That’s what we’re trying to move past. We’re trying to acknowledge that trade agreements negotiated in secret—that benefit and protect only the interests of extremely elite, multinational foreign traders—don’t work to sustain economies, they don’t sustain our environment, they don’t sustain our workers, and they certainly don’t meet the standards that we need to meet if we are to decolonise.

So, yes, this is with the UK. We have a close relationship with them—that’s where that relationship comes from. So upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi or falling short is now the defining factor in a new relationship with the United Kingdom. We can’t just rest on what has passed, because what has passed has been generations of breach. We can’t just rest on there being a like-mindedness when we face our next global existential crisis, which is the climate crisis. We need to act differently now, and this doesn’t quite measure up.

It’s good—it has good intentions, and I’m glad people are trying—but it’s disappointing that we have a Trade for All agenda that sits there. It is the gold standard, and we’re so happy still to fall this far short. So, unfortunately, I won’t be commending these bills to the House.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure this morning to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the ACT Party in support of the third reading of the United Kingdom free-trade agreement legislation bills. I’ll start with the obvious: it’s not often that ACT stands in this Chamber and says that we support the Government for legislation that’s going through this House. Quite often, in fact, we find ourselves in severe opposition to the Government. But on the issue of free trade, we are completely in support. And that’s because ACT is the strongest proponent for free trade in this Parliament, and we believe that free trade is important to everybody who lives in New Zealand. I want to take the time to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon Damien O’Connor, for concluding this deal and getting it across the line for all New Zealanders who will benefit in the future.

We are a very, very small country in the scale of the world. We’re a small but mighty nation, but—

Anna Lorck: That’s right, punch above our weight.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We do—we do. We punch above our weight. But, even if you look internationally at countries and people wanting to ship their goods to New Zealand, we are at the end of the world. You know, for shipping line companies, we are literally at the end of the map when it comes to sending their cargo ships and container ships around the world to export and import goods across borders. We are the last port; we’re on the edge of the limb. So for our Kiwi small businesses, they do a lot of really, really good work creating products that see boats and planes come in to New Zealand so that people have goods to export overseas. You know, we’re creating such amazing produce in New Zealand that people can’t help but want to send their ship right to the end of the world to send something back to another country, and I think that shows the pride that we can have in New Zealand businesses.

But we should always, as legislators, be thinking how can we make life even easier and better for our small exporters. And we should always be looking at new markets where we can find export growth potential and ways to increase our market access and ways to increase the productivity of New Zealand businesses. And this means that we need to remove barriers, as well, for international exporters who want to come here, because we need to look at the consumer part of this agreement too. It’s not just exporters that will benefit; it’s New Zealand consumers, and we need to recognise that, you know, while we’re ratifying this deal and we’re looking for market access to grow for New Zealand exporters, there will be the opportunity for market access to grow for importers. That is good for New Zealand consumers who will find that there are more goods on market in our New Zealand stores, and that helps drop the price of goods at the supermarkets and throughout our economy too.

It’s also very important that while ratifying this deal we acknowledge that we’re at a time in history where a lot of countries are becoming more insular and turning away from democracy and turning away from the rest of the world. The threats against democracy are unfortunately increasing, and so we must do our best to seek out more like-minded countries that share our values, that want to trade with us, and do more to create more agreements that will see a benefit to New Zealand exporters, a benefit to New Zealand consumers, and a benefit for democratic values around the world. It’s good that we’ve recently signed the EU free-trade agreement, but there are parts of it that we don’t agree with as a party. But on the whole we’re very happy that it has been signed and we look forward to any future movement that we could see on a deal with India and a deal with the United States. This deal in particular, the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, is a deal that I think will benefit all New Zealanders with a liberal, democratic country that we share an enormous history with. So we should be proud that we have signed this agreement.

Every day thousands and thousands of New Zealanders get up and they provide jobs for other New Zealanders, whether that’s in beef or dairy, fresh fruits, goat meat, sheep, wood, honey, wine, aluminium, software—the list goes on and on. There are so many wonderful industries that exist within our country, and these jobs provide stability to families, they provide purpose to New Zealanders, and they give pride for getting up in the morning—the ability to go to work, have a job, create wealth for the family, and know that they can put food on their own table. But, importantly, it gives pride for people who can start a small business and know that they can grow that business to employ other people and give opportunity and purpose to other people in our society too. Our job in this Chamber is to make sure that we are walking alongside them in that growth and trying to find more opportunities and more jobs where people in New Zealand can succeed. And this free-trade agreement will allow businesses to grow, it will allow for more opportunities, and it will allow for more higher-paying jobs to be created. That can only be good for our exporters, only good for our consumers, and especially when our consumers are going through a cost of living crisis and everything is just getting more and more expensive. This bill will reduce tariffs and that will reduce the price that we pay for goods that come through the border—that’s good for our New Zealanders.

The ACT Party would go further than this United Kingdom free-trade agreement in removing tariffs because we believe that there are unnecessary tariffs that create increased costs for consumers across the border. You know, we have around $200 million of tariffs that are currently imposed on countries throughout the world and people bringing their products into New Zealand every day. The ACT Party just says: what’s the purpose of these? They’re so small and insignificant in some cases, but they’re adding those extra few cents or extra a few dollars to a product that somebody wants to buy for no real purpose. So the ACT Party says that we should drop those and save New Zealanders approximately $200 million a year in costs. I think that would only be good for our economy, for our productivity and for our New Zealand consumers.

One part of this bill that I did want to touch on that the ACT Party really does support is the increase in the investment-screening threshold that we’ve seen increase from $100 million to $200 million for non-Government investors from the UK. This is an area that we, as a party, agree with and would like to see grow even further. And my colleague who’s sitting next to me in the Chamber today, Damien Smith, had a member’s bill—the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill. Now, we would like to see more investment in New Zealand, not just from the UK, not just from people that we have this fair trade agreement with, but throughout the OECD. And we should allow for more investment—more productivity, more job creation through investment, not just through this bill and the UK but throughout the OECD. And that’s what my colleague’s bill would have done. It’s a shame that the Government didn’t support this, but there’s always another opportunity to see the light.

In conclusion, this bill is good for Kiwi businesses. It’s good for Kiwi consumers. And we commend it to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise this morning to speak on the UK free-trade agreement and to acknowledge that this morning I had my first primary school, Waipukurau primary, in the House this morning. Looking up and seeing their faces, I was thinking about what I could say about what this free-trade agreement means for everyday New Zealanders, particularly those in regions like mine, of Hawke’s Bay—a region that’s built on the backbone of the export sector. We are a growing region. We are a thriving region that is driven and led by an export economy. The jobs that exporting creates in our region are in the tens of thousands. From the growers to the farmers, from the workers, the processing industry, the logistics industry, and the service businesses that thrive on the back of an export primary sector economy—this is fantastic for our region.

Within the legislation that we are speaking on today, part of it is the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill. Now, for people who don’t know—but I’m sure most of this House does—Hawke’s Bay is the largest apple-growing region in New Zealand. We grow the best apples and pears for the world. If people come to Hawke’s Bay, they will see apple trees growing and being planted by their tens of thousands. It is an area of our industry that I have been so incredibly proud of. And under this agreement, there is special mention of what it will mean for horticulture, and what it will mean for our Hawke’s Bay region from these free-trade agreements (FTAs).

Now, in looking at what’s happening in the FTA agreement, one of the best documents you can go to is the New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade—where it highlights the UK and New Zealand FTA agreement. New Zealand’s trade relationship with the UK is longstanding; the UK is our seventh-largest partner, with a two-way trade of over $6 billion before COVID. And if we reflect back on what export-driven economies do, again I can come back to what it’s meant for the regions. In Hawke’s Bay alone, our GDP growth is now 8.7 percent of what it was pre-COVID levels, and a significant part of that has been that we’ve been able to keep exporting to the world and keeping people in work while we do that.

We’ve also got a port—Napier Port—within our region, and that’s also a hugely significant part of the reason why Hawke’s Bay does so well. And I must acknowledge that even Simeon Brown from the National Party came to Napier Port recently and could celebrate the opening of the new wharf. It shows that the export economy of Hawke’s Bay, the backbone of our region, is thriving and doing so, so well.

Now, horticultural highlights include our wine tariffs. Now, another reason that Hawke’s Bay is going to benefit so significantly from this FTA agreement is because we grow some of the best grapes and produce some of the best wine for the world too—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, debatable. Debatable motion.

ANNA LORCK: Ha, ha! Any benefit that we can bring to growing the economies of our regions—as well as New Zealand—is going to make sure that we continue to provide added higher value products to the world.

Now, in going through the FTA agreement, it also highlights a range of tariffs that will be reduced immediately. On our wine exports, the product and current tariff and value has been for wine up to $50 per hectolitre, which is 100 litres—with an export value of $463 million, and an export volume of 480,577.6 hectolitres! There you go, hectolitres. Now, the tariff will immediately go off that. And with honey, with an export value—export value to the UK of honey of $74.9 million. Again, when I was thinking about my primary school that was in the House this morning, I was thinking about if I was a school student listening to this debate today, what would I be able to take back; and my learning of how significant the UK is as a trading partner?

And when relating it back to products like honey, onions—8 percent is onions’ export value, $8 million—

Andrew Bayly: Pukekohe!

ANNA LORCK: —again, the tariff will come off those as well. Kiwifruit—8 percent; immediately the tariff comes off. And then we go to our apple market, and for three years there will be a reducement of those tariffs to eventually be duty-free. And then hoki—fish—6 percent of export volume of $2.2 million litres. It’s when you start thinking about those products and where they come from, and yes, Pukekohe, with the onions—and we grow onions in Hawke’s Bay too, because of course we have such a diverse primary sector region. And mussels is another; butter; cheese—it goes on and on.

By driving those trade opportunities, it means that we can continue to have the focus in growing our markets, and that’s an exciting part of being part of the regions. Not often enough do we acknowledge the hard-working regions who do drive the export economies. I do do a massive shout-out to those people who work in the primary sector, and also to those—not just the farmers and the growers, but also all the thousands of people who go to work every day to ensure that our products are produced into many, many different added-value products. Whether that’s sheep meat, whether that’s dairy, whether that’s producing wine and how we do it, there are so many more jobs that are related and connected back to the export markets.

This is a historic day. This is a historic day in the third readings of this legislation to make sure that we can champion and celebrate everything we do well in trade negotiations. It has been the Labour Government who has been the Government that has been at the head of trade deals for this country. It’s so important to recognise the hard work of officials and negotiators, and making sure that the best deals are made for our country and for our trading partners. And as relationships with our trading partners continue to foster and develop, we continue to be right at the forefront of these negotiations. That is why I know that my first primary school, who was in this House today, know that they can be proud of the hard work of their forebears, their parents—and the job opportunities that they will go into will mean that New Zealand continues to thrive and champion the best export quality products to the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Watts—five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of the National Party and as a member of Parliament for North Shore to talk today on the third readings of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill. As we’ve heard from prior speakers already this morning in this House, this does represent a significant milestone for both our country and also the United Kingdom in terms of formalisation of a trade agreement, which no doubt is one of the most significant in terms of what New Zealand has been able to negotiate to date. I think it is important to recognise all of those individuals, both current and in the past, that have contributed significantly across multiple Governments to ensure that we are where we are today in terms of being able to pass these bills through on their third reading.

I have had the pleasure to spend nearly a decade living in the United Kingdom, working in financial services, and it is very clear when one lives outside of New Zealand, particularly in the UK, the very close relationship that our two countries share and continue to share and have shared for a long period of time across our history. I think those synergies that we have, as our two countries together, are very, very important and provide the bedrock and the foundations, I think, for what you’ve seen in regards to this legislation and this trade agreement, because both sides benefit here in terms of what is being done and passed.

