Tuesday, 15 November 2022

TUESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2022

TUESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Visitors

Niue—Legislation Assembly, Delegation

SPEAKER: Members, I am sure that you would wish to welcome the parliamentary delegation from the Niue Legislation Assembly who are present today in the gallery.

Motions

Black Ferns—Congratulations

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to congratulate the Black Ferns on their Rugby World Cup victory.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate the Black Ferns on winning their sixth Rugby World Cup title.

On behalf of the Government, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the Black Ferns on their outstanding 34-31 win over England in the final. Their triumph on Saturday night at Eden Park is, I believe, one of New Zealand’s greatest sporting moments. This has been recognised across the world; international media have dubbed this the best World Cup final in history.

I also believe that beyond the team’s success at the World Cup itself, the Black Ferns have put women’s sports on the front page and have inspired young people—especially young girls and young women all around the country—to play sport and be physically active.

The final itself was an extraordinary game. It was a privilege to watch it at a sold-out Eden Park. The atmosphere was electric; and following on from the nail-biting semi-final the week before, it was another rollercoaster of emotions—a high-quality display of skills and athleticism in a pressure cooker environment from both teams. I want to acknowledge the England team for their superb display, not just in the final or even in the tournament, but in their 30-match unbeaten run that they had coming into the final.

The outpouring of emotion at the ground and in pubs, clubs, and homes all around New Zealand showed just how much the performances of the Black Ferns have brought our nation together. As the Prime Minister has said: rugby has always been thought of as our national game, but the Black Ferns have made it a game for everyone.

I want to acknowledge the whole Black Ferns squad, in particular co-captains Ruahei Demant and Kennedy Simon. This is not only a team of extraordinary athletes, they express themselves as great people connected to each other and their whānau and communities and as proud New Zealanders. The last year has been enormously challenging for the Black Ferns, and to come through and win this tournament is a testament to the character, resilience, and wairua of a group of wāhine toa. We salute them, one and all.

The Black Ferns are the first to say that they stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. I, too, want to acknowledge previous Black Ferns who have kept the flame alive when they did not have the support, resources, and recognition they deserve. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. To the team management—and in particular, the coaches: the Professor, Wayne Smith; Wesley Clarke; and Whitney Hansen—the heartfelt thanks of a nation.

I’d also like to congratulate retiring halfback and general organiser Kendra Cocksedge on an outstanding career, being the most capped Black Fern and winning her third Rugby World Cup medal, and to Renee Wickliffe, who also retires after a stellar career for the Black Ferns.

I want to acknowledge the organising committee of the Rugby World Cup, especially chair Dame Julie Christie, chief executive Michelle Hooper, and their team on an exceptional event. I want to make a special acknowledgement of the hundreds of volunteers who worked to make sure that this tournament ran so well.

We are proud of this team paving the way for women’s sport in Aotearoa, proving that yet again it is something that we must support in further development. The Government is proud to have supported the tournament, alongside New Zealand Rugby, and to have invested to the tune of nearly $20 million in the tournament. We are also proud to have developed the first ever women and girls in sports strategy. That strategy gives us the long-term plan to give opportunities for young women and girls to participate, lead, thrive, be seen, and be heard when it comes to sport and recreation.

Finally, I want to challenge all of us to find a way to build on the legacy of this tournament; to support sport and recreation opportunities for women and girls in our communities and at the elite level. This is a turning point for women’s rugby and women’s sport in New Zealand, and we will not let it go to waste. So once again, congratulations to the Blacks Ferns—Rugby World Cup champions—and as Ruby Tui has said, “It’s just the beginning, baby.”

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

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party is delighted to support this motion. We not only congratulate the Black Ferns on winning the Rugby World Cup; we thank them. Not a lot unites the country at the moment, but on Saturday night, and, indeed, right through the tournament, the Black Ferns captured the imagination of New Zealanders. The Black Ferns’ skill, their heart, their personal conduct, their commitment, and their team spirit have been exemplary. The standard of the top teams at this competition means the playoffs and finals were great spectacles and excellent entertainment. Those teams have taken women’s rugby to a new level, and, simply put, the Black Ferns have brought the joy back to the most Kiwi of pastimes: watching rugby. New Zealand Rugby told me that large numbers of those who went to the opening game had actually never watched a rugby match before, and I’m guessing that must have swelled on finals night, too. The Black Ferns’ passion and gusto has injected such a surging energy into our national game and has been a source of inspiration, particularly for our youngest Kiwis, the emerging generation of our next rugby greats.

National thanks not only the players but also coach Wayne Smith and the whole iceberg below the water that is required for a team of this calibre to perform as they have, and also those involved in securing the event for New Zealand and running it. Thank you. And we thank, also, the women who paved the way for the 2022 competition to reach these heights—so many women over so many years who went before and could only dream of paying spectators filling Eden Park to watch women’s rugby. On Saturday night, that dream was realised.

As a keen follower of rugby, I was personally fortunate to attend the Black Ferns opening game, the semi-final, as well as the final, and I loved every minute of it. It was a fantastic atmosphere on Saturday night, and I thank the whole of the Black Ferns team for their inspiration, to think about the broader role also that this represents, that sport has in people’s health, in their wellbeing, and in social cohesion.

National is pleased to place on record in this House its congratulations, and thanks each and every member of the Black Ferns and their management and their support teams. Well done, and go the Black Ferns.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Congratulations to Ngā Mamaku, the Black Ferns. Pay them. Pay them well. Pay them all of the things. Pay them what they have always deserved. I wanted to make that really clear in my speech today.

My husband knows that it is not my normal behaviour to have kept the scorecard religiously every weekend and written in it every weekend. [Holds up scorecard] This is how excited I was about supporting this team. He’s never seen me even bother to put up any scorecard for any team ever. I did this because what an amazing, beautiful spirit. Ngā Mamaku have always been about brilliant, superb skill and athleticism. For goodness’ sake, this is their sixth World Cup—I mean, what else could they ever be but brilliant athletes?

But, bigger than that, they have had an incredible spirit—we saw that around that park, where I was so honoured to be. And I will say I was proud that, before the tournament even started, I bid at an auction to help a sexual-violence organisation fund-raise. I probably paid five times as much as if I had just gone online, but I was determined to support the team, to support the kaupapa of the organisation, and to take my family out for an unforgettable night. My goodness, I could have paid 20 times for what I got from that incredible night.

We saw Ruby Tui, at the end, say to New Zealand, “New Zealand, kei te pēhea koe?” We saw Ruby Tuna—Ruby Tuna? She’s awesome. We also saw Ruby Tui, who’s also awesome, get everybody singing “Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi” in a way that we have never seen that stadium agree to sing before. We saw people all over the stadium swinging poi. [Swings poi] Mr Speaker, I hope you allow me to break the rules just for this second. This poi was made by Georgia Latu, who was responsible for making over 30,000 of those poi. Mihi to Hinewehi Mohi for coming up with the superb way of uniting us in Te Ao Māori culture that those girls so fiercely upheld. Their haka had them coursing their pride through their veins as they demonstrated that Te Ao Māori is to be cherished, shared, supported, and, mostly, enjoyed for everyone.

I am just so honoured to be here today. I put the bid in for this speech, by the way, Mr Robertson, on Sunday morning, before you even asked—before—before I even knew that this was going to happen in this House.

Mana wāhine—there is no description, it shows itself clearly in front of us. When it comes, we know, and it has been here for quite some time. But, my goodness, through this entire tournament, that team has had the community right in behind them and continued to uphold their leadership. And we need to continue to get in behind Ngā Mamaku and the community to support them being affirmed for who they always have been.

Ngā Mamaku are the best of us. They have brought out the best of us, and we need to continue to support their mana. Kia ora.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): On behalf of my ACT Party colleagues, we wish to extend our congratulations to the Black Ferns on their Women’s Rugby World Cup victory. Saturday’s game was spectacular. The last few minutes of play were thrilling for everyone watching in the stands, watching at home on the couch, or at the local pub. New Zealanders united in a collectively deeply held breath that the girls would pull through and claim victory—and did they ever. It was a great game of rugby.

But it wasn’t just Saturday’s game that was spectacular; all the games were. It was a great tournament. The Black Ferns scored 268 points in the tournament overall and had three players in the top five for the most points scored. Portia Woodman, Renee Holmes, Ruahei Demant—and Portia was the top try scorer at the World Cup with seven tries scored. In the words of one of our ACT office staff: what a beast, man! It was also the character of each one of the players that was spectacular. It’s that character that’s inspired a nation. Not only were our Black Ferns talented at what they do, they showed commitment to the game and sporting spirit. They brought people together. Ruby Tui got the crowd singing, and people at the stadium hung around, excited to be there and wanting to celebrate the win with the team.

I think we can all agree that it was an historic moment: Eden Park packed out for a women’s sports team. ACT hopes that young girls up and down New Zealand will be inspired by this new generation of heroes, and can see that rugby is not just a sport for men; it’s a New Zealand sport. We’re pleased for the young girls who have new role models that can inspire them to get outside and share in sport. Once again, we congratulate the Black Ferns on their great victory. Well done to the Black Ferns.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Te Paati Māori also is proud to be standing here to support the call today.

Ko wai ngā hine? Ko wai ngā hine?

Ko ngā Mamaku e ngunguru e.

Tū mai rā koe, te mana wahine, te whare tangata,

Ngā Mamaku o Aotearoa e.

[Who are these women? Who are these women?

It's the Black Ferns, rumbling.

Stand tall with pride, women, the house of humanity,

The Black Ferns of Aotearoa.]

I stand in awe of our wāhine toa o ngā Mamaku. Our kōtiro, our tuāhine, our whāea, our kuia were all there, seeing what they live every day: wāhine claiming their space on the field. And, unlike my esteemed colleagues on the other side—Te Paati Māori couldn’t afford a box seat—I had to stand with Pātea Māori Club to get my ticket in there and absolutely enjoyed the vibes, the atmosphere, watching rugby of that level, with wāhine, with our young kōtiro, all leaning up against the side line, all cheering on in a way that, I think, we will probably never ever forget.

That is the norm. The norm is that we saw what our wāhine are capable of, and I guess what we need to think about is how they included and took us all with them via poi. How we saw mātauranga Māori used, how we saw our culture, actually brings pride; it uplifts, and it was an influence that brought about, I guess, the togetherness of Aotearoa. That is Tiriti-centric Aotearoa in the making. That is exactly what we talk about every day. Ruby Tui said, “They said we could never sell out Eden.”—and they ran out to a sold-out crowd. They showed them; they showed us. They shook the old boys’ club and they deserve the bonus, not just for winning but for shattering the patriarchal behaviour that hangs around rugby union. They showed the world, but most importantly they showed us here in Aotearoa, that wāhine are equal on and off the field—that Te Ao Māori is equal on and off the field. And I think, if we were going to do anything, I’m really, really hoping that today or tomorrow we’re going to hear the date for the parade that is going to happen in Wellington—for the event that we hopefully, get invited to, for the fact that we have opportunities here to celebrate the resilience and the absolute exemplar of this team.

I think, from us, what we also saw, most importantly, was our young boys, our young tāne, our koroua, our uncles watching wāhine—together; together. Wāhine and tāne should be taking this world together in sports, together in everything that we do. I think that was the balance that this team did. They had no idea that it was so much more than just playing a game. I think, for us, it’s an extreme honour to be able to stand here and mihi to them and hope that we don’t have to be debating the value of our wāhine in sports ever again, that the young women coming through can see and appreciate the value that we have as a nation for them, and not just in this sport but in every sport. Nō reira, tēnā koutou. Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou, ngā Mamaku o Aotearoa.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Rulings

Reserved Provision—Electoral (Māori Option) Legislation Bill

SPEAKER: Members, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill is on the Order Paper for consideration in committee. I would like to inform the House of my approach to the proposal contained in the bill for the amendment of a reserved provision. Clause 5 amends section 35 of the Electoral Act 1993, which is a reserved provision under section 268(1)(c) of that Act. During the committee stage, the question will be put separately on clause 5, and it will be agreed to only if the votes of 90 or more members are cast in favour of it.

I have considered carefully whether clause 5 is a proposal to amend a reserved provision, and am satisfied that it is. I have taken relevant case law into account when deciding this matter.

The Speaker ensures the House meets legal requirements that apply to it. Where there is doubt about how the law should be applied in such cases, the Speaker will tend to prefer the approach that is least likely to give rise to judicial consideration of whether the law has been validly made. I say this as an aside, because in this case it is clear that clause 5 is a proposal to amend a reserved provision, and the special majority is needed for it to pass.