When you reflect in terms of the benefits both for New Zealand, we’ve heard significant comment around the primary and hort sector. I grew up on an apple orchard, my father is a horticulturalist, and my grandfather was a horticulturalist. So the concept in regard to the impacts around apples and pears and all of that stuff is important, and I do acknowledge those apple orchardists right out there at the moment. The apple trees are all out in bloom and they’re starting to flower, and they’re a little bit hesitant around weather and impacts, but they are in that phase. And if you think about our dairy farmers at the moment, many of them would have just come in from the shed and are probably having a quick cup of tea and a little bit of breakfast before they head back out on the bike to do those chores on the farm, because they are in the midst of their full production process on our farms at the moment. These individuals and these families across our country in rural and provincial New Zealand provide a significant contribution in terms of the economic wellbeing of our country and are a key input and enabler in terms of an export sector that will benefit from this trade agreement.

I think it is also important to recognise that while we’ve got a significant element in terms of those sectors who do the production element, it is also critically important that we have the infrastructure enablement through our ports. If I think about the port of Tauranga, I think that is the preeminent export primary sector port in this country. Ensuring that those infrastructure assets and the enablement in the supply chain elements linked to those assets are operating as efficiently as possible will allow us both now and also into the future to maximise the benefits from such legislation.

I also want to reflect on the benefits for the UK as well, because as a result of this the tariffs in regard to clothing coming into New Zealand—buses, ships, excavators, and bulldozers I see have all been cut, and they also will allow UK lawyers and auditors to operate more in New Zealand in regard to providing cross-border advisory support. I think that slashing of red tape is critically important in terms of futureproofing New Zealand’s ability to increase our productivity and economic growth.

The other aspect I think is to reflect on where we go from here. As we know, this legislation sets a precedent in terms of that. The EU deal’s another conversation, but I think the focus really is around the complex, and continuation of, trade discussions with both the US and India. Those two countries and the need for us to have much more sustainable plans and free-trade agreements with both of those entities will be the focus, I think, in terms of what we see in the next terms within this Parliament. So that’s pretty much where I want to leave it. We will commend these bills to the House.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak this morning on the third reading of these significant United Kingdom free-trade agreement bills. I would like to start off, as others have before me, by congratulating the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, and his team for doing the mahi in concluding this significant agreement.

What we’re talking about this morning is, of course, an omnibus bill—it is amending several pieces of legislation because there are a limited number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to ensure that we align New Zealand’s domestic law with certain obligations that are in the free-trade agreement.

New Zealand signed this free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom in March 2022 and, as mentioned before by several speakers, it is a gold-standard agreement—it offers unprecedented access to the United Kingdom market. From entry into force, almost all tariffs will be eliminated on New Zealand’s exports in the United Kingdom. New Zealand exporters will save approximately $37 million per year on tariff elimination. It is also a free-trade agreement of firsts: this is our very first bilateral free-trade agreement to include a specific article on climate change.

I’d like to also commend my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. They examined the legislation between 26 July and 20 October, and they made a limited number of recommendations that are contained in the bills that are being brought back to this House.

Now, the UK, as has been mentioned, was New Zealand’s seventh largest trading partner pre-COVID-19, and our two countries have a very strong relationship that this bill will only strengthen.

I’d like to echo the comments of a previous speaker who said that this is a good day for free trade, and I commend these bills to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to stand and take a call on these bills. There are good reasons for that. We’ve heard a lot about the numbers and everyone being really, really excited about that. But this deal isn’t just about numbers; it is about people.

I just want to reflect. We’ve heard the member from Tukituki talking about apples, so you might expect me stand up and talk about cows, but actually, I’m not. I’m going to talk about the exciting things that are going to be opened up for our producers in Taranaki because of trade deals like this one.

We’ve got this really amazing little company, Greenfern Industries in South Taranaki. Dan Casey and his team are really exciting to go meet with. They’re the only Toitū carbonzero certified medicinal cannabis company in New Zealand. They do really amazing stuff with industrial hemp and hemp food. They are working really, really hard to have an amazing export and domestic industry. There are—quite rightly—huge, huge standards and things that they need to do in order to be great at what they do. This sort of deal helps them a little bit as they go out into the big wide world with their amazing products.

There’s also some really exciting work happening—so organisations like Venture Taranaki, who are really exploring what we do with our wonderful, wonderful land in Taranaki. The food and fibre sector contributes over $1.5 million to our GDP—just from little old Taranaki—and more than 10,000 jobs. It isn’t just from dairy. We have had significant investment and innovation that is going to be helped and supported by this free-trade agreement, because we have locked in really high expectations about sustainable and progressive land use that leads to great export products: hocks, avocados, gin botanicals—so, you know, we’re just complementing that wine that’s coming out of the Hawke’s Bay—construction, hemp fibre, sheep, dairy, trees, medicinal plants, kiwifruit; all things that you wouldn’t really expect to be coming out of Taranaki, but that innovation and that entrepreneurship and that ambition is supported by deals like this.

When I used to teach this subject at school, economics, and we talked about—we’ve heard about how relationships are enhanced by trade deals. GATT came out after World War II. In 1957, 65 percent of our exports went to the UK. That was down to just over 6 percent in 2000. So that relationship has changed a lot over the years, and this trade deal means that we are futureproofed and able to grow in a way that is sustainable and ambitious. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. All members of this Parliament have, effectively, come out in favour of these bills. We do need to have, as a trading nation, the ability to trade, and trading with the UK makes a lot of sense. The UK has left its European brothers and sisters with the exit in Brexit. A good stroke of ingenuity by the British to do that—to leave Europe—and a smart move for them, but it meant that they then had to look at free-trade agreements around the world.

It’s all right for the Government to say how great they are in this free-trade agreement, but, effectively, the British signed the Australian free-trade agreement three or four months before this, and it, effectively, set up this agreement. So I think rather than our New Zealand negotiating Ministers taking any credit, they should actually be crediting the Australian negotiating Ministers that actually achieved a lot more than the New Zealand Ministers did.

Now, there’s some Labour members over there laughing at that and saying, “No, our Ministers did a great job, and look how great they are and wonderful they are.” Well, I’d just like to read two paragraphs from Farmers Weekly in July this year: “Before flying to Brussels for the final few days of the talks last month Ardern told media that NZ was ready to accept an improvement on the ‘status quo’ market access NZ exporters already had in the EU. Around that time Cabinet had signed off on a change in the mandate given to NZ’s trade negotiators from a commercially meaningful deal for key pastoral exports to the lower threshold of an improvement on the status quo market access.”

Basically, the Prime Minister made a comment that led to the end of any meaningful negotiations in the EU. Minister O’Connor tried to put a brave face on it, saying what a great result that was for New Zealand in the EU negotiations. The reality is they achieved nothing of any consequence in that agreement.

This agreement is more consequential for New Zealand but comes off the back of what the Australians, effectively, negotiated. So it’s pretty rich for the Government over there to say that they’ve done anything meaningful in free trade. They haven’t. They actually stuffed up the European negotiations. When it comes to British ones, they’re riding on the back of a Britain that was trying to get back into the world and had already signed an agreement with our largest neighbour.

So we need to take the context into account, and when we look at that we understand just how poor this Government is in negotiating free-trade agreements. What else have we achieved under this Government that actually helps our exporters? Nothing. They have burnt our exporters at home. Their continual rules and regulations are destroying the New Zealand primary sector. They just have to look at the polling and see that their party is sliding down the polls, and that is a reflection of their poor performance in the trade area and in primary production in general.

We accept this agreement and we will be supporting it and we want more free trade, but where is the Government on free trade with other countries? Where are we going with Indonesia? Where are we going with India? Countries like Australia have signed a heads of agreement with India. We can’t even get in the door. Where’s our agreement with Indonesia? They’re not even working on it.

When are the Labour Party going to actually look at some of the big trading countries that are on our doorstep that we need to trade with in the future? The UK agreement is great, but our future lies in this region, and we need to have agreements with Indonesia and India, and we don’t see any progress from this Government. If anything, what we’re going to see is a Government that will stall and fail in those agreements, as they did in the EU agreement. They failed completely. They may laugh over there, but they did. That quote I read out indicates why there was complete failure, and that was because the Prime Minister gave up before they even went into the negotiations.

Hon Kiritapu Allan: Rubbish.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, do you want me to read it out again for the Labour member? OK, I’ll read it out again, then, for the Labour member: “Ardern told media that NZ was ready to accept an improvement on the ‘status quo’ market access NZ exporters already had in the EU”. She didn’t want a better agreement; she just wanted the status quo. That’s not what we engage in free trade for—the status quo. We engage in free trade to get better agreements.

Now, if the members over there want to dispute that, well then maybe take it up with their leader. I’m sure it’s an open and honest caucus where they can have those discussions, and I’m sure members that have had those discussions in the past don’t just end up going to a by-election a couple of months later. The reality is the Labour Party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m going to ask and invite the member to come back to the matter at hand.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The free-trade agreement with the UK is what we are talking about, because we are looking at what Labour’s done in the free-trade area. They haven’t done much, if anything, and what they have done has probably hurt us in some regards, like they did in the EU agreement.

So when this House votes on this bill, this will be a vote that was always going to be on an agreement that was going to be successful for New Zealand, because the British had to do it. They left—Brexit. They had to get some agreements in place. They didn’t have negotiating teams. They were ready to go, but they just didn’t have the ability to do it, and New Zealand and Australia were the first cabs off the rank. Australia was actually the first cab off the rank, and our agreement was signed a few months later, basically as a replication of what the Australians had achieved. That’s, effectively, what happened here, so it’s not any success by this Government at all.

When we look at what this Government’s track record on trade is, they actually failed completely in the EU agreement. That’s their track record. When we look at their track record compared with Australia, where are our Indian and Indonesian agreements that Australia has? Those are the markets of the future. The British can make as much milk as we can make. They’ll make as many primary products as we will. They will be able to control their economy much more. Their populations aren’t nearly the size of India and Indonesia. Our future lies in the Asian region, and we don’t get free-trade agreements with those countries under this Government.

That’s the reality of what New Zealanders need to look at. Instead of hearing the rhetoric of how great we are and how lovely we are at doing this, look at the reality. They stuffed up the EU agreement, they only got this one because the Aussies had negotiated it, and they haven’t done any work on any other agreements. That’s the reality of what’s going on.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. It is my great pleasure to wrap this up. I do, though, want to acknowledge the hurt in Mr David Bennett. It is tough. It is tough, when you consider yourself the ruling class and those with the moral obligation to rule, to realise that the other side is just bringing it home so much better. So bring it on, Mr Bennett.

Bring on, for example, record exports in the primary sector of $53 billion. We’re doing badly? We’re doing incredibly well: 83 percent of our primary exports—$53 billion; an absolute record. Absolutely brilliant management, and I want to commend the Minister for this agreement, for the absolute joy and productivity that it is going to add to our already booming sector and our already booming economy. Productivity is up, even within ourselves, since COVID. So it must be a bit miserable to be around the Bennett table at Christmas, with “Mr Grinch” over there. But let’s get back to the real deal.

This is a remarkable piece of legislation, a remarkable agreement, which is going to revolutionise our trade with our traditional partners in the UK. This particular little piece of legislation we have is merely technical and enables us to implement that agreement.

I want to give a very quick shout-out on one particular aspect of it, which is the provision to increase the earnings of sound-recording artists. As the mother of a budding sound-recording artist who frequently sees very little joy in the future prospects of being able to be supported by one’s children, I am grateful personally to Mr Damien O’Connor and his team for bringing that one home.

But the fundamental point that we are here to say is that we are here to implement legislation which will implement a deal, which is going to, on day one, remove 99.5 percent of current New Zealand tariffs with the UK, and over the next seven to 15 years, it will eliminate the whole darned lot. It’s a remarkable thing for us. On, I think, the 130th anniversary of the first export of frozen meat from Dunedin, this is a darned good way to celebrate, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and the Apple Transitional Export Quota Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107, Noes 12.

Bills

Inspector-General of Defence Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take the call and rise to speak to the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. It is a privilege to do so. Can I begin by thanking the public for their submissions, for taking an interest, and for providing their feedback. I also want to thank the officials for their work.

Minister Henare outlined the intention of this bill: the establishment of the Inspector-General of Defence to provide the independent oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force. It fits into the New Zealand democratic civil/military relations construct as the objective to allow civilian control through allowing military to carry out operations here at home in Aotearoa and abroad as part of a coalition without undermining the system of government. Consequently, it is what the New Zealand Defence Force asked for.