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

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

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

DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House undertake an inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic and official response.

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

DEPUTY CLERK:

2022 annual reports for New Zealand Growth Capital Partners, MetService, Quotable Value, Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, New Zealand Railways Corporation, and the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board

2022 integrated reports for Landcorp Farming limited operating as Pāmu, Assure Quality, Transpower, Airways Corporation of New Zealand, and KiwiRail.

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

DEPUTY CLERK:

Report of the Environment Committee on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the petition of Grey Power Hastings & Districts Association Inc: Keep water assets locally owned and managed, and the Water Services Entities Bill

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of Kostyantyn Starodub on behalf of the NZ Ukraine Action: Welcome people fleeing the war in Ukraine to Aotearoa

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill

report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the alteration to the 2022-23 appropriations for Vote Audit

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Chlöe Swarbrick MP: support our students

petition of Clive Hobson: increase pension for pensioners

petition of James Boland: adopt the human right to a healthy environment

petition of Shannon Quinn: remove GST on fruits and vegetables

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the examination of COVID-19 order presented on 21 October 2022 and the examination of COVID-19 orders presented on 15 September 2022.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report of the Officers of Parliament Committee and the reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Natural and Built Environment Bill, introduction

Spatial Planning Bill, introduction

Fuel Industry Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister, 9 November

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I seek leave to correct an answer to a question I gave in Parliament last week.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Last week, in answer to a question, I stated that 1,266 internationally qualified nurses had arrived in New Zealand since 1 January this year. In preparation for today’s question time, I’m now advised that that number should have been 1,231. I have advised Dr Shane Reti, who has a question in today’s question time, and so he is aware of that change.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Environment

1. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has the Government made on reforming the resource management system?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Today the Government introduced the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill that will repeal the Resource Management Act (RMA), addressing the long-standing problems with the current system while saving Kiwis billions of dollars. Successive Governments have failed to deliver comprehensive resource management reform. More than 20 major amendments and thousands of minor ones since the RMA was introduced have increased complexity. Reform is overdue. Everyone is frustrated—environmentalists, developers, councils, farmers, home builders—and there is cross-party support for the need to repeal and replace the RMA.

Rachel Brooking: How will resource management be streamlined by repeal and replacement of the RMA?

Hon DAVID PARKER: More than 100 RMA plans will reduce to 15 regional-level plans across the country. The time taken to prepare them will reduce from about 10 years under the current system to a maximum of four years. Off-the-shelf standards for housing and infrastructure projects will remove the need for bespoke specification for each project, making future infrastructure and housing easier and cheaper to consent. Developers, infrastructure providers, and businesses will see the largest cost savings as consent volumes and costs decrease, saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Rachel Brooking: How much is the repeal and replacement of the RMA estimated to reduce costs by?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Unduly restrictive planning restraints have contributed to New Zealand’s urban land and housing prices being amongst the least affordable in the OECD. The new resource management system will deliver economic and environmental benefits. For every dollar spent in the new system, it’s expected that there will be benefits of between $2.58 and $4.90. On a conservative estimate, cost to users will fall by 19 percent, or $149 million per annum, equal to more than $10 billion cost savings over a year, plus savings in housing, plus better environmental outcomes.

Rachel Brooking: How will the replacement for the RMA better protect the environment?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The most significant change to environmental protection will be a shift from an effects-based approach to one that is based on outcomes. Put simply, an effects-based approach has allowed many small, adverse effects to accumulate into significant environmental degradation—most notably with water quality and the loss of biodiversity and topsoil. The Natural and Built Environment Bill will focus on outcomes, setting limits to maintain current environmental levels and targets where degradation needs to be restored.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that urban trees that provide habitats for wildlife, improve air quality, provide shade, and reduce the urban heat island effect are essential to the liveability of our cities, and, if so, why are there no strong controls in the Natural and Built Environment Bill to protect urban trees?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first part of the question, yes. There are improvements in the bill, but we’re not going back to the status quo ante where you had to get a resource consent to prune a tree.

Simon Court: Can the Minister explain simply what the pivotal clause 3(b), “recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao”, will mean for people trying to build homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It won’t really directly affect that.

Rachel Brooking: What are the next steps for repealing and replacing the RMA?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Next week the two bills will have their first readings and they’ll be sent to the Environment Committee for a full six-month consideration. This will be a further opportunity for the public and committee members to scrutinise the bills in detail, following on from consideration of the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environment Bill earlier this term. It adds to the Randerson panel’s outreach, multiple earlier reports from the Productivity Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, Local Government New Zealand, Environmental Defence Society, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Infrastructure New Zealand, and the Property Council. Following the select committee process, it is the Government’s intention to pass the bills into law by the end of this parliamentary term and finally repeal and replace the RMA.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the introduction of the Spatial Planning Bill and Natural and Built Environment Bill today. After decades of frustration from developers and councillors, farmers, home builders, and environmentalists, the Government is now proposing a new system that is cheaper, faster, and better. As the Minister has just indicated, resource consents have become far more costly over recent years, and time taken for them and infrastructure projects has been completely unacceptable. In contrast, the new resource management system that we will deliver will cut costs and deliver economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce the number of plans from more than 100 to just 15 regional-level plans across the country, halve the time taken to prepare, and generate improved environmental standards, and, as the Minister has said, between $2.58 and $4.94 every dollar spent will come through in benefits. This is one of the most important changes that the Government can make to enable much-needed development and to protect and restore the environment for the wellbeing of current and future generations. I’m proud that our Government has introduced this legislation.

Christopher Luxon: How can the Government spend an extra $5 billion a year in education, hire over 1,400 more ministry bureaucrats, but deliver declining attendance and falling achievement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been covered many times over the course of the last couple of weeks in this House, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the issues that the member raises. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we value teachers, the people in classrooms that we have helped build over the last few years. The previous National Government didn’t hire enough teachers, didn’t pay teachers well enough, and didn’t build classrooms; we got on with doing it.

Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that there is a relationship between 100,000 students being chronically absent from school and a 500 percent increase in ram raids since 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many reasons behind the number of ram raids that we have seen in New Zealand, and the Government is committed to addressing those. But having an education system that is properly funded, that makes sure that we have quality teachers in classrooms, and that we have classrooms that are warm and dry and safe, is something this Government takes seriously; it’s something that that member’s party failed to do over nine years.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the people just referred to as “bureaucrats” include speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, and a range of other specialists—

Erica Stanford: Lawyers, comms staff, PR.

Hon Chris Hipkins: —who work directly with our most vulnerable children?

SPEAKER: Order! Questions are heard in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I got the gist of that, and indeed the Minister is correct. The National Party continue to insist that some of the people who work with the learners in our classroom who need the most assistance, who make sure that everyone gets to participate are somehow or other bureaucrats. That says far more about the National Party than it does about those people.

Christopher Luxon: What impact does he think ads on the back of buses telling kids “Every School Day is a Big Day” will have on the young people driving cars through shop windows every other night?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member fails utterly to understand is that the issues that our education system is facing today do not just exist inside the school gate. We know that—[Multiple members interjecting]—calm down, calm down—and we’ve acted on that by providing free school lunches, by making sure that period products are provided in our schools, by making sure that we’ve lifted support for low and middle income people. All of that—all of that—opposed by the National Party.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with official advice that putting nurses on the residence fast-track would lead to “rapid growth in nurses coming here.”, and, if so, why on earth is the Government still refusing to do this, when hundreds of people are waiting more than 24 hours in emergency departments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m proud of the fact, on this side of the House, we’ve increased the nursing workforce significantly, by about 20 percent since we’ve been in office. We’ve increased the pay for nurses by more than 20 percent since we’ve been in office. We are the people who’ve invested in making sure there are more nurses in our health system. That’s not what the member’s done, and I’d invite the member to answer the question: how will he pay for that if he’s giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders?

Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that Kiwis waiting hours for treatment just want a qualified nurse no matter where they are born, and by refusing to abandon its anti-migrant policy, this Government is prioritising ideology over access to healthcare?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s only one person in this House prioritising ideology over action and that’s that member over there who’s prioritising tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders when we need to invest in our public services.

Christopher Luxon: Can he explain how despite spending a billion dollars more each and every single week and hiring an extra 14,000 more bureaucrats this Government is still failing to deliver in education, health, housing, and crime?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last 2½ years, New Zealanders have had it tough. What they’ve had is a Government that has delivered 3.3 percent unemployment; one of the lowest levels of debt in the world; growth of over 4.8 percent since before COVID began. New Zealanders know that this has been a challenging time for everyone, but they have a Government that’s got their back, not a Government that’s got the back of the wealthiest New Zealanders.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Education Review Office, who said in their recent report on school attendance it’s important to “Understand the attendance of every learner in a school and act early when concerned”, and, if so, does he think it’s acceptable that the Ministry of Education released its term 2 attendance data on 11 November, four months after term 2 finished?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and schools every day are working to make sure that their pupils are attending.

Hon Michael Wood: Does he think that the Government’s reopening of the parent visa category, which went for its first draw today, is an example of anti-migrant policy, or does he think it was more of an anti-migrant policy for it to be closed in 2016?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, I think today is an important day for many migrant families to see the parent category reopened. I think, actually, all members of this House would want a Government that respects those who want to come to New Zealand and works with them. We know that our migrants and our refugee communities contribute enormously. I wouldn’t like to see them used as a political football that way.

David Seymour: Why was the data for student school attendance in term 2 of this year put up quietly on a Government website on a Friday afternoon—was it because over 60 percent of Kiwi kids are no longer regularly attending school?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it’s because that’s how it’s been done every single year, including when the member was in Government.

David Seymour: Does he believe that this Government has a public education system, and can it really say that with its hand on its heart when the majority of students are not regularly attending school any more?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We absolutely do have a public education, but I tell you what—if he’s in Government, we won’t.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that those who were claiming—repeatedly claiming—that the majority of students aren’t attending regularly are counting those who have been isolating at home because they have COVID-19 in their statistics?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely can confirm that. In fact, the people who had to isolate in line with public health protocols are exactly the kind of people being included by the member in his statistics.

David Seymour: Is the Acting Prime Minister seriously saying that we don’t have a serious problem with school attendance in this country because “there’s nothing to see here, they were just isolating because of COVID-19”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I’m saying is that it’s important in this House to get the facts right. The facts, as articulated by the education Minister, are what they are. Every single member of this House would want to make sure that all children are attending school on a regular basis. We have had an issue with that in New Zealand since the mid-2010s. We are working on making sure we rectify that.

David Seymour: Why did the entire Education Review Office report not think of the reason the Acting Prime Minister just gave at all?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Education Review Office report covered a much longer period—a period during which the National Party and the ACT Party were in office, when these issues first arose.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to enable better housing outcomes through reform of the resource management system?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): We are simplifying the resource management system to make it faster, cheaper, and better to build the housing that we need. The plan development times will be shorter, taking around four years to get out of the gate, rather than up to 10 years under the current system. Independent hearings panels will improve plan quality and enable appeal rights to be restricted for matters in line with their recommendations, reducing delay, cost, and re-litigation. By focusing on strategic planning, more activities will be permitted, and fewer consents needed in the new system, saving time and costs for users that we expect to be passed on to home buyers.

Dr Emily Henderson: Why are these changes to the planning system needed?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Resource Management Act has not adequately protected the natural environment, nor enabled development where needed. Currently, the system doesn’t provide enough certainty for housing developers. It costs too much, driving up costs for housing developments and creating plans that have been too restrictive to enable the housing we need. Decades of this has contributed to New Zealand’s housing being among the least affordable in the OECD.

Dr Emily Henderson: What are the expected benefits from increased housing affordability, then?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Estimates indicate the new system will provide annual average benefits to people from increased housing affordability of between $146 million and $834.3 million—economic modelling estimates as delivered by the more responsive and affordable housing supply that is enabled by these changes. Costs to users of the resource management system, such as developers, will also decrease by up to 19 percent or around $149 million per year. Those reduced planning component costs are expected to flow through to the prices people pay for their homes.

Dr Emily Henderson: How will these fast-track consenting processes support additional housing supply?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Housing developments that address the demand or need for housing in a region, including affordable housing, will still be eligible to apply for a fast-track consenting system based on the one we created as part of the COVID response. Since 2020, 56 fast-tracked projects have been approved for a total of 4,142 new homes. Many of these projects are delivering affordable housing.

Dr Emily Henderson: Will this, then, integrate medium density residential standards and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The medium density residential standards, in particular, are key to enabling the more affordable higher-density housing that we need in our major urban centres. These standards were a bipartisan effort between the Labour and National parties, supported by the Green Party and Te Paati Māori. They will be integrated into the new system through the national planning framework. Without them, the development capacity of our cities would not be able to deliver the housing supply that we so badly need.

Dr Emily Henderson: What is an example of how the system will make it easier to develop affordable housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To give an illustrative example, a developer or housing provider working across the Wellington region might need to be aware of eight different council plans under the Resource Management Act system, all with slightly different rules, consenting officers, and practices. In the new system now, there are only two plans to consider. This removes complexity and ambiguity for a developer, giving them more confidence that they can go on ahead with delivering.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “our job is to make sure we have a fair and progressive tax system”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with the recommendation of the Generating Scarcity report that was released yesterday that an excess profits tax should be levied on the four largest energy companies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Having worked through that report, at this point, no, I wouldn’t accept that recommendation. The report focuses particularly on the lack of—or the perceived, rather—investment in renewable energy generation. On that score I think we are seeing progress in that area. When it comes to the issue around excess profits—“windfall taxes”, as they’re sometimes called—we need to look at a specific event, if that is going to occur; and I don’t believe that’s justified in this case.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think it is fair that rising electricity prices are contributing to the cost of living crisis New Zealanders are struggling with, while private shareholders are reaping the benefits with high dividends?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of electricity prices, I actually think that what the evidence shows is that they’ve remained relatively flat in real terms. We do keep a very close eye on electricity prices. My take, on reading the report, is actually it is much more focused on whether or not those companies have been investing sufficiently in future renewable energy generation and, as I say, I don’t believe that case has been fully made.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with economist Joseph Stiglitz on windfall taxes that “It makes a great deal of sense at this current juncture—it’s not as if the energy companies did anything to deserve it.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure whether Mr Stiglitz was speaking specifically about New Zealand energy companies per se. There are different experiences all around the world. Clearly what we’ve seen in places like the United Kingdom is very significant price increases associated with high energy profits, and I presume Mr Stiglitz may have been referring to that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider that the profits of the four largest energy “gen-tailers” in New Zealand are totally justified by their own investments in innovation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The question around profits and the use of dividends and so on within our major energy companies are the responsibility of the boards of those energy companies.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that, without a windfall tax, supermarkets, banks, and energy companies will continue to make excessive profits while household costs are increasing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our view is that there are many things that we can do to deal with the situations where we believe that there may be excessive profits; for example, in the supermarket sector. That’s why we’ve launched a programme of reform to be able to reduce what we do believe, there, is excessive. We also saw the announcements last week around open banking, another way that we can reduce costs, and also the work that’s being done in the energy sector that Minister Woods announced last week as well. So there are many different ways of addressing the issues the member raises.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement last week in relation to management of Government finances that “tough choices will be required”; if so, what tough choices is he considering, if any?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement that “We are however not immune to what happens overseas which will put pressure on the Government’s books. We will continue to responsibly manage our finances and that means tough choices will be required as we tread a pathway back to surplus.” To answer the second part of the member’s question, the tough choices are those required to balance properly funding the services that matter most to New Zealanders, like health and education and housing, while returning to surplus whilst also keeping debt under control.

Nicola Willis: Is it correct that inflation, while making things much more expensive for New Zealanders, is also helping fuel a record Government tax take, and will he consider adjusting tax brackets to adjust for this perverse result?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is true that inflation has some contribution to that. What also has a contribution to that is a record number of New Zealanders in work, so they are also contributing to the tax space. We’ve also seen company profits at a very, very high level, and we’ve also seen our economy cope well with COVID and, therefore, our revenue through things like GST has also been up.

Nicola Willis: What does he consider is more important: spending hundreds of millions of dollars merging TVNZ and RNZ, or delivering income tax relief for New Zealanders hit by the cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member, once again, fails the “walk and chew gum at the same time” test of politics. It is completely possible for a Government to invest in things like making sure that New Zealanders hear themselves and see themselves in a modern media environment while also upholding public services, while also making sure we keep debt under control, while also returning us to surplus. The member’s priority might be tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders, but it’s not ours.

Nicola Willis: Will he adjust to the deepening cost of living crisis by reducing the amount of spending the Government does on consultants, which hit a record-breaking $1.2 billion just last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to the first question, we will continue to balance investing in public services, making sure we bring debt under control, and returning ourselves to surplus.

Nicola Willis: Will he respond to a deepening cost of living crisis by calling a halt to the explosive growth in the number of management, communication, and administrative roles in the Public Service?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve covered this ground before, because that includes the people who communicated with New Zealanders about COVID-19 right through the pandemic, making sure that people knew how to stay safe. If the National Party doesn’t think that’s important now, that’s entirely up to them. What we’ve also done to support people through a cost of living crisis, as the member said at the start of her question, is actually lift the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders through increasing benefits in 2020, 2021, and 2022; increase the family tax credit; increase childcare assistance; make sure that the minimum wage lifts—every single one of those things, where a Government can actually take action to support people in a cost of living crisis, National opposed.

Nicola Willis: Why can’t he take action to deliver tax relief for working Kiwis when he can afford $2.1 million for a Freemans Bay office for 350 three waters advisers, $51 million for advice on an Auckland Harbour cycle bridge, and $370 million to merge TVNZ and RNZ?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll give you an idea of just how out of touch the National Party is when it comes to tax cuts: even Don Brash thinks tax cuts are a bad idea right now.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What impact will the changes announced for the resource management system have on New Zealand’s infrastructure?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Infrastructure): The introduction today of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill is great news for our infrastructure sector. The new bills will make the resource management process faster, cheaper, and better, and will help boost New Zealand’s economic growth. This is especially true for those involved in planning for and building infrastructure. It is a long-held view of those in this sector that the Resource Management Act is not working for them or, indeed, for anyone else. It has been put in the “too hard” basket for too long, and we want to make sure that New Zealand can grow sustainably through quality infrastructure, and these bills will enable that.

Shanan Halbert: Why is it important for the infrastructure sector to make these changes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The cost and time it takes to get a resource consent for infrastructure projects has grown significantly in recent years, with smaller projects being disproportionately affected. Infrastructure developers collectively pay about $1.29 billion a year on consent processes, amounting to an average 5.5 percent of total project costs. As the Minister for the Environment has said, that puts New Zealand at the extreme end compared with the UK and the EU, where consenting costs were between 0.1 percent and 5 percent of total project costs. The Infrastructure Commission /Te Waihanga estimates costs directly related to resource consents increased 70 percent from 2014 to 2019, and the time taken to make consent decisions for infrastructure projects has increased by up to 150 percent over the same period. These bills and this legislation will make sure that those times significantly reduce.

Shanan Halbert: What specific savings will there be to the infrastructure sector from this piece of legislation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, less money will be spent on consents, and spatial planning will help communities, developers, councils, and central government agencies build much-needed infrastructure projects. Developers, infrastructure providers, and businesses will see the largest cost savings as consent volumes and cost reduce, delivering savings of hundreds of millions of dollars are year.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How soon?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The new system will create standards associated with housing and infrastructure—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Years away.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —contained in the national planning framework. Mr Brownlee, you didn’t even get legislation in, in the nine years you were in office, so I don’t think you get to ask us questions on that. A process similar to the fast-track process put in place in response to the economic impact of COVID-19, which reduced consenting time by an average of 15 months per project, will be retained.

Shanan Halbert: How can the infrastructure sector support the implementation of the new system?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If we want the most of the benefits the new resource management system can offer, then we do need to make sure it is properly invested in when it comes to its implementation. Budget 2022 saw the Government provide $179 million on top of the funding provided in previous Budgets to ensure funds are available for developing key areas of reform. We have taken the time to get this right. I am immensely proud the legislation is here, it will be passed before the next election, and we will reform the resource management system which National utterly failed to do.

Question No. 7—Police

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! If you want to take a point of order, take a point of order, but we’ve got a member asking a question.

7. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: How many businesses in New Zealand have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and of those, how many, if any, have had installations of protective equipment completed to date?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I’m advised that of the 521 stores that have been identified as having been the victims of a ram raid, police have rung the majority of these stores—209 of them have successfully completed the initial criteria checking. Of these, 132 have had a formal assessment completed by the police; 93 stores have been reviewed by a contractor; 83 stores have installations either booked, under way, or fully completed by external suppliers. I’m confident that the police are now completing their part of the process much faster than they were before.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is fit for purpose, and, if so, does he stand by his statement that “Evidence shows that once a location has been victimised, it’s more likely to be re-offended against.”?

David Seymour: Point of order. I’m sorry to cut off my colleague, but I just was thinking hard about the answer to the primary. The Minister never actually said how many installations had been completed. He said how many were either booked, in process, or completed, but he did not give a number on how many of those 83 he named are actually completed.

SPEAKER: In my mind, it’s been addressed but—I’ll give the member an extra question and he can either re-ask that part or use it to examine the question further.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a primary question on notice, and I think the awarding of one extra supplementary—I’m sure Mr Baillie’s happy about that, but it is a primary question that asked for quite specific information. Ministers get the question at around 10.40 a.m. or so; they’re expected to come to the House with an answer. It’s not a supplementary question; it’s a primary question and he’s answered it before, as my colleague points out. So I’d encourage you to get the Minister to answer the question.

SPEAKER: I did, in my ruling, say that in my mind the question had been addressed, which is all the Minister has to do. The reason why I gave another question is because it was not as succinct as it might have been.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: It’s a bit moot to be questioning the ruling. I’m not going to change it and I’ve actually awarded the member an additional question.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: If it’s questioning the ruling, it’s really a waste of time.

Chris Bishop: Well, I just—

SPEAKER: Chris Bishop, point of order.

Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, there are a series of Speakers’ rulings in relation to the answers to primary questions. They do not just have to be addressed; the Speakers’ rulings make it clear that primary questions have to be answered—both legs of the primary question—and your predecessor in this role was very particular on this point, as have been Speakers Smith and Carter before you.

David Seymour: Speaking to that. Mr Speaker, I hope you won’t mind me saying it: it would be quite a significant departure to say that a question on notice that specific does not require a specific answer—particularly when the Minister has answered almost identical questions for the city of Hamilton, showing he has even more granular data than he revealed today.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to change my ruling; I have ruled. I have given the member an additional question. If he wishes to use it, he can.

Chris Baillie: How many businesses in New Zealand have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme and have had installations of protective equipment completed to date?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One hundred and thirty-two have had a formal assessment completed by police; 83 stores have installations booked, under way, or fully completed.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister believe that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is fit for purpose, and, if so, does he stand by his statement that evidence shows that, once a location has been victimised, it’s more likely to be reoffended against?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part of the question, yes. In answer to the first part of the question, we’ll keep that under review.

Chris Baillie: What action, if any, will he commit to making today so that business owners like the Ellerslie jewellery store yesterday don’t have to wait to become victims before they are eligible for assistance via the crime prevention programmes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m reluctant to get into the details of an individual business when there are people appearing in court about that today, because there is actually more history to that. But I won’t get into the detail of that, because it wouldn’t be appropriate while people are in court on charges relating to that particular incident that the member is referring to.

Chris Baillie: Can the Minister confirm that the Retail Crime Prevention Programme is specifically for businesses that have been targeted by ram raids, and not smash-and-grab offences, and, if this is the case, what support is available to victims of smash-and-grab offences, such as the Ellerslie jewellery store yesterday who was hit with a daylight smash-and-grab robbery?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm, in answer to the first part of the question, that the fund was set up to support those businesses that have been the victims of ram raids. The issue of smash-and-grabs is something that we’ll continue to look at. I wouldn’t rule out extending the eligibility for Government subsidies, along the lines of what the member has been arguing for.

Dr James McDowall: Why, after almost six months, has not a single Hamilton business had protection equipment installed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and does he think that’s good enough given daily reports of violent robberies and ram raids?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There can be a range of reasons why, between police doing an assessment and a business having the work completed, there can be delays, but in many cases—in most cases, in fact—that is not down to the police. Once a business has had its security assessment completed, it is referred then to a contractor who works with the business to get the relevant security installation completed. In some cases, businesses have to work with the local authority if there’s something like bollards, for example, that need resource consent. In some cases, if it’s things like roller doors—where the business has been the victim of a ram raid—an insurance company can also be involved because there’s a need to rebuild the front of the shop, and in some cases that can add to further delays. But the key thing that police can do is complete the security assessments. I think police could do more security assessments faster if they were able to contact more of those businesses. It is proving to be challenging for police to contact some of the businesses that have been victims of those ram raids. That’s very understandable, but if the businesses who have been victims can keep in contact with police, then that would make the process faster.