I want to pay particular acknowledgment to our men and women in our armed forces. In my former life at the Auckland Council as an elected member, there are two significant days in the calendar every year that we recognise our servicemen and servicewomen. I’m going to share very quickly a few comments because I’m able to do so. The first is Anzac Day, 25 April every year, where we commemorate and we mourn the loss of our loved men and women who gave up their lives for the freedoms we have today. The second is Armistice Day, which is tomorrow, 11 November, where, again, across the motu services are held and we remember our armed forces soldiers and we stand and we commemorate them for their bravery, their efforts for the freedoms we have today.

The armistice was the truce signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany at Compiégne, France, and we remember them. Courageous men and women of the armed forces gave up their lives, and some of them were lost and never came home. So I want to pay tribute to them, the whānau we lost, because only recently we’ve discovered that the Pacific contingent lost soldiers—Cook Islands soldiers, Niue soldiers, as well as soldiers from Tonga, Fiji, and the Gilbert Islands, now known as Kiribati, and part of our Maori Battalion, in their valiant efforts in the New Zealand contingent.

This bill will achieve the ethos of New Zealand values in the New Zealand Defence Force. The inquiry into Operation Burnham recommended, in terms of the shortcomings, that New Zealanders must be confident when scrutiny is required and available, and that the role of the Inspector-General of Defence, as outlined in the bill, will have the necessary powers to carry out the tasks and be able to pivot when improvements are required. The functions are critical if we are to achieve our military obligations to have clear guidelines in the New Zealand context as to who is responsible for what and what process and under what scrutiny in our response.

The role of the inspector-general will be complementary in its operations to avoid duplication of specific processes. Just as I wrap up, I note that the bill is a result of key recommendations, as we’ve heard, to address a range of problems identified by the inquiry into Operation Burnham. Strengthening ministerial and public trust and confidence in the New Zealand Defence Force is a key focus for this Government in the aftermath of Operation Burnham. The budget has been set aside—over $5 million additional to the $90 million investment in the Defence Force which was to help remuneration and address the pay challenges. It is the largest capability investment that Defence has ever received. This bill will help keep civilians in control. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. National won’t be supporting this legislation because we are not convinced of the need for this at this time. Indeed, whilst there are many things with the Defence Force that may well need addressing, this is not the number one priority.

This legislation has come about as a result of an inquiry the Government undertook. As the last speaker said, the Defence Force has called for this: no, the Defence Force hasn’t called for that inquiry; it was the Government that did it, and it was into allegations that were made against the New Zealand Defence Force claiming that they had caused civilian casualties during Operation Burnham in Afghanistan. This was at the time that we were in Government. It was looked at and considered fully and a decision was made that an inquiry was not needed.

However, jump forward, the new Government called for an inquiry and launched it in 2008. The inquiry found no wrongdoing by SAS soldiers and at all times they complied with the rules of engagement and the laws of armed conflict, and it said that New Zealanders, therefore, should have confidence in the fact that the New Zealand SAS on the ground did the right thing, acted completely lawfully, did nothing that was of a revenge attack, acted in accordance with international law, and did nothing wrong on that night. That was stated by the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker.

We back our Defence Force. The last speaker spoke of those who have defended New Zealand, stood up for freedom and the rights of others around the world, and who, gravely and sadly, have lost their lives. The New Zealand Defence Force, at all levels and Governments, take their responsibility seriously. In opposing this legislation, we send a very clear message to the men and women that have served and continue to serve on behalf of New Zealand, that we respect them, we thank them for their service, and we thank them for their professionality.

This will create additional bureaucracy at a time when the case has not been made clearly that it is required that there is something that needs fixing and that it is something that will assist and help. I would suggest that an area that we would be better to spend our time on is how to support the men and women that are part of the New Zealand Defence Force and the work that they do in an area that is extremely difficult.

We take our responsibility in Opposition seriously also, and have taken a long time to consider this issue but do not believe it’s something that is going to assist in any way. Indeed, if we look at the reason for it, the inquiry was undertaken by the Government not because they suspected that there had been any action taken by our SAS that was inappropriate or unlawful, but because of media pressure concerned by one or a very small number of individuals in the private sector—in the public—who raised an issue with this.

Rather than looking at it and working with the Defence Force and considering it and making a decision, it feels like the Government kicked it to touch and said, “We’ll have an inquiry into it.” They have the right and the ability to do that, but, at the same time, that inquiry found that nothing—nothing at all—was wrong with the way the SAS had acted, and found that they were lawful and responsible and that the procedures followed were correct, they were appropriate, and indeed, in the words of the Attorney-General, David Parker, a member of the Government himself, that New Zealanders should have confidence in the fact that the New Zealand SAS on the ground did the right thing, acted completely lawfully, did nothing that was a revenge attack, acted in accordance with international law, and did nothing wrong on the night.

But we’re creating another piece of bureaucracy. The Government says oversight as a result of claims that were made that were found not to be correct. And if that’s the case, then we will end up with much more bureaucracy in all parts of Government, because people will make claims. It was investigated fully; it was investigated properly; the Government accepted the report and has decided to create additional regulation and cost around that.

We won’t be supporting this. We believe it is just more bureaucracy and more costs, with negligible benefit. We would much rather see the $5 million the Government has said they have set aside used for other things in the Defence Force that will assist the Defence Force, to assist the men and women who work very hard to represent New Zealand properly. And those are the reasons we’re not supporting it.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to correct a vote in the vote for the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Leave is sought for that to happen. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I wish to cast for 32 in favour for the National Party.

Bills

Inspector-General of Defence Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I stand here this morning and I see that you—I think I’m allowed to say “you” when I’m referring to you—are wearing a poppy this morning. I know it has already been mentioned, but, obviously, tomorrow is 11 November and that is Armistice Day, where on the 11th day, the 11th hour, the Armistice was signed to end World War I and bring that horrific event—or those events—to an end. So I appreciate seeing that poppy being worn to commemorate, for us to also mourn, those who have been lost not only in the Great War but in many wars and conflicts around our world.

Now, the Armistice is to stand still, is to pause, and is to stop. As we look at this piece of legislation, it’s very much creating an inspector-general that can actually pause and stop and reflect on actions, on what’s taking place, and on what’s happening. So tomorrow, we pause, we commemorate, we reflect, and I’m aware that at Pukeahu, the National War Memorial, there will be a service at 11 o’clock tomorrow for us to remember at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

So this bill is, obviously, looking at our Defence Force and looking at its operation. It’s looking at providing that independent oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force. It’s time and it’s important for us to do that.

I don’t want to sort of bring a negative cloud over the House this morning but there are some huge challenges going on in our world at the moment. We look around and you think of past wars, but you look at the conflict, obviously, that Russia is causing in the Ukraine. You look at other unrest and conflict around the world. But you also look at that unrest that’s going on, whether it be in the Twitterverse or on social media, and the misinformation, disinformation, and the extremists that are coming out and have been coming out for many years. That is really sad. For me, as we reflect on this legislation—and like I say, I don’t want to bring that dark cloud over the House this morning—it is the potential of what could come, what is possible. As we look forward as a nation, we’ve always got to look in the rear-vision mirror and reflect on what has happened.

So to have independent oversight of our Defence Force is key. We hope we don’t have to go to war any time soon. We hope we don’t have to be involved in conflicts any time soon. We hope we don’t have incidents or reason to even use the inspector-general, but I think it is important and I know it is important as a Government putting checks and balances in place to make sure that our Defence Force is one to be viewed around the world as the most non-corrupt, as the most honest, and as the most diligent.

I know in my own whānau, my husband was a member of the New Zealand Defence Force a number of years ago and was on deployment in the Solomon Islands, in peacekeeping roles. That’s so important and it almost fills me with I’m not sure if it’s joy or hope—but that us as a Defence Force in New Zealand, our role isn’t to be this big heavy-handed presence around the world but it is to be a Defence Force that is rebuilding, that is supporting democracy, that is in places and spaces showcasing what a future can actually look like. I know, as I’ve talked about Jon’s time in the Solomon Islands, it very much was that role. It was tough and there was conflict, and, yes, there were guns and bombs and all the things that go with war, but very much the stories that have come back to me from his time there have been around those villages where they were able to rebuild homes, to rebuild infrastructure, to keep peace, and to show what is possible in terms of a democracy and where it is.

So the Inspector-General of Defence Bill is something that, again, as I said, brings transparency. I just want to reflect on one part, which is around the protections of people and information. Particularly, I want to focus on the protections of whistleblowers. Very much, in a system like the Defence Force, it is hierarchical, and we know that. It’s right for it to be hierarchical, to have those systems in place and people who come in and do their basic training and move their way up to whether it be a captain or a general; I never quite know the correct language. I come from The Salvation Army. Our roles are a bit different and our epaulets were slightly different! But I know, often in those hierarchical systems, like our Defence Force, that sometimes people are afraid to speak out, sometimes people are afraid to blow the whistle on behaviours that aren’t right, because it might jeopardise their chances or because they’re looking up the ladder and up the line rather than that equitable system that other industries have.

So to have an Inspector-General of Defence is something that we as a Government are committed to, as has been talked about in this House throughout the bill. Many people have actually spoken around the review that was done into Operation Burnham. Sir Terence Arnold and Sir Geoffrey Palmer identified the actions. So from that come recommendations, and having an Inspector-General of Defence is one of those and is important.

So I reflect on those protections for people and information protecting our whistleblowers. It also makes it an offence in this legislation to obstruct or to lie to the Inspector-General of Defence. It sounds sort of basic and simple, I know, but, again, it’s making it quite clear that we need to make sure that our Defence Force is of a top class and is a defence force that whether you’re young, whether you’re a new recruit, whether you’re a senior member, you feel safe and empowered to speak up and speak out and ensure the protection of all people.

In closing, I’m grateful to be here this morning, to live in a nation that is peaceful, to stand in this Chamber and know that it’s not just the here and now but to look around the room and see all the different names of the conflicts that the members of our Defence Force throughout Aotearoa have been involved in. So we have a wonderful Defence Force. We’ll continue to have a wonderful Defence Force. It is important that the Inspector-General of Defence Bill is passed into law, to ensure that checks and balances are in place and that all people who are in the Defence Force feel safe and affirmed, and that all communities and countries and places where the New Zealand Defence Force is—that they see the authenticity, the transparency, and a Defence Force that is here to serve not only Aotearoa but our world.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a very brief call. I just want to acknowledge the Minister who introduced the bill to the House as a response to the inquiry into Operation Burnham. I also acknowledge that we have set aside a budget of $5.6 million to establish the office of the Inspector-General of Defence in its first three years of operations. I note that this is going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I wish them well with that, and with that, I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 86

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

Noes 32

New Zealand National 32.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

Bills

Plant Variety Rights Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 28 September.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 52 to 68D, and Schedule 1A, “Additional provisions that apply to indigenous plant species and non-indigenous plant species of significance”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers in this part, Part 5, which I’d like to cover in subsequent contributions, but I suppose the start point is clause 52, which is around the role of the Māori advisory board. This is one that we have some concerns with. It’s the establishment of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. As set out in clause 52, it’s there to provide additional procedures that will recognise and protect kaitiaki relationships, provide for the Māori Plant Varieties Committee to administer these procedures and to make determinations about those kaitiaki relationships, and to have an advisory function, and to enable the nullification or cancellation of plant variety rights that have adverse effects.

So one of the big things for members of the community, the wider community who are involved in developing new plant varieties, is their concern that this committee has the right to make determinations as opposed to being an advisory committee. I don’t think for a moment anyone doesn’t believe that Māori have a right to be involved in the process; that’s not for debate. It’s just the question of whether this committee has the ability to make determinations which will basically set aside applications—that they have the absolute ability to say no. One of the points I will subsequently talk about is where those appeals can be heard. But many people believe that, yes, Māori should be consulted and should have an instrumental role in this, but there’s a difference between having the opportunity to have a meaningful contribution and to be able to look at these aspects—that is one side of the coin—and moving to an arrangement where this Māori Plant Varieties Committee can actually make decisions.