David Seymour: Point of order. I hesitate to further interrupt my colleagues, but two supplementaries ago the Minister said he wouldn’t address a question because an issue was before the court, and I just urge you to carefully consider whether that sub judice rule—that has long existed for good reason—might be abused there. Now, there’s certainly some people that might be charged and might be brought before the court in the future in relation to that robbery, but it’s a matter of public record that there was a robbery—I was there; it was on the front page of the NZ Herald—and it’s a matter of public record that the Government has a certain policy on when funds and subsidies are made available. That was the policy question which, regardless of any outcome of any individuals being tried for that crime, is still something that we have a right to ask the Minister about. I’d be very worried if Ministers could start saying, because there was some vague connection to a court case, they didn’t have to answer questions in this House.

SPEAKER: I’ll go back and look at the question again and come back with a ruling on that.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many of the 1,266 internationally qualified nurses that he stated in the House last week had arrived in New Zealand since 1 January 2022 have been employed since 1 January 2022 to work in the health system, and how many nurses have left employment over the same time frame?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): To the first part of the member’s question, as I indicated earlier, I’ve been advised that 1,231 internationally qualified nurses, rather than 1,266, have arrived in New Zealand since 1 January this year. Those nurses have arrived under one of two visas: the critical purpose work visa or the accredited employer work visa. But it should be noted that internationally qualified nurses have arrived in New Zealand since that time under other visas too—principally, the visitors’ visa. Part of the criteria to have been granted either of the work visas is to have an offer of employment or be enrolled in a competence assessment programme—that is to say, all 1,231 of the nurses who have arrived will have held an offer of employment or are undergoing the Nursing Council of New Zealand registration process. To the second part of the member’s question, I’ve been advised that the employment data held by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand on leavers is not collected in a way that differentiates between internationally qualified nurses and domestically qualified nurses. What I can say is that from the quarter ending 31 March this year to the quarter ending 30 June this year, there was a total of 3,627 nurses who started employment with Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, and in that same time period there were 2,686 nurses who voluntarily left employment with Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand. And, for completeness, I have to say that the number of those who left also includes people who left one district, under the old district health board regime, to work in another district, because district health boards were different employers, and it’s not possible to identify and exclude movements between districts. I have to say, also, this is another reason why we need to upgrade the data system across Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, an investment that this Government is making.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order. The primary did not ask how many nurses had been offered employment but how many had been employed, and the Minister did not answer that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Can you speak to the point of order that—

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, yeah. The answer was the 3,627 nurses who started employment, which looks suspiciously like “who have been employed since” to me.

SPEAKER: OK, so it has been answered.

Dr Shane Reti: Are staffing shortages in our emergency departments (EDs) contributing to increasing numbers of patients waiting more than 24 hours in ED, and, if so, why are nurses not on the fast track to residency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A number of things there—first of all, nurses are on the Green List of immigration for this country. It has never been easier to come to New Zealand as a nurse, either to come here with an offer of employment or to come here to do a competency assessment programme and to be employed as a nurse, which explains why the number of registrations as recorded by the Nursing Council shows that since November last year, 4,300 internationally qualified nurses have had registration in New Zealand. In relation to the pressures in emergency departments, there are a number of reasons for those pressures: increased numbers of people turning up needing the services of our EDs because of challenges in primary care, principally after-hours and urgent care; plus, also, what is happening in aged residential care and the fact that it is not as easy to discharge some particularly elderly patients from hospital into those beds as it once was. I’m confident, however, that the leadership and management of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand is doing everything they can to work with all parts of the sector to relieve those pressures.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the advice received by the Minister of Immigration suggesting a fast track to residence could perpetuate a growing reliance on migrant health workers, and, if so, can he tell New Zealanders what exactly is the problem with migrant nurses filling vacancies in New Zealand hospitals when there are no Kiwi nurses available?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There has never been a problem in the New Zealand health system of employing overseas qualified nurses. We have a lot of them, both in our public health system and also in the private health system, principally in aged residential care. As well as recruiting through immigration to meet the immediate needs and the immediate vacancies in our system, we also have to make sure that we are growing our domestic pipeline of domestically trained nurses, and we are also doing that.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain statements from Rob Campbell, the chair of Health New Zealand, who said, last week, that it would be helpful for us if nurses were on the day one fast track to residency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Campbell and I work very closely together to make sure that Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, the organisations whose board he chairs, is doing everything it can to fill the nursing vacancies that we have, either through immigration or through supporting other initiatives to grow our domestic pipeline of nurses.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is it, on his watch, that not only are increasing numbers of people waiting more than 24 hours in EDs but there is also a 50 percent increase in people waiting more than 48 hours; and, as these wait times have increased, can he name one week recently when an ED disaster has not been in the news?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to approach that issue very carefully because the member is leaping to a range of conclusions that cannot be sustained. What I can say is that on my watch, the number of people turning up to EDs has grown phenomenally, so that for successive months we’ve had more than 100,000 people in a month turning up to EDs across New Zealand, and that is the product of a range of factors, but it is mostly the product of years and years of under-investment in our health system by the members opposite when they were in Government. They hate to be confronted with it—they hate to be confronted with it. But one day, some brave member of the National Party is going to rise to say they got it wrong and they should have invested more. They know they can’t, because their policy is to cut taxes and cut spending on essential things like health services.

Dr Shane Reti: What is the waiting time for anger management?

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have a health system that is facing extraordinary pressures, and I was very pleased during the weekend to spend some time with about 220 front-line health workers—anything from intensive care specialists, to ED specialists, to nurses, to all sorts of people; leaders in our health system who seriously want to work with the Government on finding the solutions. The thing they were most disappointed about was when I told them that in order to host an event here, I had to write to every single MP to come along, and only two other MPs turned up—my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall and my colleague Liz Craig. Nobody from the Opposition, who had spent weeks talking about how much they cared about the health system, bothered to turn up to join 220 of our hardest-working health leaders to talk about the solutions to the challenges that we’ve got.

Question No. 9—Police

9. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made on investments to emergency services to keep the public safe?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week, I announced that a new digital communications network for emergency service workers will roll out from next year, marking the most significant advance in New Zealand’s public safety communications in decades. New Zealand’s emergency services have done an incredible job in often very challenging circumstances. This new network will give them a modern network, to replace a critical communication system that doesn’t currently meet the needs of our emergency services, in terms of data, security, and resilience—the sorts of tools they need to serve New Zealand.

Ginny Andersen: What services will benefit from these upgrades?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Initially, the new systems will be used by Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John’s, and Wellington Free Ambulance. New Zealand’s emergency services are made up of approximately 35,000 staff and volunteers, who attend over 5 million calls for help every year. They need to be able to respond at any time and in any part of New Zealand, and for that they need accurate and timely information.

Ginny Andersen: What changes will these investments make?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new network will have two key components: a digital land mobile radio network, which will allow emergency services to reliably communicate with each other, and prioritised cellular services and roaming, which will increase connectedness to mobile broadband for first responders, especially at times when mobile networks are congested or degraded.

Ginny Andersen: Why are these services necessary?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Emergency services are using and needing more real-time information as they are out and about doing their jobs. Better information for them means better outcomes for the public. We also know firsthand the significant challenges posed by earthquake and climate-related emergencies. This infrastructure investment will support our emergency services to work together more efficiently in what can be a very challenging environment.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with AM Show host Ryan Bridge’s comments about retail crime that “There is a growing sense that nothing is being done about these things, the Government isn’t being hard enough on them, there aren’t enough consequences, and they keep happening as they do so people are taking matters into their own hands”, and how many businesses have had security systems installed through the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): While I sympathise with those business owners who are the subject of these crimes being committed, I don’t agree with the assertion that nothing is being done. To the contrary, police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. As I mentioned earlier, of the 521 stores that have been identified as the victims of a ram raid, police have successfully contacted 209 businesses. Of these, 132 have had a formal assessment completed by police, 93 stores have been reviewed by a contractor, and 83 stores have had installations booked, under way, or partially or fully completed by external suppliers.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many of those 83 businesses that are booked, under way, or completed have actually been completed?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have an update on the seven completed that was previously reported. I do understand that a number of businesses have had at least part of the work partially completed, but I don’t have numbers for that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does it concern him that four of the five alleged perpetrators of the crime we saw in Ellerslie were 18 or under, and, if so, would tougher policies prevent youth feeling emboldened to terrorise the public like we saw yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: absolutely, yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he agree that the just 11 percent of youth retail-offenders being well engaged in school has fuelled the sharp increase in ram raids, and what is he doing about it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do agree that there is a correlation—there’s a question of which comes before the other. What we know is that these young people are coming from backgrounds where they’re not just disengaged from education but they have a whole lot of other things going on their lives as well, including the fact that analysis by the Social Wellbeing Agency suggests that around 90 percent of them could be living in a household with someone who’s involved in the corrections system. If people believe that harsher penalties and more custodial sentences for these young people is going to break that cycle, I think they’re wrong.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding migrant families?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Last month I announced that we are reopening the parent visa category, which was closed in 2016. Further to this, I announced yesterday that Immigration New Zealand has resumed selections of expressions of interest (EOI) for parent category visas. The first round of selections was made yesterday, and the EOIs will continue to be selected on a quarterly basis, in date order, with the oldest EOI selected first. Up to 2,000 visas per year will be granted from existing expressions of interest on-hand, and this has been warmly welcomed within New Zealand’s migrant communities.

Ibrahim Omer: How has the Government reduced barriers to accessing the parent category visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only have we resumed selections of parent category EOIs but we’ve also taken the chance to improve the scheme. This includes lowering the income threshold to sponsors and an additional 500 visas to be granted under a new ballot system from August of 2023, meaning that from that point up to 2,500 parent category visas per year will be granted in total.

Ibrahim Omer: Why is reopening this visa so important for migrant families?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Since coming into this portfolio in the middle of the year, one of the most frequently heard issues that I have heard from our migrant community has been their concern about this category having been closed in 2016 and a lack of a pathway for their parents to be able to join them here in New Zealand. I’m confident that the resumption of the EOI selections and the improvements that we’ve made to the parent category visa will see New Zealand become an even more attractive destination for high-skilled migrants looking to settle here long term, knowing that they can do so with their families.

Ibrahim Omer: How does this complement the other changes made by the Government to attract skilled migrants?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Under our settings across the skilled migrant category, the Green List and resident visa 2021, which has now provided residence to over 110,000 people, our Government is providing more and more streamlined ways for skilled migrants to settle in New Zealand than has ever been the case before. Resuming the parent category selection also continues my focus on ensuring that we treat migrants in New Zealand with respect and enable them to settle well in our country, where they contribute so much.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: How many, if any, parks and reserves that link to the storm water network will be transferred to the proposed water services entities as part of the Government’s three waters reforms, and what consultation, if any, was undertaken about the potential for those assets to be transferred?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): To the first part of the question, the public can be assured that where the primary purpose of land is a park, it will remain a park and it will remain in council ownership. For the purposes of the water reform and the Water Services Entities Bill, parts of the stormwater network which will not transfer include rural land drainage schemes, road and rail corridors, regional council river and flood management functions, and private stormwater network infrastructure.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The first part of that question was what will be transferred, and the Minister only addressed what would not. Now, there is an obligation to answer that, and it hasn’t been met.

Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order. Well, the answer was that parts will not be transferred—it was clearly addressed.

SPEAKER: Yeah. The question is “how many”, and from my hearing of the answer, the Minister is saying “none”. I’ll ask the Minister to confirm—that was my understanding.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To be clear, Mr Speaker, and to the member asking the question, to the first part of the question: the public can be assured that where the primary purpose of land is as a park, it will remain a park and will remain in council ownership.

Hon Members: That doesn’t answer the question at all.

SPEAKER: It definitely addresses the question. Have you got a supplementary?

Simon Watts: If no parks are being transferred, why during select committee did officials specifically identify Waitangi Park in Wellington as an asset that could be transferred?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m glad the member has raised the issue of Waitangi Park. Waitangi Park is an excellent example of the principles of Te Mana o te Wai in action. Its environmentally sustainable design implements water-sensitive urban design for harvesting and treating stormwater while also delivering recreational benefits to the people of Wellington. Under the water reforms and the guiding principles of Te Mana o te Wai, I know that many more communities will see projects like this occur over the country. As referred to in your primary question, the answer in relation to Waitangi Park is that the mechanism—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, what is it?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well, let me answer. The mechanism for actual transfer of the land and other assets, should the council agree, will be in the next water services entity bill, and I’m pleased the councils are already engaging on such matters.

Simon Watts: Will she categorically rule out the transfer of any local parks or reserves to one of the Government’s mega-entities, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils have the ability to work with water establishment entities to decide which assets and land will transfer and, as a result, the public will be notified. This will be done with councils, not against them, and it’s important to ensure that if the primary purpose for the use of land is as a park, it will remain a park and the public can still utilise that park.

Simon Watts: If no public parks are being transferred, why has the Water Services Entities Bill’s definition of stormwater assets been expanded to now explicitly include—and I quote—“green stormwater infrastructure and overland flow paths”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That definition continues to improve clarity around the primary purpose of land use. Let me be very clear: that’s why it’s very important for the House and members of the public to understand that those land uses, albeit maybe for stormwater purposes such as rural land drainage schemes, road and rail corridors, regional council river and flood management functions, and private stormwater network infrastructure—they will not transfer. And if the primary purpose of land is for a park, it will remain a park. It will only be because councils want that land to transfer that that transfer will take place. Under no other circumstance will that happen.

Simon Watts: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: There’s none left, sorry.

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 Wednesday, 16 November for the committee stage of the Electoral (Māori Option) Amendment Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill; the second readings of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill and the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill; the second reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill; the committee stages of the Māori Purposes Bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, and the Statutes Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a second time.

Tākiri mai ana te ata, ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Korihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora.

E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Te whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei, tēnei au, otirā mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. The voice of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. I now begin.

Greetings to one and all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed. May you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. To pay tribute to these comfortable lands, I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the present issue. Greetings to you all. Greetings, greetings one and all.]

It is my honour to support the second reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This second reading is the next important step in the legislative process to bring us closer to passing this bill into legislation and to giving effect to the redress contained within it.

Firstly, I wanted to thank members of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, who are watching this second reading online. I acknowledge that while Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu are separate groups and trace their descent from different ancestors, they are closely interconnected and share whakapapa throughout Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. To both groups, I admire your resilience, your energy, your tenacity, and your drive, which have brought us to where we are today. I’d also like to take the time to particularly thank the iwi negotiation teams and trustees of both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, who have worked together throughout the Treaty of Waitangi historical claims process to negotiate a shared redress package that rightfully sits with both groups. Their dedication to finding a shared path, to carry these taonga forward for future generations, is highly commendable, and I thank them for their continued work in this space, as we continue to support this bill through the House.

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill gives effect to certain provisions contained in the deeds of settlement signed between Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and the Crown in August 2016, and between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown in October 2021. The bill does not settle any historical claims for either Rangitāne or Ngāti Kahungunu; those claims will be settled through the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017 and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, which has now been reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee. However, echoing the sentiments spoken in this House at the first reading, the joint nature of this bill and the shared redress is notable and momentous for iwi.

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill will provide joint redress over Lake Wairarapa, Lake Ōnoke, and the Ruamāhanga River catchment to both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, acknowledging the importance of this taonga for both iwi. Significantly, this redress also includes the vesting of the Crown-owned part of the bed of Wairarapa Moana in iwi. The bill will also establish the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board to act as a guardian of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment for the benefit of current and future generations, with six members appointed by iwi and six members appointed by the Minister of Conservation, the Wellington Regional Council, and the South Wairarapa District Council. Furthermore, a property in Mākirikiri will be vested in the tipuna known as Rangiwhakaewa to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangiwhaka-ewa to Rangitāne, and a joint management board will be established to administer the reserve. Undivided half-shares of a property at Mataikona will be vested in both iwi, and an overlay classification that recognises the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical relationships of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne with the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. The bill also gives effect to cultural and other redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne.

After its first reading, on 30 March 2022, this bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee called for submissions between April and May 2022 and received 28 written submissions from interested groups and individuals. They also heard 21 oral submissions. I would like to thank all those who took the time to share their thoughts with the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee reported back to the House on 30 September 2022 and recommended unanimously that the bill be passed with a small number of technical and minor amendments. The committee’s report also focused on key issues raised through submissions. This was primarily regarding concerns about the vesting of Mākirikiri Reserve and the rights and interests of iwi and hapū there. I acknowledge the time that the committee took to understand and consider submitters’ thoughts, and I thank the committee for swiftly considering those issues. I want to say to the committee that their hard work, especially under the chair of Tāmati Coffey, is much appreciated.

Finally, it’s the Crown’s sincere wish that Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill honours the Crown’s commitments to its Treaty partners Wairarapa and Tamaki nui-ā-Rua Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. I’m hopeful that this bill is an opportunity for all of us to move forward towards a true partnership, one that is based on co-operation, mutual trust, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. I look forward to welcoming Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne to Parliament for the third reading of this bill and ultimately to seeing this important redress returned to them on settlement date. Until then, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, and as the National Party spokesperson for Treaty negotiations, to speak in respect of the second reading of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

This bill gives effect to cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. Those are contained within the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown on 29 October 2021, and the deed of settlement signed between Rangitāne and the Crown on 6 August 2016.

This bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, on which I sit. It was a pleasure to travel to Papawai Marae in Greytown and be welcomed on to that marae to hear submissions. A total of 28 submissions were reviewed by the committee; 21 of those were oral submissions, which we heard in one day at Papawai Marae in Greytown. I do vividly recall, as we were welcomed on to the marae, a large rainbow over the entrance to the marae, and that rainbow stuck around for a while. I would say that we did hear some submissions and there were some strong feelings expressed on a variety of different issues—some which directly related to this bill; others which related to issues that are probably best addressed in another bill. But it is my sincere hope that that rainbow which was over Papawai Marae symbolises the intention to get the best for both Ngāti Kahungunu and for Rangitāne and their relationships with the Crown, which is the primary objective of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

This bill would give effect to cultural and other redress shared between those two iwi, as I’ve mentioned. It “recognises that while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are separate groups and trace descent from different ancestors, they are [also] closely interconnected.”, sharing “whakapapa throughout the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua regions.”

“The bill does not aim to settle any historical claims for either Ngāti Kahungunu or for Rangitāne. Rangitāne’s historical claims were settled through the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017. Ngāti Kahungunu settlement legislation is currently going through the [House]”.

“Subpart 1 of Part 2 provides for an overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. This would require the reserve is a site of significance for both Ngāti Kahungunu and [for] Rangitāne through their traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical relationships with the reserve land.”

It also “provides for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in [the] Wairarapa Moana (which comprises Lake Wairarapa and Lake Ōnoke, and adjacent wetlands and lagoons) [as well as] the Ruamahanga River catchment.”

This bill also “provides for the vesting of three cultural redress properties. Two would be vested jointly in the trustees of the trusts for Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, [being] the Mataikona property [which] would be vested in fee simple in the trustees of the two trusts, with a 50 percent share each [and] the Wairarapa Moana property [which] would be vested in fee simple in the trustees of the two trusts, as a local purpose reserve. The Ngāti Kahungunu trust would have a 90 percent share and Rangitāne trust [would have] 10 percent. The third property, the Mākirikiri Recreation and Scenic Reserves, would be vested in the tipuna Te Rangiwhakaewa (also known as Te Rangiwhaka-ewa)”—sorry, different spelling—“and administered by a joint management board.”

The bill also “provides for other joint redress, known as the Wairarapa Moana framework. It would provide for the establishment of the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board, giving it certain functions and powers.”, comprising “four members appointed by the Ngāti Kahungunu governance entity, one member appointed by the Rangitāne governance entity, two members appointed by the Minister of Conservation, two members appointed by Wellington Regional Council, and one member appointed by [the] South Wairarapa District Council.” That would “administer the Wairarapa Moana reserves while protecting and enhancing their cultural, spiritual, and ecological values”, “manage the Wairarapa Moana marginal strips”, “lead the sustainable management of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment”, and “promote the restoration, protection, and enhancement of the social, economic, cultural, environmental, and spiritual health and wellbeing of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment, relating to natural resources.”

The select committee took quite some considerable time considering all of the submissions which had been made considering the bill and the purpose of the bill, which, as I say, does not aim to settle any historical claims but to give effect to cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and, with some minor changes confirmed, recommended that this bill be passed.

So I am looking forward to the third and what will be the final reading of this bill when it passes into law. For now, I would say that I commend this bill to the House.

[This is also a greeting to the home base, to the descendants of Rongokako]TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He mihi tēnei hoki ki te hau kāinga, ngā uri o Rongokako that are listening right now. I just wanted to extend my mihi to all of the people that welcomed us to Papawai Marae to be able to hear the submissions, in beautiful Greytown. And it is beautiful—we got to learn about the history of that place, and it’s a very significant place. It was the place where, back in 1897 and 1898, it became a focus of Kotahitanga, and at that time, there was a desire to form a Māori Parliament to respond to some of the big issues that were happening in this Parliament, all those years ago. There were real issues around Māori land being sold off left, right, and centre; there were Māori that were coming forward saying “We don’t want our land to be sold”; and there was a resolution that was passed at Papawai Marae in Greytown in 1898, to be able to talk about that very issue.

Through this process, it’s been really interesting—being the Māori Affairs Committee, travelling out to Papawai Marae to go and listen to their stories. And what do they want to talk about, here in 2022? Land. They want to talk about Māori land all over again, and some of the injustices that have happened, and obviously what Parliament were looking to do to try and right those wrongs of the past.

So this is a joint redress bill, as previous speakers have gone and addressed. This is not the historical redress; this is not the commercial redress—this is the joint cultural redress between the two entities that we heard from in the submission hearings. This bill gives effect to the cultural and other redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, otherwise known as Ngāti Kahungunu, and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua—Rangitāne.

The redress is contained within the deed of settlement that was signed between Rangitāne and the Crown in 2016, but the deed of settlement that was signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown only happened on 29 October last year. This joint bill recognises that while Kahungunu and Rangitāne are very separate groups and they trace descent from different ancestors, they are—as many of our iwi and our hapū are, all around the country—closely connected across geographic boundaries. And that was something that we kept hearing throughout the course of submissions. They do share whakapapa throughout the Wairarapa and the Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua region.

Now, as I said before, we had the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā settlement, and that happened in 2017. Ngāti Kahungunu are currently traversing their own settlement legislation through the Māori Affairs Committee as well, so there’s been a bit of overlap. And one of those overlaps actually came from quite a few of the submissions that were in opposition to this settlement. There were some people saying that we needed to take a couple of areas out, to the point where these had turned into Wai claims. They went through the Waitangi Tribunal, and it was the position of some of the submitters who were against the settlement, this joint redress—they said “We should be taking those two Wai settlements out of that.” It took a lot for us to actually try to understand the landscape and the ecosystem that sits around this, because there is history; there is a courts process that had been running alongside it. And we had to make a decision, as a select committee, about where we decided to land that.

Where we landed was on the realisation that Ngāti Kahungunu are traversing their own bill through the House, which addresses the historic injustices and grievances that they have. And we felt that it was better dealt with through their historic settlement legislation, and not necessarily through this joint redress bill. We saw lots of synergies where both iwi came together and agreed on lots of parts of their joint redress bill. There were just a couple of contentious points, and we really did have to iron that out.

I want to just talk about the submissions themselves, because we received a number of them. My previous colleague just talked about them: eight in support, 19 in opposition, and one with no necessary positions stated—so 28 in total, with eight in clear support, 19 in clear opposition, and, as I say, one had no discernible position on the bill.

We wanted to make sure that we were still doing due diligence on the rest of the bill, even though there were these issues around the two Waitangi Tribunal cases, and we decided to make a couple of recommendations to the bill, but they were very small, very minor: one being just a recommendation around the definition of “working day”. We now have a new public holiday; it’s called Matariki public holiday, and we needed to include that in the legislation. Also, we updated some of the legal descriptions in clause 101 and Schedule 3 for some of the properties that were declared local purpose reserves. Some surveying had been done; we were able to give more accurate descriptions of the blocks themselves. So that has been amended.

Over and above that, there’s not many changes that the select committee have chosen to make. And that’s because we’ve had to balance really carefully the concerns of some of those submitters, the fact that we’ve got another historic settlement going through the House at the moment, and where exactly the right place was to land those conversations. So we’ve made those small and minor changes. There is still, obviously, the final of the Ngāti Kahungunu settlements to go through, and we look forward to traversing that through the House.

But for the here and now, I do commend the joint redress bill to the House, and I thank all of those people who were there on the day at Papawai Marae in Greytown to be able to extend that hospitality, that mihi to us as a committee—albeit digging deep into their history and some of the pain and the anguish that that brings out through a process like this as well. I wish them all the best on their on their journey; together as well as individually. And I look forward to the historic settlement of Ngāti Kahungunu being passed in this House when the time is right. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take this call on behalf of the National Party, speaking to the second reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

Mr Speaker, when I addressed the House with the first reading of this bill on 30 March this year, I made reference to the fact that there is a great expectation but also a burden of responsibility with these Treaty settlement bills. Because, as members of Parliament and those of us who were giving service on the Māori Affairs Committee, listening to other debates in the House on these readings—and, importantly, the submissions coming from the descendants of claimants, the descendants of those that have passed on, with the grievances that are being addressed and redressed under these bills—is one of great expectation but also a great burden of responsibility.