So just to start off the debate today, because it’s been a while since we last debated this, can the Minister be very clear why the Government thinks it’s appropriate that the Māori Plant Varieties Committee should have an absolute right to make determinations as opposed to being a committee that things should be referred to but in an advisory capacity only.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Obviously, I covered this off in my previous comments on this part of the bill—and we’ve debated it in previous parts—but I’m happy to recap, because the member’s right: it’s a while since we’ve had this debate come up in the House.

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

I do note that the select committee and the National members on it supported this unanimously. But I did also want to acknowledge and thank them, and we have canvassed this in debate, too, for putting forward the suggestion that there should be an appeal. The committee agreed that there should be the right and the ability to appeal these decisions to a higher court. So I want to acknowledge that change that came through the select committee, again, in the debate. No doubt, that will be further discussed. Thank you, Mr Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I think the rationale, for people like Zespri, for people who propagate plant varieties like onions, through to flowers—all that different horticulture, and there are many, many people who spend vast amounts of money to develop new plant species. Just to be clear, in the Minister’s response there, you are saying it is the right thing to do. Is that the only reason you can give for why this committee should have an absolute decision-making authority as opposed to an advisory capacity?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Obviously, this is becoming a repetitive debate, but, again, for the sake of the committee, these won’t apply to the likes of kiwifruit. This is about indigenous species that were here prior to European settlement, which the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will have oversight over, and a small list of non-indigenous species of significance, which has been read out to the House before and, academics suggest, is very unlikely to be extended.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So, just to be clear, I’m well aware of the list that is currently being provided in terms of species of plants that Māori are regarded as being kaitiaki of. Do I take it from his response that that list cannot be added to? And, the second part, can he confirm that if I am, for instance, creating a new form of kiwifruit, there will be no right for that to have to go—if you’re seeking an application for a plant variety species, there will be no requirement for that to go before the Māori Plant Varieties Committee?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Again, I’ll reiterate that this clause of the bill applies to indigenous species of plants, and also that small list that was brought in before European settlement—it’s in the bill: 1769—and academics have been very clear in their advice that it’s unlikely that list will be extended to any significant degree. It’s a theoretical possibility—it’s not ruled out completely—but I think the committee, when it considered the evidence, also accepted that it was very unlikely that would be extended very far, if at all.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. So I suppose, just to give a practical example: potatoes. And one of the members was just talking about them in relation to the free-trade agreement we’ve just signed with the UK. Potatoes—as opposed to kūmara—for instance, that’s quite a significant export market for New Zealand. Of course, you’ll know plant varieties like the Pukekohe long keeper, which was developed in Pukekohe, obviously. If that is a plant variety—and that is an active crop now—would that, as an example, need to go before the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, because it would be deemed maybe to have been brought into New Zealand and related to the kūmara crop? I’m trying to give a real-life example because if you’re saying that only known species that came into New Zealand, were imported from the Cook Islands or wherever, or were indigenous to New Zealand prior to European settlement, if that is the only grounds to go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, that will obviously give some comfort to people listening.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it might be helpful just to reiterate that list for the committee. On that list currently we expect will be kuru, breadfruit; hue, which is gourd or calabash; aute, which is paper-mulberry; karaka, or kōpī; paratawhiti, or paraa; perei; kūmara; taro; tī pore, which is the Pacific cabbage tree; and whikaho, which is yam.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. Obviously, potato is not included in that; so that’s very helpful. How does the list get expanded—if it, indeed, gets expanded? What is the process for that list, because obviously, then, the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has an important place in that? Who decides on whether indigenous species, or whatever, might be added? And what’s the process for that?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, a kaitiaki relationship would need to be established.

Andrew Bayly: Sorry?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A kaitiaki relationship. As canvassed previously, a kaitiaki relationship would need to be established.

Melissa Lee: Point of order. I think it would be really helpful if the microphone of the Minister is checked, because I could hardly hear his answer. If you could actually get that sorted. Thank you, Mr Chair. If I could actually take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So the point of order is now complete, and you are going for the call?

Melissa Lee: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll do my best to fix the point of order.

Melissa Lee: Even the Chair’s microphone is not working, so we’re really struggling to hear. If the Minister could—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just check. Is that better? We’re not sitting close enough?

Hon Todd McClay: It is working now, but it’s not perfect.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK.

MELISSA LEE (National): Mr Chair, if I could now—I thank you, Minister Clark, for clarifying some of the issues. I’d like to go back to the question that my learned colleague Andrew Bayly has actually asked in relation to the kaitiaki relationship of indigenous plant variety. In terms of the application for the plant variety rights (PVR) and kaitiaki for plants that perhaps were actually brought in before Pākehā settlement in New Zealand, for example, I think, in the previous session that we were speaking in, I mentioned the issue of kūmara. I know it might sound to other members that I’m harking on about this, but the thing is that the kūmara stock that we had in this country literally was decimated because of black rot. It was the variety that was developed by Joe and Fay Gock—people who were farming in Pukekohe I think, who distributed their variety. So how does the kaitiaki relationship apply to kūmara? It was a completely new variety that the Gock family developed and freely gave out to everyone, including our Māori community. So it would be really helpful if the Minister could explain that in terms of the kaitiaki relationship and the PVR application process.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, I think—just noting that this has been canvassed several times in the House, and I was just looking back at Michael Woodhouse’s first reading speech, which also referenced the Gocks and the work that they did. Obviously, if a species has a kaitiaki relationship, that process plays out through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and there is an appeal right if people want to dispute the way that plays through. I won’t get ahead of any judgments they would make around that, but I think the kūmara species is something that Māori have had a long relationship and a kaitiaki relationship with and so I would expect that to be something that would appear before that committee.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Very interesting response. So I suppose this is where you get into these difficulties, because I don’t think anyone, again, would dispute that Māori have a kaitiaki relationship with kūmara, particularly because it came in with the first waka. But what might be the process in that situation where, in this case, a Chinese family have helped develop a new species? Under the arrangements set out in the bill, that would automatically go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. So the question then becomes: who would own the intellectual property of the new variety? Because it is a new variety—of kūmara, but it’s a new variety. There’ll be multiple varieties of kūmara. Who might in that situation end up owning that plant variety?

Now, it was very nice that the family gave that variety away freely because they wanted to see and make sure New Zealanders were able to eat kūmara. But what is the likely scenario in terms of ownership of that plant variety species, I suppose you’d call it? Would the Māori Plant Varieties Committee immediately assume that, because it’s kaitiaki, it must be owned by Māori? Or does the family have a right to it and is able to commercialise it, even though it may not be just used in New Zealand—it may be used for export crops?

So just understanding the role and the decision-making process, if the Minister could help me. I hope he understands what I’m asking, because how do you actually pick it up—and actually the value, of course, we’re talking about is intellectual property and the intellectual value that comes from that.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yep. So the member raises a good question. The intellectual property would be owned by the people that develop the new crop, and the commercial arrangements would be a conversation with the kaitiaki, and that’s the way it, effectively, would run in the conversation.

Andrew Bayly: Can you—sorry, just—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Is that still not coming through? So then let me repeat that for the sake of the committee. The intellectual property would be owned by the developer of the intellectual property, but the commercial arrangements may involve a conversation with the kaitiaki who have the traditional oversight of that particular variety.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair, thank you. Just further to that, Minister, who is it that decides that there could be a kaitiaki interest? I.e., there can be many claims, but somebody must decide it has merit otherwise it could merely slow the process down. Secondly, in the case that he just gave of the intellectual property remaining the property—the ownership—of the developer and there would have to be a discussion and negotiation over compensation or fees or whatever with kaitiaki, doesn’t that just mean some developers will pick up their product and take it overseas and license and sell it there, and New Zealand misses out completely?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. If I can respond to the first part, and I might have to ask the member to repeat if there were other parts that I’ve missed, the commissioner makes the decision about what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that—sorry, I’m just aware the microphones may not be coming through. You can hear me fine? Yep.

Hon Scott Simpson: A hand-held maybe—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: He’s suggesting a karaoke arrangement with a hand-held microphone for the House, I think—

Hon Scott Simpson: Well, no, look, what we’re hearing is coming through the Chair’s—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, what you’re hearing is coming through the Chair’s microphone. OK, forbearance, please, in the Chamber. But hopefully you can hear me better now.

Andrew Bayly: Use your big voice.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ve got a quieter voice. Like Mr Bayly, I haven’t been blessed with a loud voice, so I just have to make the most of what I’ve got. Look—and now I’ve forgotten the question that the member was asking, so I would ask the member to repeat it. Because he was on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee I think he probably knows the answer, but it’s useful for the Chamber to hear it.

Sorry, I do recall the first one so let me let me answer that, which is that the commissioner makes the decision about what’s referred to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that list includes the indigenous species and those ones with a particular relationship that we canvassed recently in the House. They would make a judgment about what needs to appear, and then it’s the Māori Plant Varieties Committee that would make the judgment about that relationship and its significance.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Minister, thank you. And then the Māori Plant Varieties Committee makes a determination—there’s a process that refers it back to the director and the director finally makes that decision, firstly. Secondly, is the Minister assured—or what assurances has he or will he seek—that the director will do his job judiciously so that we don’t just see many claims being made, perhaps a bit of uncertainty, things are flicked off to this kaitiaki committee, which has the effect of slowing a process down which is the opposite intention of the legislation?

The second part of my question was the Minister said that where the kaitiaki committee is to consider an issue, the ownership of the new variety—the intellectual property—remains with the developer, and that, subsequently, a commercial decision arrangement will be made with the rights-holder and kaitiaki over value compensation or something else. Doesn’t that just suggest, though, that in some cases a product may be developed here and it’s easier—or the person that retains the intellectual property will just go overseas, register it and sell it there, and New Zealand misses out?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. I can hear my own voice echoing now through the microphones, so I’m going to assume that the issue has been addressed. Look, the member obviously sat on the committee which unanimously made these recommendations, but he’s right to draw attention to the fact that the commissioner has the responsibility of deciding what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that’s based on a list that will be developed and provided of those introduced species of significance that have been read out in the House, and also on those that are indigenous. The expectation is that that is all done expeditiously and that is, indeed, laid out in the legislation. Again, I think the select committee worked through that to make sure that the expectations on the Māori Plant Varieties Committee were the same as they are on the other decision makers in the process, and that that will be done expeditiously. We want this regime to work, and I take members back to the fundamental purpose of this regime, which is to provide three things: to make sure that we are complying with our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership obligations, and that’s incredibly important to pass this legislation; secondly, to make sure that we have International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants - like standards that give our intellectual property creators the confidence and security that they have sought, that their intellectual property will be developed and rewarded; and thirdly, to make sure we’re meeting our Treaty obligations. Now, all of those things are tied up together. But for simplicity’s sake, we know we are achieving those three objectives, we want our international trade agreements to be successful, and we think we’ve got the balance right here—also, protecting indigenous interests and making sure our intellectual property owners, who are very keen to see this go through, by the way, can have an up-to-date regime that rewards their endeavours because they’re incredibly important to our export success.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So thank you for that. I’m not quite sure you answered the Hon Todd McClay’s question, and I’m going to repeat it. The original question is: if you put these barriers in place, how are you assured that people who—if they develop species that are related, or have a kaitiaki thing, that they just simply don’t use it overseas and develop the product overseas? New Zealand doesn’t benefit from that advantage. So that was what the original question was.

The second thing—you know, the story of Joe and Fay Gock about the kūmara probably needs retelling, and, in fact, I think they probably need to be remembered and honoured, actually. Because back in the 1950s, kūmara basically couldn’t be used because of the black rot, and they came up with a strain—or a variety—that was resistant to black rot. If they hadn’t come up with that resistant strain, New Zealanders probably wouldn’t be eating kūmara today, unless someone else had devised and developed a new strain. They very generously gifted that strain—that they had developed—to the nation. That’s where we are today; we all benefit from eating kūmara developed by the Gock family.

Now, the question I’m going to ask—and it’s a good example in relation to that kūmara strain that was developed by the Gocks; that would’ve no doubt been referred to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and I understand why, and I’ve acknowledged that point before. But my question then becomes, “What is the role of the plant varieties?” You said that the intellectual property (IP) would still remain with the Gock family, but the commercial arrangements—and I think you used that term, “commercial arrangements”—would be something that the Māori Plant Varieties Committee would look at.