As members, we come into this belatedly in the process, in this journey that does transcend and transpire through generations. The expectation is that as members of Parliament sitting on a select committee, we are required to accumulate all of the whakaaro, the thoughts; the mātauranga, the knowledge; the kōrero, the stories, that are shared with us—that are in written text but also, importantly, for us to listen to.

So following on from my colleague Tāmati Coffey, who is the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, in making reference and mention of when we, as members, went to Papawai Marae at Greytown—the importance of us listening to the kōrero, but also being mindful of those no longer there. I always try and make a personal association and connection. Papawai Marae is one of the more important marae in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, because in the late nineteenth century it was the focus of Kotahitanga, the Māori parliament movement. Kotahitanga means to unify and bring together. Papawai was established in the 1850s when the Government set aside land for a Māori settlement near Greytown. All these decades and time later we return to Papawai to listen to the whakaaro, the thoughts, to listen to the kōrero that has been passed through the generations in terms of this joint redress in addressing those grievances that impacted on Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua.

So the joint redress for those two tribal peoples, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne—when I was sitting there at Papawai Marae, bearing in mind that we were in the presence of a former attempt of unifying Māori under Kotahitanga Māori parliament. Parliament, the French word for “to talk”, “to listen”, to bring together and to take cognisance of. So I was seated there as a descendant of my Whanganui peoples, knowing that my people had been there at Papawai. But I was also there as a descendant of a tupuna of Ngāti Kahungunu, Tamatea-Pōkai-Whenua, who traversed and travelled and went on adventures and exploration and travelled down the west coast of the North Island Te Ika-a-Māui and arrived at the mouth of the Whanganui River. He crossed over from the northern reaches of the Whanganui River to a marae which is my papa kāinga and tūrangawaewae, Pūtiki Wharenui a Tamatea Pōkaiwhenua. Tamatea-Pōkai-Whenua had traversed and travelled the seascape, the coastal-scape and then the river-scape of Whanganui, crossing over after gathering wharenui, a particular flax, and tying his hair into a topknot, and deriving and positioning and placing himself at the mouth of the Whanganui River, which is my ancestral marae. I was cognisant of that, and those have journeyed before.

I turn to the bill. Importantly, this is a joint redress bill of the journeys of the peoples of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne coming together, and the Crown, importantly, recognising and attempting in this bill to address and to redress the grievances and the wrongdoings of lands, of waters, of lakes, of rivers that have been taken—confiscated—wrongfully. This is addressed under three parts of this bill and 122 clauses and three Schedules, as a recognition of the return of those lands, those waters, those rivers, in a co-relationship between the Crown and the tribal peoples for the management—the term that we hear, co-governance, that effectively is about recognising the importance of the relationships of the people affected by the territories, their domains, the mana motuhake of being able to have a co-existence of relationships and the management of those relationships with the assets that the people are living amongst and within.

My colleagues have spoken about the particular aspects of those assets or the environments, the taonga. The three Schedules—and one in particular, Schedule 1—describe the Wairarapa Moana reserves and the marginal strips. Schedule 2 describes the overlay area to which the overlay classification applies between Rangitāne and Kahungunu. And then Schedule 3 describes in detail the cultural redress properties. I won’t go into the detail because my parliamentary colleagues have already done so and those to follow in speaking will too. But what I do stress, and address the House with, is talking about that burden of responsibility that we have as members of Parliament, recently arrived, sitting on the select committee, attempting to resolve those grievances that have been intergenerational. The settlement process is not a perfect process, and often it can create new grievances or perpetuate those enduring grievances. Negotiations are negotiations; where it’s about parties who go there with their vested interests, negotiating the best position and outcome for those particular parties or interest groups. The process is not perfect because it can create and perpetuate new grievances. We in select committee, in the whare tupuna, in the ancestral house on Papawai Marae, listened to some of those grievances and the mamae, in particular, of two claimant groups who, again, are the same claimants that will speak to another bill that will come before this House next week, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

What was difficult for us—as select committee members and members of Parliament listening to the grievances and the different interest group representations—was being cognisant of how best we move forward; how the peoples, the claimants, the interested parties move forward. And I talk about how the process of these Treaty settlements is premised on negotiations. We as members are advised by Te Arawhiti, the Crown agency body. There is little provision or facilitation for mediation and the expectation that the Crown has on parties that are negotiating can often create divisiveness amongst themselves. The whole point is to unify and be able to move forward, but there is no offer for facilitated mediation. And I put that to this House: the Crown ought to be cognisant that negotiations have their place, but so too do mediations in terms of bringing people together for a meeting of minds to recognise what it is that is going to amalgamate and resolve, acknowledge those grievances, pull together in kotahitanga, to be able to move forward. A negotiated process is divisive and it turns people against each other.

The National Party commends this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou to those members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua who are watching the second reading of this joint bill today, and to all those people who came along to Pāpāwai Marae to speak with the Māori Affairs Committee when we were there, which my colleagues around the House have recalled.

I want to take the House through the procedural history around the negotiations of this bill, and while that might not be the most exciting topic in a second reading speech, it’s really important that the House understands how in, a cross-partisan way, parties around this House have been able to feed in to the negotiations that have happened and that have come together in this bill. But first let me just recall my memory from that day at Papawai. It was a really moving day; it was hard. There was mamae shared with the select committee. All members of the committee, I think, really did come together in a pretty united understanding of how deeply felt the hurt in that room was and of our responsibility as committee members to get this legislation right.

I remember the opening submissions for the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust. It was a negotiator, Robin Potangaroa, who said that the iwi had been waiting patiently for 175 years for this. He said, “We know and understand the Crown breaches in taking our land. Our tipuna were left virtually landless.” He said that settling was in the best interests of Ngāti Kahungunu while acknowledging “that not everyone is happy”, and that is almost a universal experience in these Treaty settlements. Mr Potangaroa said that the Crown had made an appropriate decision on Mākirikiri Reserve, for example, using what evidence was available within those negotiations, and he said that the painful settlement process was hurtful to both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. He said, “It’s been a long road, with a lot of knives in the back and in the front and in the side. But, whānau, we’ve all got to get over ourselves, we all know what we have done to each other in this process, but we are still related. We have to find a way back together. It stops in our generation.”

That has sat with me since then, not just about this settlement but about how we approach all negotiations between the Crown and claimants in this Treaty settlement process. We as a select committee, as my colleague has said, have been asked to come to this relatively late, and that’s why I want to take the House through what has happened until this point between not only the Treaty negotiations Minister, Andrew Little, but also his predecessor the Hon Chris Finlayson, who we all in the committee agree has done a very good job in coming to this settlement.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua has a population of approximately 12,000, according to the census figures, and it consists of two of the taiwhenua groups of Ngāti Kahungunu more generally. In November 2012, the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to represent that group whom we are talking about here. The Crown signed terms of negotiation with the trust in June 2013, so back in 2013 it was agreed that this group would negotiate on behalf of those iwi members with the Crown.

That meant that by May 2016, significant negotiations had gone on, and the Crown and the trust were able to agree to an agreement in principle. This is a sort of heads of agreement document. It’s short, but it sets out what will be negotiated between the Crown and that representative body in the process. What that means is that between 2013 and 2016 a number of hui around that rohe were conducted between the settlement trust and the people it represented, and then an agreement was made as to within what scope the Crown was dealing with in those negotiations. It’s important to think about the time involved in that—that three years went into what would be agreed in this settlement.

In November 2016, the members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua ratified the post-settlement governance entity—that’s the trust that we’re talking about here—and agreed to transfer the mandate to the settlement trust to continue the negotiations. Then, in the following month, Ministers approved the ratification results for the settlement trust, and the trust was formally established in March 2017. Though it seems rather procedural and legalistic to think about which entity was in charge of it, it’s important to remember that at all steps of the way members were engaged in who represented them and what kind of body they were.

Then, in March 2018, the settlement trust and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. So within that time of almost 2½ years, we went from an agreement in principle—those are those things that we all agree we can negotiate about—to a deed of settlement. That was ratified by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua claimant community in November 2018, and it was conditional on the enactment of the bills that are before the House. So I’ve taken us through that because it is really important for the select committee to be involved in this process, but we do come to it at the very tip of the iceberg in that we see a very small part of a process which is a long-fought and long-argued negotiation.

I think when we talk about our role as select committee members in making sure that legislation is good and that it works all around the House, for whatever piece of legislation it is, we have to really consider that Treaty settlements are different to that in that we as committee members have a huge role in making sure that these are suitable pieces of legislation and that we listen to the claimant community, but we also need to know that the enduring nature of Treaty settlement is absolutely dependent on the conduct of the select committee members and of all members in this House to uphold the unity that we have in this House around Treaty settlements. We, as parliamentary members, may not agree with every part of Treaty settlements, and we may not agree with every part of this settlement, but it’s important for all of us to uphold the responsibility that we have in ensuring that the work that has gone on for many, many years in the actual settlement negotiation—and, indeed, the 175 years that we have waited for this settlement—is upheld and that it is something we can all agree on.

I want to briefly thank, as well, the members who presented to us. I have this photo of the kaumātua here speaking to the select committee. It really did make me think very carefully about our role of gathering historical evidence as a select committee. We were given a huge amount of historical evidence about how people within the Wairarapa were treated and how the Crown took a prejudicial view which resulted in forced sales in the 1840s and 1850s, and how that impacted on people in their daily lives now—that memory of their tūpuna’ suffering but also the way that they were left virtually landless and had no place to call their own.

I think that as members of Parliament, when we receive that kind of evidence, it is upon us to remember it, and to remember the people who have given us that information and have entrusted us with their historical stories, their whakapapa. It will always sit with me very, very heavily on my shoulders, that responsibility, and so I thank them and I commend this bill.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): E mihi ana me te ngākau whakaiti ki a koutou katoa o Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua.

Hau tōtō hau tōtō

Ko Tū hekea ana,

ko rongo hekea ana

Ki te ngahau o Tū

Utaina taku kawa nei,

He kawa tua-maunga

Ka wiwini, ka wawana,

Tara pata tū ki te rangi,

Auē ki

Whano, whana,

Haramai te toki,

Haumi e, hui e, taiki e.

[With a humble heart I acknowledge all of you from Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua.]

That waiata, Hau Tōtō, was composed to send the Horouta waka from Hawaiki to Aotearoa safely and speedily. I learnt this and the several other that come with it from Derek Lardelli at Toihoukura, the Māori art school in Gisborne where we studied every day for three years with waiata, karakia, and mōteatea.

In thinking about this Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, I was reminded of one of the main things that I learnt during that time, which was to attribute where you learnt and who you learnt your information from, because it’s not my knowledge. Even the knowledge of my whakapapa is not just mine—I don’t own it, I express it, and I’m just the next in line to pass it on. So that attribution actually protects us from other people who will come to us and say, “Oh, they learnt it differently”, or, often, “I’m doing it wrong”, because they learnt something else.

And mātauranga Maōri is like this. It’s not just one truth, it’s not absolute, it’s about multiple threads of knowledges of whakapapa woven together so that we can respect each other’s learnings and have conversations about where we agree and where we disagree, but, more importantly, how we came by that knowledge. And whakapapa is a good example of this. In a best case scenario, we learn that whakapapa since we’re young, growing up on our whenua. The reality is, through colonisation, that most of us do not have that—it’s a privilege. Mihi to those ahikā, the ones who keep those home fires burning and keep passing on that information for those who grow up and there and those who come home when they can.

So we defend that mātauranga, we defend that whakapapa, including in places like the Māori Land Court minutes. During the hearings, we were given glimpses of things that tūpuna had said to justify the claims that we make now. Of course, we know that, just like today, even our tūpuna were arguing back and forth, and when I read the ones from home, that was certainly true.

Now, in earlier times, differences in opinion about that mātauranga and about whakapapa often resulted in issues around boundaries—for our iwi and for our hapū. They might have been resolved through little skirmishes at the border, through negotiations, and sometimes gaining peace through marriage. In our time, the deeply, deeply flawed process that is Treaty settlement often undermines that mātauranga and that whakapapa. By its use of large, natural groupings, it pits iwi and hapū against each other, mostly making hapū invisible in this process. And it’s never good. It is not the Crown’s job and it is not our job in Parliament to tell any other iwi what their whakapapa is and, worse, to maybe put a mistake into law.

The redress in this bill, as my colleagues have said—there’s some land that’s been jointly vested, Mākiriri gravel reserve, the Mataikona property, and the bed of the Lake Wairarapa, which forms part of the wider Wairarapa Moana, a wetland of international significance. Just incredible work that the whānau have done to restore something which was pristine and has been damaged over many years. In the overlay classification—I’ve just learnt what one of those is—it enables Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to identify protection principles and make their value statements about how that will work.

Now, I acknowledge the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey: thank you for your mahi, and my colleagues—it is not my normal subcommittee, so thank you for having me to do this bill and its companion bill. I would say our role, though, on our select committees is less about just being unified and automatically accepting the bill that the Government has presented to us, and more about gaining consensus across the House on what’s best for the people involved. And the hearings, as my other colleagues have said, were really special because they were held at Papawai Marae, a beautiful and really significant whare. And can I say ngā mihi aroha ki ngā ringa wera [acknowledgements to the cooks]. We were fed really, really well. The whare was warm and the kai was yummy. However, it was the kai o te rangatira—the kōrero—that we were there to hear. And so that’s when we heard—and there’s nothing better than being in the whare; I wish there were mattresses, but we were at chairs and tables—about that whakapapa. Hearing that mātauranga from the place where it comes from is much better than reading pieces of paper in this House, here.

But, as my other colleagues have said—our deputy chair, Arena Williams—there was also mamae expressed in that, that it’s a tough, arduous process that people go on when they try to settle their claims. And there’s not always the support that’s needed to mediate all the things that need to be discussed, because 180 years of injustice—it’s a lot to come back from. It’s a lot to have calm conversations when that hurt continues to affect people to this day.

But we also heard from some who didn’t feel they’d been heard at all through this current process, and they wanted to make sure that their views were on record.

We heard how the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi have left the Kahungunu hapū whānau of the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua virtually landless. That’s why the return of land is so critical in this and every other bill. In particular, we heard that Wairarapa Moana is a living entity, treasured by their tūpuna for its supply of abundant food, and I’m quoting, “And other customary resources traditionally harvested and traded to benefit people from near and afar”, that it was a gift from the atua, and an immense source of tribal mana. At the very, very least, what we need to do is to restore that mana back to its people.

So of the, kind of, three main issues that whānau raised when we were there, one of them was to do with Mākirikiri and the tupuna called Te Rangiwhakaewa. So there were discussions about how that should be pronounced and whether a hyphen should be used or not. One thing that they were in agreement with, though, was that that original tupuna, despite all the intermarriage that might have happened afterwards, was Rangitāne. So that’s part of that mamae that says, “Yes, we’re going to do this thing. You’re going to set up a 50:50 share for this particular property, but the tupuna that it comes from was Rangitāne.” And we went and apologised to Rangitāne. We missed the part—not being regularly on that committee—where we did want to put into the report that we did think that, and we did try to change it inside the bill. And I think the use of a hyphen is such a tiny—literally tiny—thing to denote mana of a particular tupuna.

Quickly, just acknowledging Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi and their wishing to be withdrawn from the bill related to Ngāumu Forest. I think that, and also Wairarapa Moana Inc. and their mahi around Pouākani—just saying that we hope to resolve those or we will definitely address those in the bill, which will be heard next week, for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

So, in conclusion, we uphold the mana of all the negotiators who were involved in this, but, especially, we remember those who we’ve lost throughout this process. We hope that when this is done, it can go back to the iwi, who can use their tikanga, without Government interference, to resolve the remaining issues and work out those final details. In that spirit, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This is a bill that puts into practice, or into legislation at least, a Treaty settlement negotiated over the last decade or so between the Crown and two iwi—Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. There are many great things about our country. I can think of a few: fish and chips, the All Blacks, the Black Ferns, splitting the atom, the best farmers in the world—or the most efficient—but if I was to pick one thing that makes New Zealand truly special, where it began, I think it’s the fact that our country, unlike almost any other, was founded by a voluntary agreement well, well ahead of its time, that gave “nga tikanga katoa rite tahi”—the same rights and duties to all citizens. It was a magnificent achievement, without parallel anywhere else in the world.

Yet no story is perfect, and the observation of that promise of the Treaty, of the same rights and duties, protection of taonga or property rights, has been far from perfect. But if you were to take a positive from New Zealand, just as I can’t imagine any other country on earth packing a stadium to cheer a world cup - winning women’s rugby team right now, I can’t imagine any other country that would have gone back over 30 years with Governments and politicians of all stripes and carried out a process of forensically examining its history and seeking to put right the many wrongs, hapū by hapū, iwi by iwi, location by location. And yet here we find ourselves today at a point in our history where we are closer than ever to fully completing all of the Treaty settlements that were lodged prior to 2008. It is only Ngāpuhi, a somewhat disorganised iwi from somewhere up north that I happen to know a few things about, that haven’t managed to present fully for this process, but we live in hope, and for members who take an interest in these things I highly recommend a book I’m reading at the moment—Chris Finlayson’s He Kupu Taurangi: Treaty Settlements and the Future of Aotearoa New Zealand. Chris Finlayson was the former Minister for Treaty settlements who managed to organise and get through a great deal of these settlements over a previous term of Parliament. That is the background for bills like this, and I think it’s a wonderful thing of which we should all be very proud.

But this particular bill, as I mentioned, is about the history and the grievance and ultimately the redress and the future for two iwi from the south-east coast of the North Island, and that, as we said, is Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, two iwi that have their own story of losing their assets, losing their connection with their rohe, and losing so much that they held dear, to the point that for many people at the time it seemed like all was lost and that perhaps they should give up. But we see over the last decade, the process beginning with a claim, with negotiation, with an agreement, and ultimately parliamentary legislation—this Treaty settlement process that sets New Zealand apart, carried out for them.

The bill comes in three main parts. Part 1 sets out those preliminary matters and tells the story. These bills are worth reading. They have a lot of very interesting information. They go to great lengths to set out exactly what happened and why, even when much of it is well before and beyond any current living memory. It then goes on to give rights to an overlay over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, a place that is special to both iwi. It gives rights over customary fishing management, something that the ancestors of the people today had enjoyed for generations and still have a connection and a right to. That is affirmed. It gives three cultural redress properties, which will be managed by a combination of the two iwi and trusts operating on their behalf, and it gives other joint redress in the form of the Wairarapa Moana framework; in other words, a framework for managing some of the seas of the coast of the Wairarapa in order that people who have an interest in those fisheries and in the health in particular of the river there, the Ruamāhanga River—people that have an interest in those territories can also have an input into its management. Those are the key points of this bill and the redress that it brings about.

I hope that this redress will give the people of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne a sense of ownership—not only literal ownership in some instances but also a sense of connection to the land, a sense of place, but most of all a sense of right; that New Zealand is a place where in the end people do the right thing even if they didn’t always, and in the future people can achieve their potential in a modern, multi-ethnic liberal democracy that has a place for everyone. That’s what bills like this are about. That’s why the ACT Party has always been proud to stand and support them, and we wish the people of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne all the best for their future and for a wonderful celebration when this bill passes its third reading—I understand, as soon as just next week.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe te Mana Whakawā, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

I enjoy being about this time in the speaking order because you get to hear a snapshot of what has gone on from a range of different perspectives. But the greatest thing about listening to the Treaty settlement process is just the fact that the House comes together, united, and reflects on what has happened with the history in Aotearoa New Zealand. Can I acknowledge the Treaty relations Minister, the Hon Andrew Little and his predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for their work.

This bill, as people know, is the joint redress bill. I know these are important in my rohe, which includes Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands. When you’ve got imi, iwi, I think one of the most significant parts of redressing past hurts and harm in this Treaty settlement process is to look at those areas where history outlines conflict. One of the ways that I’ve really applauded those that, I guess, set up this structure to address the issues is to look at the idea of a joint redress.

So this is something that, whilst there is still some mamae which has been articulated by others, I think it’s absolutely critical in the process that iwi can come together and say, “These are the common elements of harm, of hurt, in our history, and we will work together and use this process—which it allows for—to accommodate that redress.”

There are some similarities, and one of the benefits about being on the Māori Affairs Committee is you see these come through and we are supplied with plenty of information. There’s often a simple document—very detailed, the deed of settlement—and that will outline, for you, the history. And very quickly—you only need to read for a couple of lines and you think, “Wow, this has not been something we should be proud of.” So very quickly, you get a sense that there was a lot of hurt and harm, and there are certainly some highlights which this process acknowledges it will never fully, ever, redress. But none the less, you have a process here in place that goes some way to attempt to bring about some justice to those who have pursued it and who have been resilient in that.

I want to acknowledge the members of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Because these groups, these iwi—who I know watch carefully this process through—it’s difficult for some to understand why it takes so long and why we go through these different readings, but each time, I think we articulate the reasons why and we get a much better result in terms of going through such a process.

But I admire their resilience. Certainly as someone who went to Papawai Marae in Greytown, it’s always good going to their rohe. It takes extra time—a lot of extra time—involves you going into the rural heartland of Aotearoa New Zealand. And just to hear the history—we’ve heard how it was the Parliament or some part of it back in the 1850s, and I always try and picture what it would look like thinking, “Wow, even the structures or the buildings, how would it have looked or how would it have functioned?” But none the less, that’s what it was and here we are, all those years later, being part of redressing and putting back the pieces on the very rohe—or land; the whenua—where these buildings and structures and communities once stood or once were part of.

It always comes with a differing of opinions, too. Comes as no surprise to me that we are treated with a huge amount of respect as part of this, but there is certainly no lack of forthrightness in terms of articulating the issues around what their concerns are. And they are at odds—and this was no different—with how some saw the process. Some saw what the outcome should be, some see what a sense of justice should look like, and some can be quite dismissive because the pain is so strong and the offer, the pūtea, what’s been offered on the table—in their view—is just not enough. And sometimes their own iwi entity structures and processes let them down from their perspectives, too. The whole idea about having a trust board or a post-settlement entity, how that works, who gets on it, who should be on it, who shouldn’t—whānau politics. This has become a feature of the—I’m not going to say “barriers”, just some of the mahi you to work through to get these settlements sorted.

So I want to certainly thank both groups there. Also those who are a part of the negotiation process and the trustees, because they had been involved in this process much, much longer. By the time they’ve come to us, we are looking at the finer details, and a previous speaker certainly looked at something. It might just be a hyphen, but it’s critical that these things reflect the accuracy of their particular ancestors, tūpuna, and how they are reflected. No, none of us like our names being said wrong, spelt wrong, and so this is the time to get this right.

I note, as part of the shared redress, it does focus on cultural redress. And previous speakers have talked about the overlay classification as the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, customary fishing, and I know that this will provide regulations for the management of customary fishing in the Ruamāhanga River catchment and the Wairarapa Moana. The Minister, in particular, talked about the detailing around the Wairarapa Moana framework in terms of establishing a statutory board, its functions, its membership, procedure, how that will work, the logistics of that. And I think that’s valuable. I think you could also say that that’s a great example of co-governance, where you’ve got Māori working together with others in the community to manage natural resources—assets—and ensuring that the interests of their property are managed in a culturally appropriate way.

I want to finish by just going back to the submissions in the time that I’ve got left. We had 28, and some of those were quite detailed. I think when you look at some of the issues that were raised, this process was never going to—what’s the word—fully allow for them to have the remedy that they saw fit, because this part of the process wasn’t the time to do that. But I admire how they have the guts and know-how to say, “Well, if we can get some airing on these issues, we will use this whatever to have our say.”

I think the report was really well done. We always get a great committee report, and I know that we have a great select committee that does work genuinely and authentically to try and get these things worked through. We embrace views from across the House, and everyone works hard to make sure we can get them because it’s not about us; it’s about the iwi. Madam Speaker, kia ora.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill in this second reading. In doing so, I acknowledge the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and I congratulate them, like the previous speaker Paul Eagle did, on their perseverance and their resilience during this settlement process, this redress process, as well as their original deed of settlement process.

This bill has gone through the select committee process, and I note that my colleague Joseph Mooney, in his speech in the first reading of this bill, hoped that they would get out and about during the select committee process; indeed, as the previous speaker has said, they did. They went to the Papawai Marae in Wairarapa and heard 21 of the 28 submissions. Again, noting some of the comment from the previous speaker, I’m sure, in the tradition of marae debate, that the kōrero was robust and forthright and indeed an opportunity for opinions to be expressed.