So one is about the ownership of the IP, and I get that; that has a certain value, but the value of IP actually is being able to use it—to distribute it, grow it, and then export the product. So what is the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee in that situation with that kūmara? Would they have said, “Right, Gocks, you obviously own that plant variety.”, but to use it, to be able to distribute it, are we now going to have a commercial conversation or negotiation between the plant varieties committee and the Gock family? Or does the Māori Plant Varieties Committee say, “Well, yeah, they own it, but hey, because kūmara are introduced into New Zealand by Māori, Māori will have 50 percent of the distribution rights.”, or 100 percent, or whatever?

That is what I’m trying to understand, and I think it’s pretty important. I’m saying this in a respectful manner because we do need to acknowledge where Māori have an interest, but what are the likely outcomes—and I’m just giving the Minister a little bit of time while he’s getting some advice there—because I think that is where the rubber hits the road on this issue. Because if you cannot distribute it, or Māori then say, “We’re going to have a share of the distribution, right?”, then that’s a significant issue, and having some clarity around that would be very helpful.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Look, I do want to acknowledge at the outset—the member has not said that he doesn’t expect that kūmara would go to that committee, that everybody in this House acknowledges that Māori have a particular kaitiaki relationship with kūmara. The committee itself will be looking on a case by case basis to see that there has been appropriate engagement with the kaitiaki, but they won’t be judging what the right—you know, their job is not to say that this commercial arrangement is the only one that’s possible, or that one is. It will be, actually, case by case—has the right engagement has taken place with the kaitiaki who oversee that?

I want to get to the point that the member’s raised a couple of times—and it was raised by the Hon Todd McClay—around what’s to stop intellectual property developers heading overseas. I think this is an important question. So I guess the thing to say is the vast majority of plant varieties that are going to be looked at—in terms of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants - like regime—are not going to go through this Māori Plant Varieties Committee. It is going to be a very small portion that actually go through this committee. The vast majority are going to be going through a regime that looks much like many others in the world—in fact, we’re bringing it up to date so that it looks much like many others in the world.

Actually, I’ve been advised by our officials that currently the regime here is considerably cheaper for our intellectual property developers to engage with than overseas regimes. Probably we should look at—with the fullness of time—the cost-sharing arrangements around that. But it actually, currently and historically, it’s been quite a good deal for our for our intellectual property developers. We want to encourage them, right? So we want them to be developing products here for the export market. But I don’t think they’ll be rushing overseas in great numbers or droves or anything, if that’s what the member’s implying. I don’t think he is. I think he’s asking a genuine question, which is, you know, what’s to stop them going overseas? Well, the vast majority will be very straightforward. They’ll be going through a regime very similar to the ones overseas. They’re developing the property here. Here’s a fit for purpose regime; they’ll go through it. Where there are Māori or indigenous concerns, then they will get referred to that committee and be dealt with on a case by case basis by those with the relevant expertise. And of course, as the committee has recommended, there’s an appeal right—through the Appellate Court—should people be unhappy with that decision. That was something recommended by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and I’ve been very happy to pick that up because I think that’s a matter of natural justice and I think we’ve got a better bill as a result.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will indicate, Mr Bayly, different members asking the same question doesn’t constitute new material, but you have the call.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. This will be my last question in this specific stuff. I just hope the members on the other side, if they want to make a contribution, should feel they should be making a contribution rather than sitting there passively, because this is a very important bill. So, hopefully, they’re going to stand up—and I’m looking at the other side—and make a contribution and ask some decent questions.

So, just to the Minister, sorry to labour this point, but this is where the rubber hits the road. So what I understand—the kūmara one—is it’s inevitable the commissioner would refer that to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and I understand that. What he just said—and I just want him to be clear about it. What he has said is the first thing is: is it kaitiaki? That’s the first issue. And if it is, then, obviously, that’s in the jurisdiction of this committee.

The second thing is, as you—and I’m saying this to the Minister. The Minister said that they need to have gone through a proper consultation process with Māori. So in the case of the kūmara, what has that involved? Because, you know, Māori are not just one group—it’s many iwi. So what might that process be to get the big tick from the Māori Plant Varieties Committee? But if the Minister’s saying you only have to follow a proper engagement process with Māori and that gets you through the next stage, that’s fine. But many people who are in the process of developing new plant varieties will want to know what are the commercial outcomes—are they required to enter into a commercial agreement with Māori? Because, in the process of consultation, if it’s deemed to be kaitiaki, is there any obligation or anticipation from Māori that they would have an ability to be able to be involved in the distribution or use of their intellectual property—that plant variety species. That is the rubber hits the road issue. If he can provide some clarity around that, because I think there will be many people listening to this debate saying, “This is the most crucial point.” And course, the process for that, coming back to the Hon Todd McClay’s point, is that takes a long time and is going to take a huge amount of consultation with different Māori groups and stuff like that. That’s when the market will act and actually move and look to develop products overseas.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The focus of the committee, when it’s looking at Māori plant variety rights, is that there are no adverse effects on the kaitiaki relationship. That’s what their focus will be. That’s to the member’s second point.

To the member’s first point: it’s not the commercial relationship aspect primarily. So to the first point, “What does the kaitiaki engagement look like?”, and the member used example of kūmara. You know, there is a while until this bill comes into effect and by the time it does there will be clear guidance on what that engagement should look like—so guidelines. So that will, I think, give some comfort to the intellectual property owners because they will want to know what good engagement looks like and how they go about it, and so that guidance will be provided. And, you know, you can imagine kūmara will be primarily grown in some parts of the country. It will be, I imagine, geographical guidance. There’ll be just best-practice guidelines for engaging with the relevant folks.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair, thank you. More broadly, and it’s, Minister, this is merely to better understand the processes so that it’s clear. In the case of—we could take any product, we seem to be focusing on kūmara alone, but there are many, I suppose.

Take, in Australia, they have a tree that in New Zealand we would identify as mānuka or kānuka. It has the same properties. It is hardly distinct from that in New Zealand. It’s cultivated now, as we do in New Zealand, for honey production. It has great, great value. Or in the case of kūmara in other parts of the world, they do exist. There are links. They’re genetically very, very similar. The origins may well have been the same. They call them “sweet potatoes” and other things in South America.

What happens in the case of somebody develops new intellectual property, a new plant variety, from the equivalent of mānuka or kānuka, say, in Australia, or the equivalent of a kūmara or sweet potato in South America? They have the rights to that, they’ve registered it elsewhere, they bring it to New Zealand, and they seek to register that plant variety in New Zealand. It is identical—or so similar that under the law could be treated identically as something that already exists in New Zealand. How is that dealt with, number one?

Number two, there will be a kaitiaki interest in it, although it’s overseas and they have their own rights and their own abilities. Does that mean that that plant variety, before registered, would have to go through the kaitiaki process, and has the Minister given any thought to what this means—i.e., if there is an advantage in developing the mānuka tree but using its scientific name, not its local name, further to great advantage, would an investor, a developer, or a laboratory not, therefore, do it overseas to avoid rules in New Zealand, and is he concerned about that?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I think one of the things that I wanted to focus on here is the difference between indigenous and endemic. The committee changed some of the language in the bill to say “endemic”. That would have excluded plants like mānuka because it is found overseas, and so the language will be changed back to “indigenous” to recognise the kaitiaki relationships that exist there.

Now, would there be an incentive for folks to do their research offshore? They would still have to go through a regime there around intellectual property if they did that. As I indicated to members a short while ago, generally, actually, our process is quicker and cheaper than many other countries, so I think currently the incentives will fall for them to land here. There’s an expectation the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will expeditiously process those claims, and it’s a focus on whether there is any damage to the kaitiaki relationship, rather than anything else. So I would expect there wouldn’t be a big incentive for anybody to go elsewhere if they had the work under way here, and this was where they had the relationships and the crops that they were looking at propagating or growing and the right growing conditions; that would not be something I would expect.

We haven’t seen a great influx, as best I’m aware, of overseas developers coming here because our process is currently cheaper to access. It’s about doing the stuff in the right place, making it easy for people to do, and rewarding, appropriately, our intellectual property developers with a regime that’s as predictable as it can be, that protects their rights in a modern way, and meets the obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. So I think that answers the member’s question.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you. I’ve almost finished this part, and then I have no further.

Minister, thank you, but that’s not the point that I was making. It’s not whether we have advantage and people will come here or not, because all over the world people are developing plant varieties and they’re investing in these in many ways.

I guess, in the case of, we have a plant that is native to New Zealand, you would say, can also be native elsewhere. If that plant is as native elsewhere, that is equivalent scientifically in New Zealand—let’s just pick a kūmara as an example—and a variety is developed and they wish to bring that variety to New Zealand to sell it commercially, it must gain a plant variety licence here unless we recognise the variety right from a third-party jurisdiction. If it does arrive in New Zealand and it has to go through a process here to be licensed, will it have to go through the kaitiaki process if it is identical to something that is in New Zealand?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was just hoping the Minister might respond to that, and I hope he will, but I just want to talk about one other last point. Clause 68D, “Jurisdiction of Māori Appellate Court”: as I’ve said before, there is no issue with certain plant varieties that need and should have the involvement of Māori, so I’m asking this question respectfully. How do you deal with the issue of the perception that if you do want to go to appeal—and I heard the Minister say that there is an appeal process; that appellant process is involving the Māori Appellate Court. What clarity and certainty can you give to people who do develop plant varieties that when it goes to that Māori Appellate Court there will be a genuine different and wider perspective on that claim, because the option could have been that it could have gone to the High Court? Or, in fact, my Supplementary Order Paper said it should have gone to a specialist group with the requisite skills, and it could be a number of people; it could involve High Court judges and even from across the courts spectrum, but it could also involve some very specialist technical people to help in that decision-making and appeal process. What certainty or clarity or support would you give people who do invest lots of money that if they do go down an appeals process, there will be genuine grounds for appeal? Because there is a perception issue, and I say that most respectfully.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, there are several questions I just want to cover off for completeness. To Mr McClay’s earlier point, just to reiterate, this applies to material obtained in New Zealand, and so let’s make sure we’ve got that clear on the record. If it’s not obtained in New Zealand, it won’t go to the Māori committee; it’ll be examined through the regular process. Just to be clear with everybody in here, we expect about six to seven applications a year to go through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, so it’s a very small proportion overall; about 7 to 8 percent of the overall cases will go through that. We think that it’s appropriate that those with the relevant expertise around Māori kaitiaki relationships will make that judgment. Then we accept the recommendation that’s come from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I think it was a good one—that there should be a natural justice process to appeal to a High Court.

The courts were consulted on this, and so the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Māori Appellate Court and with the High Court, recommended that the Māori Appellate Court was the appropriate legal body with the relevant specialist expertise. So it’s kind of a sweet spot, to the member’s point about making sure you do have the people with the right expertise, but that an independent judiciary sits outside the regular decision-making system. So I think we’ve got the balance right there, and I also do accept the member’s asking the question quite respectfully. We’ve got to get the balance right there. I think we’ve got the balance right there. We’ve got an independent body who’s going to assess if there are appeals and make that final judgment. So that will give plant breeders some confidence in the overall system.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mark Cameron’s amendment deleting Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Andrew Bayly’s amendment deleting the subheading above clause 68A and clauses 68A to 68D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s remaining amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Andrew Bayly’s amendment deleting clause 68D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s remaining amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 be agreed to

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Part 5 as amended stand part.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Plant variety rights: other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now come to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 69 to 100, “Plant variety rights: other matters”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 6 of the bill gives a wide range of administrative and procedural issues in the plant variety rights (PVR) regime. These include matters such as the registration of assignments, cancellation and nullification of PVRs, and the restoration of lapsed PVR applications, and PVRs cancelled for non-payment of the renewal fee. Comments raised by submitters on Part 6, I’m informed, were largely technical in nature, and a number of changes were made as a result.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was expecting the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to carry on and provide a much more comprehensive summary, but anyway.

Obviously, it’s a fairly small part. I think the main question I just want to ask refers to clause 69, and this is particularly subclause (2): “The Commissioner may request an applicant for a PVR in respect of a variety or a PVR holder of the protected variety … to give propagating material of the variety to the Commissioner or to any [other] person nominated by the Commissioner,”. Now, I just want to understand a little bit more about that and certainty around that. I presume—and, hopefully, the Minister can confirm this—this is to be able to do testing—I’m not quite sure the right word; genealogy of the testing, but it’s not the DNA equivalent—to ascertain what is the plant material and to actually understand, I presume, whether, in fact, it relates to other plant variety right applications to verify that that variety is a unique one that’s been developed. I presume that is the case.

But (a) what is the purpose and what circumstances might that take place in; secondly, who might it go to? If we’re talking about going to a research or Crown research institute - type institute to do that type of testing—and I’m not quite sure what it’s called, to be honest—who might those organisations be? If you’re just talking about sending it to some individual—I know there’s confidentiality aspects to this, but is it clear what their purpose is, what the skill sets are, and what happens in terms of the costs of that? Maybe let’s start off with those three aspects.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I think it’s probably helpful for the committee to hear the remainder of clause 69(2), which does contain something of the answer; it begins to spell out. Let me repeat the first part of subclause (2) and then the completed part, which I think does provide something of an answer, for those at home who don’t have the draft bill in front of them. “The Commissioner may request an applicant for a PVR in respect of a variety or a PVR holder of the protected variety, as the case requires to give propagating material of the variety to the Commissioner or … any [other] person nominated by the Commissioner,”—the sentence then continues—“if the Commissioner considers that this is necessary or desirable for the purposes of exercising or performing the Commissioner’s functions, duties, or powers under this Act.” So it has to be for a very clear specified purpose.

Then the next subclause, subclause (3), states clearly that “The Commissioner’s request must be made in writing and specify the prescribed time within which it must be complied”—“within which it must be complied with.”; is that bad grammar, do I detect? It would be terribly embarrassing at this point. I think everybody would be able to interpret it properly. Chris Penk’s going to give advice to the committee shortly on that; it’s good to have someone with the necessary expertise. I think we all understand what that means.

So the very clear purpose here is to make sure that that material is provided so that the commissioner may perform their function properly in respect of the regime.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Hopefully, your trusted adviser is giving you some more information. I understand in the respect of powers, but what does that mean? I’m trying to understand the level below that, Minister. Are you trying to verify that it is a unique species? The role of the commissioner is obviously to grant plant variety rights, in fact, right? So what might be the occasion that the commissioner refers it to someone? Who is the someone, and what’s the cost?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Look, I expect the cost will be spelt out when those regulations are developed. I will consult with my colleagues over here, but this is a cost recovery regime. The first two questions that the member Andrew Bayly asked, he did allude to this himself. I guess I probably should have explicitly addressed it, but, yes, it is so that experts can test whether an entity is similar to another existing entity. It enables the commissioner to get the relevant people with the relevant expertise to do the testing—

Andrew Bayly: Who might that be?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —necessary. I would imagine that might be a lab. The member’s clutching at straws here. I think we can imagine who that might be.

The other point that’s been made to me that the officials have kindly passed on is that the commissioner, in terms of specifying the time frame for doing it and passing it, might not have space to store the material. So there’s time frame specifications around this so that the testing can be done in an appropriate way.

I guess the other wider point to make is that this carried over from the current Act; this is not a new thing we’re introducing here.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mark Cameron’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question is that

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Part 6 as amended stand part. All those in favour will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The question is agreed.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Party vote.

Andrew Bayly: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry. Did I miss a vote? I did. Sorry. Was that a party vote call?

Hon Eugenie Sage: Party vote, please.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 Compulsory licences

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now come to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 101 to 113, “Compulsory licences”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 7 of the bill sets out provisions relating to compulsory licences.

The compulsory licence provisions were one of the more contentious areas with industry stakeholders during the select committee process. They set out the circumstances under which the commissioner can require a plant variety right holder to licence the use of their protected variety. Most submitters argued that they either should not exist at all or, if they do, they should be limited to a very narrow public interest test—for example, the need to protect life and health.

I disagree and agree with the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Intellectual property rights exist for the benefit of New Zealand as a whole. To encourage innovation, innovators are provided a time-limited, statutorily exclusive right to give them the opportunity to make a return on their investment. In return, that innovation needs to be made available to the wider public so that New Zealand as a whole can benefit. The compulsory licence provisions are there, at least in part, to ensure availability if that is not happening.

So while the new provisions still retain the availability test carried over from the current Act, they also make a number of important improvements on those provisions in response to issues that stakeholders have raised throughout the review—and notably, three. The test for a compulsory licence is now framed as a public interest test, with availability as one of the factors that the commissioner must consider.

The availability test includes consideration of the availability of harvested material as well as propagating material, and section 21(3) of the current Act—the focus of much of stakeholder dissatisfaction—has not been carried over. This prevented propagating material whose harvested material was already under contract from being included in the assessment of availability—which is an issue for closed loop arrangements like that operated by Zespri, where licences to grow are issued and the produce is then sold back to the rights holders for marketing.

While this was hotly contested, I would note that in the last 30 years, only two of these have been argued. None the less, an important thing to debate.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I think this clause should be renamed “The nationalisation of commercially developed intellectual property” because that’s effectively what it is, isn’t it? Clause 103 is obviously what the Minister has referred to. I’m hoping the Minister has a chance to listen to this, because I’m about to pose some questions.

What this is all about is saying that people in the private sector who have spent a fortune, not only in money—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Do feel free to wait for the Minister’s attention—I won’t take the time off your time.

Hon Dr David Clark: Apologies, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member may restart. He may start from the start.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you, Mr Chair. That will lead to a better debate, and I appreciate giving the Minister the time needed to find out some of the answers. As I said, I think this clause could quite rightly be deemed, “the nationalisation of commercially developed intellectual property”. What this is about is commercial operators who have spent a lot of time and money—and in most cases it’s not just about the monetary amount. It’s the time spent developing and propagating species and testing them, and then you have, under clause 103, three criteria where that intellectual property could be picked up at the commissioner’s behest and actually used and made available to other people. So the first thing is there are three tests. The Minister didn’t actually refer to them in detail, but the first one is that three years have elapsed from the date on which the plant variety right was granted.

So that raises the first issue. You spend 20 years developing a plant species, and then you’re waiting for the process with the commissioner—and let’s now put on our practical hat—which we seem forget in Parliament, in little old Wellington—and what might you have to do? Well, you’re going to have to work out who’s going to grow your new plant variety, so that might mean multiple growers. You have to go and secure those arrangements. There may be consenting issues with local councils to be able to do that new crop under the new regime that’s been imposed by the Labour Government on farmers. It might be water access issues. It might be why there are delays in getting that access to be able to grow that new plant variety on a commercial basis.

Then you’ve got to put in place storage of your product. Then in you have to put in logistics, distribution arrangements. And heaven forbid—we haven’t even talked about the marketing arrangements, how it will be distributed, and who it is sold to, how branding and advertising is done. All that’s got to be done, and, of course, we never think about that here in Parliament, do we? But all that’s got to be done and put into place. If I understand it—and this is where I need to understand from the Minister—it’s within three years having elapsed from the issuing of the plant variety. There may be very good reasons why someone hasn’t been able to do that. Are there extenuating reasons and do you have to go cap in hand to the commissioner and say, “Sorry, commissioner, I haven’t been able to do this because, you know, I’ve got a few other issues and I haven’t been able to secure the right people to grow the damn thing in the first place.”?

So what are the conditions around the three-year rule? That’s the first thing. The other one—and I think this is one we will focus on as there is public interest. But let’s just deal with the three-year rule and extenuating circumstances, and what is the process that might take place.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The process around that is that somebody has to apply to the commissioner for this and the commissioner makes a judgment. So it’s not that three years lapse and then suddenly something becomes available. The commissioner would have to judge that there was something untoward going on here that was not in the public interest. I think we would to see competition in the market—to the member’s point.

The other thing to say about that is that the judgment of the commissioner is also appealable to the court beyond that, so there’s a process around it, and in that case where the commissioner made a judgment, the plant variety right owner would still get a royalty as well. So this is a regime that is very seldom called on. As I said, there are only two cases in the last 30 years, and one of those was about feijoa trees—I don’t know the detail; I’ve asked my officials to remind me of that—and, ultimately, it was granted. The other one was settled commercially outside of the process once the appeal was lodged.

So this is a very, very, very rare thing that we wouldn’t expect to see wide usage of, and, generally, when somebody develops intellectual property, they want to make the best use of it. If there are extenuating circumstances in why they hadn’t been able to get it to market, I’m sure the commissioner would take that into account. It would be my expectation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just indicate that when the Minister needs to take advice, just to be fair to the questioner so that he’s getting attention, I’m happy to give the questioner more time so the Minister can get that advice.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Great. But we’ve got the advice that we need at the moment. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. But just then with this issue of the three-year rule, what you’ll have is international people—we shouldn’t assume they’re just going to be domestic competitors. You will have Monsanto, you will have those big behemoth companies—I’m not saying they operate inappropriately, but you will have large-scale companies, international-based companies, that will sit and mine the data. Because with a three-year rule, they will look at any commercial opportunity to exploit intellectual property (IP) or intellectual assets being developed, and most likely by New Zealand growers. They will sit, and on the day three years and one day later, I imagine that they will want to make an application under these rules. Because it says if you haven’t done it within three years, if you haven’t got it to the market in three years, that’s the first grounds for making an appeal to use that data, that IP, right?

So I suppose the question—three years seems an inordinately short period of time to commercialise something, particularly—it’s not like a product, where you can just go down to a manufacturer and say, “Oh, can you make this through your workshop?” You’ve actually got to go and grow this on a commercial scale and all that sort of stuff. So why in dickens did we use three years as a start point? I can imagine if you haven’t utilised the IP for 10 years, maybe I can get that, but why a three-year time frame specifically?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This time frame is very similar—it was essentially the same as other countries who have a similar regime under the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)—

Andrew Bayly: For plant varieties?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s my understanding. It’s that advice I’ve received. It’s similar across UPOV countries. The other thing just to stress, and I did put this in my opening comments, is that these IP rights exist for the benefit of New Zealand as a whole. They’re there to encourage the innovation. They’re there to encourage innovators. They’re given a statutory time-limited right to exclusive exploration of this—the opportunity to make a return on investment. And so we carved that out in the law. We say other people can’t use this, and that is to incentivise that development, right? That’s what’s done globally.

The quid pro quo is that there’s also a benefit for wider New Zealanders. It’s not just a right for the sake of having a right. It’s a right so that people can make a commercial return on their investment so that the innovators can be rewarded. But it’s not a right without looking to the benefit of wider New Zealand. At a certain point, that innovation needs to be made available for the wider public benefit. So that’s why there is a time limit on it.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. See, I find that answer staggering, because my—it should be called “The Nationalisation of Commercially Generated IP”. Because your response—and I’m looking at the Minister, not to the Chair. The Minister’s response is saying, “Look, we don’t mind if you go away and spend 20 years and incur millions of dollars developing new plant species. Go ahead. We love it.” Right? But as soon as you come and want to register in New Zealand and operate under the IP laws of New Zealand, hey, we then as the Government should say, “Right, that has benefit to New Zealand, and therefore if you haven’t commercialised it within three years, potentially we’re going to allow other people to use it.” Right? That is Government think. That’s nationalisation of commercially driven IP.

I’ve just come back from Singapore. They are encouraging intellectual property because they see it as a way to grow the economy, right? It’s a valuable part of their growth strategy. For a moment do they think if we allow aerospace to come and do a whole lot of development in Singapore that it would be a really good, strong proposition to aerospace, so if we said to aerospace—this is the Singapore Government—“Oh, if you haven’t commercialised something and spent billions on it, we’re now going to allow competitors: Boeing and all the other aircraft manufacturers—to use it.” How compelling, as a proposition, is that? That is not a compelling proposition, and the worst thing about it is the Minister thinks that the Government has a right to take people’s commercially developed IP and say, “We’re going to nationalise and use it.” I find that an extraordinary comment from the Minister, and what a perception. Personally I don’t agree with it, and I’d love him to stand up and justify why he thinks the Government should have a role in nationalising and allowing other people to use commercially driven IP in a relatively short period of time of three years.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Speaker—sorry, Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Wrong on both counts. Look, I think that—it’s thrown me—what the member is arguing is, essentially, that New Zealand should have a regime that is profoundly different to the United Kingdom, to the United States, and to Australia, who all have similar compulsory licence provisions.

The point that I think I would make to the committee is that these things are very, very rare: we only know of one where it’s actually applied in the last 30 years. And when they apply, they still require the people who use that intellectual property to pay the person who developed it.

So I think the member risks, perhaps, overdramatising the effect of this provision if he’s saying that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have got this wrong and are all becoming nations that are trying to do some mischief to their intellectual property developers.

I don’t believe that to be the case; I think those regimes around the world that mirror the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants suggestion of how this should be done are functional. I also have a belief in our exporters and our intellectual property developers that they will be able to take advantage of this regime—as those in the US do, as those of the United Kingdom do, and as those in Australia do.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So can the Minister provide now an absolute clear definition of what is in the public—just in the public interest. What does “public interest” mean? What is an absolute, crystal-clear definition of “public interest”? And can he assure the House that that definition won’t change over time? Because if you’re putting a piece of legislation, you’ve got to take a 10- to 20-year view on it. How do we know that, over time, public interest won’t change?

Because if we go back 20 years ago, I’ll bet you the view of “public interest”—even back in the 1980s, 1990s—will be a different public interest as what we’ve got today. We had a bill last night talking about the right role of directors running companies. We’ve got Dr Duncan Webb putting through bills requiring company directors to have regard for a whole lot of other, wider factors that directors have to take into account when they manage their business and direct their businesses.

So how do you know that the view on public interest won’t change? And what is the absolute view around what is public interest in today’s terms?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mist—Madam—far out—Madam Chair. I think the first thing I’d say is that guidance can be provided around this; and the second thing I would say—you know, put aside the misrepresentations of Dr Duncan Webb’s bill because we’re not discussing that today—clause 103(2) sets out the test, right?

I would hope that the public interest today is different to what it was 100 years ago; I really would. That’s the beauty of setting out a test and asking that a judgment be made. Public interest does differ over time and we would expect our legal framework to be flexible, to accept that, and I rest my case.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So, all right, I’m looking at 103(2)(a)(iv). One of the tests you refer to is if the price “at which the material is available is reasonable;”. So hang on: now we’ve got some Government official—and it would have to be a Government official—looking at commercially developed intellectual property, plant variety, may have incurred billions of dollars or millions of dollars for 20 years of time and seeking to recover their costs. What have we got?

Now we’ve got a Government official being an investment bank and trying to work out what the recovery cost is on the thing? Or does that person in some Government department, heaven forbid, go, “Oh, I think we could get that at a cheaper rate.”, and is that a reason? Because that’s set out clearly; that’s the criteria you’ve set out in the bill to say, “Oh, I recommend to the Minister”—because, of course, a lot of it is going to be done through regulation so it comes back to Minister—“I think that plant variety, they shouldn’t be selling for $200 a kilo; it should be a $50 because, you know, we’ve seen developments around the world and that’s our view.” Right? That is an absurd proposition.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Once again, I bring the member back to the fact that similar regimes exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and numerous other countries—these are fairly standard provisions and we would expect our commissioner to have regard to their commercial environment and be advised appropriately. I think the prospect of the sky falling in and the kind of scenario playing out that Mr Bayly is depicting is very unlikely, or equally as likely in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and various other countries around the world that have adopted these standards. I think it’s very sensible to have a regime where there is a test, even if it only gets used once every 30 years for situations where the wider public benefit has not been taken into account in the availability of intellectual property, once the exclusive statutory licence has been available for a period of time already for the owner of that property to—as we’ve canvassed in the debate—take advantage of. And, even then, when there is an exclusive licence, if there is one granted every 30 years, say, the intellectual property owner still gets paid the royalties.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not going to continue labouring this, but I do think there’s a fundamental difference because the issue around determining this and the commercial stuff in the test used here—we have an opportunity where New Zealand sits on the intellectual property (IP) spectrum. And I know the Minister’s spoken about only two claims in the last 30 years—the issue is that the world has changed. Thirty years ago, no one talked about intellectual property. If you look at every listed company on the stock exchange now, on average, half of their value and half of their market value comes from the intellectual property. The world has moved on: intellectual property is the currency of value going forward. That’s why it is absolutely essential we get the right intellectual property protection in place, right? Just because we’ve picked up stuff from around the world—I can tell you that most countries look at their IP laws much more regularly than we do and make sure they’re up to date. In doing so, we can choose where on the spectrum we want to have our IP laws sitting.

The Minister seems to give this impression that because America and Britain, or whatever, have these laws that are the best laws and we must mirror them, no more, no less—actually, there’s an opportunity where New Zealand wants to be in the spectrum and whether we want to be particularly protecting our horticulture industry, which is so vital to New Zealand. I think, and I say it again, the three years is an absurdly short period of time, and some of these tests are very, very subjective.

Just turning to the royalty payment, which is clause 104, where the Minister says, “Hey presto, you don’t need to worry about it because they’re going to get paid the royalty anyway.” The terms are set out: “The compulsory licence … must set out the amount of, or method of calculating, the royalty; and … the royalty must be paid;”. So we’ve had this big debate, we’ve lost to Monsanto, so this IP is all going to be made commercially available, I suppose the big question is: who determines the royalty payment? Is that a capability residing in the commissioner’s office? Because, here we go, this is not a negotiation, I presume; this is a determination, I presume; or is it a negotiation between Monsanto and our little plant breeder in Pukekohe; or is it the commissioner doing this, and, if so, what skills is the commissioner going to have to be able to draw on to be able to decide this, and is it a determination of the royalty fees?

Helen White: Madam Chair?

Andrew Bayly: Can we hear the answer?

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that, but the Minister was about to take a call, and the member is fully engaged in this part, so we will proceed.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): As laid out, the commissioner, after talking to parties, sets that royalty. The previous matters canvassed by the member have been, I think, debated and answered. The member makes this case again, but I note it for the record.

Helen White: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I was about to put the question.

Helen White: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): But I will take the member, since she sought the call.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to—is anybody going to vote?

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Part 8 Administration, secondary legislation, and other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 8. This is the debate on clauses 114 to 153, and Schedules 2 and 3, “Administration, secondary legislation, and other matters”. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 8 of the bill sets out a number of further administrative matters relating to the functions and powers of the commissioner, maintenance of the plant varieties rights (PVR) register, and the regulation-making powers. Comments raised by submitters on Part 8 were largely technical in nature, and a number of changes were made as a result. The PVR regulations, which are currently being drafted, are based largely on the patents regulations, as there are a number of procedural similarities between the two regimes. And just to note that Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 155 responds to some technical issues in the bill that arose in the drafting process. SOP 155, which I’ve tabled, makes some changes to the bill to ensure that the regulations are adequately supported.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): We’re having an exciting morning, and I’ve got to compliment the Minister for introducing each part! My first point just relates to clauses 119 and 140. These are hearings and the provision of evidence to the commissioner, in respect of clause 119, and clause 140 “Obligation of confidentiality on applicant, iwi, and hapū, etc”—obviously, when going into engagement with iwi, in the various capacities set out in the bill. My question really is: what is the guarantee around confidentiality? I presume, with the commissioner, any evidence given is in private. Or can a plant variety rights applicant request privacy around that? Is the commissioner subject to Official Information Act requests?

And, if an applicant is making applications or having discussions of a confidential nature, maybe before they have even filed an application or made an application for a right, is there the ability to have private conversations that are not subject to public scrutiny? Certainly, that’s in relation to the commissioner. In relation to clause 140, particularly where you’re going out and consulting—engagement is required if it is deemed a kaitiaki relationship, before it goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. What is the certainty around confidentiality? And, if someone were to breach that confidentiality, are they able to be sued? And what is the process for redress for people who may be making an application or have received an application and their intellectual property has been made public?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): In terms of the hearing of evidence, any party can ask for it to be private, as the member suggests. In respect of confidentiality, I think the member helpfully draws to the committee’s attention the material, and clauses 140, 141, and 142 also deal with that in terms of the remedies. But clause 140 is very clear that there is an obligation on parties to keep confidential all information that comes into their knowledge as a result of engagement, even before an application is made. The remedies available for breaches of confidentiality are laid out in clause 142: “The relief that the court may grant for a breach of confidentiality includes (a) an injunction; and (b) at option of the plaintiff, damages or an account of profits.”

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for that response. I now want to turn to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 191. There are a lot of concerns in the industry about the proposed fees structure that Government officials are keen to implement. My SOP really reflects some of those concerns. The first thing I’m proposing, new clause 149A, is saying “Before any changes are made to the fees prescribed by regulations”—which means—of course, everyone in the Chamber knows this, but people listening in won’t—it’s not subject to Government oversight. Regulations are approved by the Minister and the Minister alone. So there is no transparency around the decision-making process, and it’s certainly not subject to a public debate like we’re doing now.

What my SOP says is that, before any changes, “the Ministry must (a) undertake a review of the fee structure, including consideration of (i) the impact of any proposed increase in fees; and (ii) whether the proposed increase in fees is in the public interest; and (b) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to make submissions as part of the review”. The central point here is that the industry—and I’m talking about groups that actively and consistently develop new plant varieties—are concerned about some of the fee structure and the fee proposals, and the quantum of those. So they’re very strongly of the view that, before any changes in the fee structures occur, a review actually takes place so that they have certainty around that and have the opportunity to have some input during it. So, first of all, I’d like to hear whether, in fact, the Minister is open to that.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The answer—the advice I’ve just received is what I would have expected—is that there is already a review going on of fee structures, and they are done periodically. I mean, this is something that is done from time to time, and there is a view, which has been presented to me previously, when I’ve asked it, that actually the fees risk being below cost recovery. They’re certainly a lot lower than in overseas jurisdictions, and it’s appropriate that we do have reviews periodically, but we don’t need specific legislation to lay that out. It is good practice, and it happens, and there is not, in my view, any merit, as long as the principles of the Act are laid out, in prescribing rigid things that create more work for a bureaucracy. It’s appropriate to do them regularly—I take the member’s point—and it’s appropriate to make sure that the fees are the right ones.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So that gives rise to “What’s the nature of the review?” Is this going to be the Reserve Bank’s “I’m going to review myself and give myself a double tick.”, as they’ve just done in the last couple of days? Because, gee, they’ve done a great job! I’m using that as an example, which is a Government entity who undertakes a review of its own performance and comes up with a double-tick response in saying how great they’ve been. So is the fee review that the Minister is referring to undertaken by the ministry? And, first of all, does it involve consultation with the industry? And I mean not just having a bit of a chat on the phone, because there has been some concern by a number of participants in the industry who are concerned with the level of consultation undertaken by the ministry, particularly around this bill. So does the fee review involve open, public consultation? Is there going to be an opportunity for those members of the community to actually engage in a proper review process, or is this just going to be a closed-shop, ministry review saying, “We’ve consulted with a few people and we’re still going to put up the prices.”? That the first point: the nature of that consultation.

The second thing is: how do we ensure that the fees, firstly, reflect cost recovery and incentivise people to do this and not create a disincentive? I’ve sat on the Regulations Review Committee. I know the Minister has been around a long time. We all know about certain Government departments who choose to put in fee structures which are found later to not reflect cost recovery. So what certainty can you provide for the industry that the fee structures that are proposed to be put in place do actually reflect cost recovery—and whether that’s, again, going to be a transparent calculation or not? Two big questions there.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for the question, and it is an important question. I want to acknowledge that from the outset. It is a cost recovery model. The costs for administering the plant variety right (PVR) regime, like the other systems for registered intellectual property rights—such as patents, trademarks, and industrial designs—are met on that cost recovery basis through fees charged to the users of the systems.

Now, since 2002, the costs of administering the PVR system have risen substantially. The current fees now cover less than a third of the costs of administering the PVR system. I have alluded to this, but I’ve dug out now the more specific information. Keeping the fees at their current levels, obviously, is unsustainable. It’s not a cost recovery, effectively.

So a review of the PVR fees has recently been undertaken to determine a new fee structure for the PVR system. That review, which included consultation with the users of the PVR system, considered the impact of increased fees on users and also considered the public good aspect of plant breeding and innovation. In recognition of those factors—and I do want to credit the officials with firmly presenting this view. There’s merit in erring on the side of keeping those fees lower, if that makes sense. So the Government has agreed to partially fund the PVR system to reduce the increase in fees that would otherwise have occurred if they were set to recover the entire cost of the PVR system. So there’s a graduated response.

The review of the fees has therefore already considered the factors that the Supplementary Order Paper suggests should be considered before increasing fees, and officials have been directed over the next three years to consider the economic benefits of the PVR system to determine the optimal balance here in the regime—the balance between the funding contributed by Government and the fees paid by users.

So I don’t consider there’s need to freeze the PVR fees at their current level while analysis is carried out. I think we’ve done some of that analysis. But it does highlight that the member is on the money, actually, with raising this issue, and it just so happens that we have progressed some work to address these matters already.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Minister, for that response. So when might the fee increase come into play?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Look, I’m just—I will check with officials, and they’ll tell me if I’ve got this wrong, but it’s a graduated response, so—

Andrew Bayly: Starting from when?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would assume from the next—early next year. Early next year is what I’m being prompted with. But it’s a graduated response while we do that work to ascertain that right balance.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendment to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 8 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Part 8 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 95

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31.

Noes 20

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

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1A

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment deleting Schedule 1A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Andrew Bayly’s amendment deleting Schedule 1A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Schedule 1A agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 Title and commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mark Cameron’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Natural Hazards Insurance Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I present a legislative statement on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill be now read a second time.

This bill replaces the Earthquake Commission Act 1993. The past few years have reminded us how important access to affordable and available disaster insurance is. The Earthquake Commission (EQC) scheme has helped contribute to very high rates of household disaster insurance, and it is vital that this continues. The scheme also needs to meet or exceed community expectations regarding the fair and professional treatment of its claimants and contribute to wider Government policy and priorities in natural hazard risk management.

The Natural Hazards Insurance Bill builds on the important lessons that we’ve learnt over the last decade. It modernises and streamlines the current Earthquake Commission Act and incorporates many of the recommendations of Dame Silvia Cartwright’s public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission. Members across parties recognise the importance of this bill and what it will mean for communities that might have to wrestle with recovery from natural disasters.

At first reading, the bill received cross-party support for referral to select committee. The Finance and Expenditure Committee have now considered the bill and reported back to the House with recommended changes that strengthen and clarify the bill’s provisions. The committee’s report recommends unanimously that the bill be passed. The committee also recommends all amendments unanimously except for one in clause 2 regarding commencement, which is recommended by majority. I acknowledge the valuable and important contribution that members on that select committee have made to the bill’s progress in the House. I also want to acknowledge submitters.

Before I outline the key points raised in submissions and how the bill responds to those, I want to be clear about what the bill does and does not do. The bill is intended to respond to the recommendations of Dame Silvia’s public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission and to clarify and modernise the current Earthquake Commission Act. It retains all the core features that help make the current scheme a success—capped coverage of residential buildings and associated land through a levy-based system attached to private insurance policies. It also clarifies the commission’s objectives, functions, and obligations to claimants. It’s not intended to lead or implement policy on the Government’s role in managing climate change costs and risks.

Now, while Toka Tū Ake EQC does and will continue to provide cover for damage caused by hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change, it is premature for the bill to attempt to address those issues now. Similarly, it’s not intended to give the commission advocacy, regulatory, or veto powers over where houses are built or not built. These are questions best left to other parts of central and local government. However, the bill is intended to make it clear that the commission has an important role in research and education and in supporting other agencies through sharing information on risks and exposures.

The committee received 26 submissions from organisations and individuals. That’s resulted in a large number of technical amendments and some substantive ones. I wish to say a few things to the substantive ones that have come back from the select committee. Firstly, commencement: the bill as introduced would commence on the latter of 1 December 2023 or 12 months after Royal assent. Now, insurers made submissions that this time line was not achievable for them and sought commencement somewhere between 18 months and three years after Royal assent. I think the committee struck a good balance of extending the 1 December 2023 date to 1 July 2024. If the bill is passed this year, as I hope, the practical effect will be to provide insurers something over 18 months to prepare for the new Act commencing from 1 July 2024.

The majority of the committee also recommended retaining the alternative leg of the commencement provision, namely 12 months after Royal assent, as this provision would only start to apply if Royal assent occurred after 1 July next year and the near final bill is already in the public domain. I consider the 12-month alternative commencement provision to be appropriate. We want this bill to commence as soon as is reasonably possible so its benefits are available to homeowners affected by a natural disaster, but no one who knows how far off that next large event may be.

The reported-back bill also makes a range of amendments intended to improve claimant outcomes by providing certainty and predictability of cover and by supporting fair and timely management of claims. Now, these include further clarifying what’s a dwelling covered by the scheme, including clarifying the status of homes used for short-term accommodation, homes that are temporarily unsuitable for living in while they are under renovation, and large-scale residential accommodation like university hostels.

It also, amongst the amendments, is clarifying how potential imminent damage covered by the scheme is determined. There is quite a list, but I think it’s important to put them on record: extending requirements for the commission to consult interested parties in the development of the Code of Insured Persons’ Rights; removing a provision carried over from the existing Act that gave Toka Tū Ake EQC the option of charging an extra amount to continue cover following a claim; introducing a new provision regarding the commission’s recovery of amounts paid to claimants in error, including specifying some circumstances in which the commission cannot seek repayment of amounts; and requiring the commission to consult with claimants before exercising salvage rights to land or exercising its discretion to buy a damaged land site from a claimant.

The bill also clarifies that claimants whose claims are settled on a diminution of value basis cannot be subsequently penalised for failing to carry out a repair, as diminution of value settlement is predicated on repair being unfeasible, unlawful, or disproportionately expensive.

Lastly, the bill now requires the commission to settle claims as soon as is practicable rather than within one year of determining the amount to be paid.

I think the House will be able to see that the committee has done a good deal of work to further clarify the intention of Dame Silvia’s report. So as we go through these changes, I do want to again thank the select committee for its work. The bill also makes it clear that external animal housing like dog kennels, clothes lines, and outdoor cooking facilities like pizza ovens are not covered by the scheme. Restoring these structures is beyond the Government’s interest in restoring the essential parts of a residential building.

These changes build on key features of the bill as introduced and are intended to improve claimant outcomes and provide claimants certainty with what is covered by their insurance, where their statutory rights and expectations can lie, and how their claims dispute or conduct complaint will be addressed.

The committee also introduced additional procedural safeguards that apply if the commission exercises its powers of entry to a home or marae where the occupier’s consent has not been obtained. While this is a useful modernisation of the provision in the existing Act, this provision is expected, I think, to see very little use.

Lastly, a provision enabling commencement of the bill to be deferred by Order in Council has been deleted and the power to amend certain dollar amounts in the Act by regulation has been limited so that regulations can only increase the dollar amount above what has been legislated by the House.

Thank you again to the committee and the officials for their work, and thank you to the members of the public who provided submissions. It gives me very real pleasure to commend the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill to the House, and I thank parties across this Parliament for their constructive approach to the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to talking on the first reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. It feels like the Punch and Judy show this morning, Dr David Clark and myself—

Chris Penk: Dumb and Dumber.

ANDREW BAYLY: —I’m just not quite sure which one’s Punch and which one’s Judy. But not Dumb and Dumber, Mr Penk, as I heard you mention there.

But, anyway, this is a good bill and, of course, National will be supporting this bill. And I don’t think we need to remind ourselves of the context for this bill—obviously, it’s come out of the traumatic earthquakes. But National kicked off the review of the Earthquake Commission, as it was then called, and asked Dame Silvia Cartwright, former Governor-General, to lead that review. She came up with 70 recommendations, and this bill encapsulates a lot of those recommendations.

Interestingly, in the process—and I sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—we did look at the new definitions of these traumatic events and we redefined “earthquake”. “A sudden, rapid breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth’s surface that results in ground shaking”—that was the original definition; we thought that was slightly unclear so we made the definition more generalised. We talked about floods—it was defined as “inundation of normally dry land by water due to storm, storm surge, [or] meteotsunami, or the escape or release of water from its natural confines,”. So we just thought that needed to be tidied up a little bit so people could actually understand all that. And a storm event is a “ ‘violent disturbance’ [in] the earth’s atmosphere.”

So the first thing is we’ve made it slightly more user-friendly for people. But there’s some very significant parts in this bill, and I think the first one is we’ve widened the definition as to a structure. Previously, it only referred to the primary structure—it might be a house. We extended the bill to include appurtenant structures. So people will be looking for their dictionaries, maybe, but what that means is other types of structures—not pizza ovens and dog kennels as the Minister quite rightly pointed out. But on residential properties, often you will have a garage or something like that that may not be connected to the main structure, which is important. So the liability was extended to those ones.

It was also extended to horizontal infrastructure, which is a Christchurch term: pipes, drains, and other services, which is an important thing because often when you have earthquake events, pipes get damaged as land subsides, whatever. We thought it was important that the cover covers that, and also retaining walls—particularly if you’ve got a retaining wall that’s stopping a landslide from behind your house and it’s consented and all that sort of stuff. We thought it was important that those types of structures would be covered. There is a limit on the value of that retaining wall or those type of structures—$50,000 per dwelling on a retaining wall, $25,000 for bridges and culverts. So we widened the definition and we think that’s very important.

The second most significant aspect about this is the increase in the cover. Previously, as most people will be aware, earthquake damage was limited to $150,000 per property. This has now been increased to $300,000. And it’s one of the issues where the committee—and I’ve been involved in finance and expenditure for a long time—had virtually unanimous support across the House about increasing that level of cover.

The third element is this information requirement. So the commission now has increased powers of being able to gather information—obviously in the context of assessing claims—but also there’s now a requirement that the commission needs to share information with the appropriate other Government organisations. In many cases, we’ve seen a silo approach taken within Government, and we need to look towards making sure our own Government agencies have access to the information and can get access to the information. The Privacy Act, which is causing so much trouble for the operation or interoperability of Government departments and even with private citizens, is an area that we were concerned that there was sharing of appropriate information so that all could be done to expedite claims and get on with things.

The next aspect is the due date. National was particularly concerned about the proposed date of implementation in the bill. I do want to acknowledge the Labour members who agreed with us and pushed out the time frame by 18 months for the implementation of this bill to 1 July 2024. This is not to stop this from occurring; this is to be practical about when these things can be put in place. The committee decided on that, and I acknowledge the committee members for doing that and the Minister for agreeing to that.

The fourth issue is the requirement for the commission to participate in a dispute resolution scheme. It is an important aspect and one that we were very keen to see put in place, and that is an important requirement on the commission.

There are some issues with the bill that should be acknowledged—and I’m just conscious of the time because I don’t want to drag this beyond 1 o’clock. But the first one is that the implication for increasing the cover to $300,000 means that, perversely, in some low-risk seismic areas, or in areas of generally low risk from these events, people will end up paying a higher excess on the insurance premium—up to $200 per annum—and that is a cost that some people are going to bear. But the trade-off is a higher overall cover for people. The second one is removing the commission’s discretion to discount levies to private insurers. Insurers do collect premiums on behalf of the commission. It is a moot point about removing some of the discounts and rebate that they’re entitled to.

We also introduced a new offence for insurers who fail to comply with the obligation to pay the levy to the commission. We would not want to see the new commission using that power inappropriately and conducting, sort of, audits of insurers. We’ve got to acknowledge that insurers played an instrumental role in helping, particularly during the Christchurch earthquake.

Those are the key bits. I think I’ll draw it to a close because I know the House is about to lift, but this is a good outcome. As I said, National are supporting this bill and I look forward to further contributions as we move this bill forward through its progress. Thank you.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)