The bill gives effect to cultural redress that is shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and contained within the deed of settlement for Kahungunu that was signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown last year in October and the deed of settlement between the Crown and Rangitāne that was settled on 6 August 2016. So a long time to get those settlements, but then even longer to get this cultural redress of shared matters. The legislation is necessary to give effect to certain aspects of the settlements. Exclusive settlement redress for each of the groups is provided in their respective deeds of settlement, and this, of course, is the areas of common cultural redress being concerned there.

The second part is the area where the joint cultural redress provided to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne is laid out and the provision for that overlay classification over Castle Point Scenic Reserve and also the provision for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and in the Ruamāhanga River catchment. There’s also the provision for vesting in fee simple of the three cultural redress properties. And the previous speaker spoke a little bit about the implementation of that and the representation going forward.

Part 3 of the bill makes that provision for the Wairarapa Moana framework, including the establishment of the statutory board, giving it certain functions and powers, including the powers as an administering body of the Wairarapa Moana reserves.

So the Bill recognises that while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are different groups and trace back to different ancestors, they are certainly closely interconnected, sharing whakapapa and hapū affiliations.

The grievances of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne include those which most settlements include, and they are the Crown’s acquisition of the vast areas of land and failure to ensure adequate reserves were protected in their ownership; the Crown’s failure to provide ample reserves near Lake Wairarapa, as it had agreed; the Crown’s failure to protect iwi from virtual landlessness; and the erosion of their tribal structures and the social deprivation that resulted.

So we acknowledge, as other speakers have, that it has been a long journey: first, to get to their settlements, but now also this joint redress bill. We thank them for their perseverance and hope that, in the future, meeting their potential will be enabled by this redress bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Willow-Jean Prime for five minutes.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tū poto noa iho tēnei.

[This is just a short call.]

I just rise to take a short call as the Māori Party—no, I’m here to take their call.

I have been a temporary member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I was sad to learn, when I arrived, that, for this particular bill, they had actually gone out to one of the marae—Papawai Marae—to hear submissions regarding this bill and that I had missed the opportunity to do that, being a temporary member. So I want to acknowledge the chair, Tāmati Coffey, and the deputy chair, Arena Williams, who shared some of their experience—and also the member who’s just left: Paul Eagle—of hearing those submissions from the claimant groups on their own marae, traversing those historic grievances. I note that the select committee received 28 submissions regarding this particular bill and heard from 21 of those.

So it has been, I think, well traversed and expressed and explained by members of that committee what exactly this bill intends to do. It is to give effect to the settlements that have been reached by the two iwi groups—firstly, in 2016, and then, secondly, in 2020. So this bill will give effect to that joint redress, and they have their own separate settlement legislation, as well.

So I just want to acknowledge the mahi of the Māori Affairs Committee, that they went to Papawai Marae to hear those submissions, for the work that they have done on this bill and also the one that will be coming again next week. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to take a brief call on this bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee for a period of time when some of this bill was being considered. It’s good to see that this bill gives effect to the specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. It’s good to see that we have a separate piece of legislation that provides for the cultural redress. There are some great pieces of cultural redress in here that are very important to all three of those iwi, as well as to New Zealanders as well.

The cultural redress is intended to recognise the cultural, historical, and traditional associations of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne within these areas of interest, and it provides for some interesting specific cultural redress items. The one I’d like to speak about briefly is the overlay classification, which is a pretty flash, long word for having some special relationship with Castlepoint, which has got a wonderful name in Māori: Rangi-whakaoma, which refers to the speed of the way the clouds race across the sky, because the wind blows so strongly. And, if you’ve ever been to Rangi-whakaoma, or Castlepoint, you’ll know exactly where that name was derived from. It’s got some great stories around that area. That’s a very special location. It’s where, when Kupe was chasing Te Wheke o Muturangi, he hid in the cave underneath. I still point out to my children that that’s the cave where the wheke hid out. It’s got some very special stories in relation to the first discovery of Aotearoa, and so it’s only right and appropriate that we have some special acknowledgment for cultural redress for those iwi and the history in that space.

The bill also provides for making regulations and management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and Ruamāhanga River catchment. I know that river has had issues in the past, in terms of keeping it clean. So I really hope that, having greater iwi management and oversight in terms of how we’re looking after the kai moana or kai awa in those areas, we have greater involvement of iwi to keep our whenua and our natural environment to a good standard for people to enjoy.

In conclusion, I’d like to acknowledge all of those submitters. I wasn’t able to be there at Papawai Marae to hear those submissions. I know this has been a long and hard process for the iwi involved. Settlement processes are never easy, and they are never by any means perfect, but I genuinely hope that this cultural redress enables those iwi to have a stronger and lasting relationship with parts of the whenua that, in the past, they have not been able to have that relationship with due to the impacts of colonisation in New Zealand. I hope this redress goes some way to re-establishing a stronger relationship between the Crown, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. Anei te mihi nui ki a koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, Madam Speaker, I don’t often get the chance to speak—well, actually, I do get quite a few chances to speak—on these bills. But I’ve never had the opportunity to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, which is really quite frustrating because—well, there’s various reasons for it—you certainly get to understand these sorts of Treaty settlement bills in a much better manner if you go through the process than you do if you don’t.

I listened to members of the select committee and the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, speak on this bill, and I wonder what’s left for me to say. So I suppose I’ll put my own perspective on the process. Whilst Rangitāne and Kahungunu occupy the same region, they’re separate groups and they’re subject to their own Treaty settlement claims bills, one of which passed, I think, some four or five years ago, and Kahungunu is in process right now, and we look forward to that coming back to the House. This bill, interestingly, deals with the cultural redress of some, I suppose you could call them, assets or whatever you like to call them, but certainly some recreational facilities, fishing areas, and other areas of significance—reserves and things like that—that the two iwi have joint interests in, and so this bill specifically deals with those issues. I just want to talk about one or two of those things that it in fact deals with.

It deals with, for example, the Ruamāhanga River, which starts right in the top of what I suppose we know as the Wairarapa—and, in fact, Rangitāne o Manawatū could partially claim it, because it probably starts right at the top of the Tararua ranges, just above Shannon—and runs down through the Wairarapa and comes out to the coast; runs, interestingly, past what’s known in this bill as the Wairarapa Moana, which, I guess, some of us would know as Lake Wairarapa and the surrounding wetlands and areas adjacent to it, as the interests of the iwi cover a large part of the Wairarapa area.

The other interesting issue for me—and the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, spoke of the fast wind that goes through Castlepoint—is, of course, Castlepoint for many years has been the venue of a historic race meeting in the Wairarapa. So some fast horses have run around that area, as well, and a hugely popular event it has been for many, many years in the Wairarapa area. And, of course, Castlepoint, for those who have been there, is a very attractive and unusual piece of coastline in New Zealand, and it just shows the rugged nature of that South Wairarapa coast—and, in fact, of a lot of the east coast of New Zealand—and a very different environment than the west coast of New Zealand, which doesn’t look as attractive but certainly, I think, is equally as impressive.

I’ve watched successive Treaty Ministers—Finlayson and Little—deal with these very complex issues, and I’ve always been impressed with the manner in which they deal with the iwi concerned. I’ve also been hugely impressed—on the occasions that I’ve been invited to attend parts of the agreements that usually are resolved and agreed to on various marae around the country—with the respect, the mutual respect, that both the local iwi and the Ministers and their parties are held in. And I think that signifies a great will, I guess, on behalf of all parties to try and resolve these issues as best we can. And clearly, given the history of these things, we can’t always do that in a manner that’s entirely satisfactory to everyone.

The one matter that always concerns me in the course of these bills being agreed to is that they invariably bind the Crown. One can only hope that the modern vision of the Crown treats these bills with a great deal more respect than perhaps our earlier vision of the Crown treated some of the so-called agreements that we might have had with iwi and local Māori. And I think it’s hugely important that those issues are upheld in the course of these Treaty settlements, moving forward.

I want to comment briefly on another comment that David Seymour made, because I thought it was very relevant to some of the issues that are going on around the world. He made the comment that he couldn’t imagine any other country in the world, I guess, revisiting or unpicking its history, to settle our historic grievances. Well, recently, some of us, under the leadership of our esteemed Speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, had the privilege of visiting four Latin American countries, and this very issue was hugely topical, particularly in Chile. Mexico, I think, has 68 different languages—pretty amazing, really—so these issues were very topical on our visit to those countries. And I think we’ve got quite a lot to offer those countries, and hopefully they’re certainly watching the process that we’re undergoing with respect to our Treaty settlements very closely. Hopefully, in the future, New Zealand may well be able to assist, assuming that our Treaty settlement process does get to a satisfactory resolution and the process is, I guess, upheld by all parties.

I think we’ll get to the point where we could have quite a lot of influence in other parts of the world with respect to the way we’ve managed these Treaty processes, and I think it will make quite a difference to some of those countries. So that was one of the things I noticed as really quite interesting as we travelled round four countries in South America. Particularly, as I said, Chile had a lot of interest in this issue. You know, the other interesting thing about those South American countries—two of them are our nearest neighbours; quite a long way away but none the less our nearest neighbours. So we have quite a lot in common with them.

So, Madam Speaker, I don’t want to add any more to this bill. I just think it’s all been said by those people who know a lot more about it than I do, but I do think that it’s a good process, and it’s as good a process as we can manage given the history of a lot of these issues in New Zealand. And, just as I said, I hope that the Government or the Crown in future honours these agreements in the manner in which they’re made. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to take a brief call on Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I’d like to echo the comments of the previous member there, Ian McKelvie, who spoke quite in depth about the excellent work that has been done over successive Governments in this area around the Treaty settlements and the redress. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, and before him, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for the work that they have both done—and other Ministers—in this area.

The Māori Affairs Committee, we’ve heard, shepherded this bill through. I’d like to acknowledge all of those members and all of those who made submissions on this bill. As a Parliament, we appreciate the engagement of the public on all of the bills that we put through this House.

This Labour Government has made a commitment, in our manifesto, to completing all historic Treaty settlements, and this bill is a step towards completing that commitment. It’s an important piece of work. It’s an important next step, in terms of this redress.

I’d also like to acknowledge the groups that have come together in this area, and admire their resilience, energy, tenacity, and drive to bring us to this point in terms of the second reading—the iwi negotiation teams, trustees, and all of those who have worked hard on this bill.

As the previous speaker said, the bill has been well canvassed. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I present a legislative statement on the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I move that the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill now be read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 27 April 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): My humble apologies, Minister. If you could just begin the “I move,” and just read out the text, please? There were a couple of words that were out of order.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be now read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): “I nominate”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 27 April 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Excellent.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If we are to avoid the worst of the climate crisis, we know that transport emissions in Aotearoa New Zealand must be reduced, and they must be reduced quickly. Since 1990, transport emissions have increased by more than 60 percent. They represent about half of long-lived carbon dioxide emissions, and roughly one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

As a Government, we are committed to targets of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and one half of total energy consumption coming from renewable energy sources by 2035. We also have commitments to meeting our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent below 2005 gross levels by 2030.

Action is needed across the whole of the economy to ensure that we meet these targets and get to where we need to be. Fossil fuels will continue to play a part in our transport sector for a long time to come, but a managed phase-out of fossil fuels remains our goal and must be our goal. While we recognise that change cannot happen overnight, we cannot afford to delay action to reduce our transport emissions. The light vehicle fleet represents almost two-thirds of domestic transport emissions, so change here—including increasing the uptake of zero emissions vehicles like electric vehicles—will be critical to what we do as a country.

However, it will take time to develop this infrastructure and to reach the high proportion of zero emission vehicles in the fleet. Unlike biofuels, other low-emissions transport fuels, such as hydrogen, are not yet compatible with existing vehicles and fuel infrastructures. Biofuels have been used safely and effectively in many countries around the world for many, many years, and it is a technology that is available to us today.

Sustainable biofuels are a viable mitigation opportunity for New Zealand’s existing internal combustion engine vehicle fleet. Each vehicle that enters the fleet remains active for an average of 20 years in New Zealand. Biofuels offer us the opportunity to reduce emissions in the vehicles that we drive today, without changing those vehicles. Biofuels also provide emissions reduction pathways for hard-to-abate transport—like heavy trucking, like shipping—where other ways of reducing emissions are not yet commercially viable and available in New Zealand.

The sustainable biofuels obligation introduces an obligation on any company or person who imports fuel into New Zealand or refines fuel in New Zealand. This will introduce an obligation for five companies which operate here in New Zealand. An obligation is important, because without it we will not realise the biofuels opportunity because of the significant barriers we face, including the lack of scale in production.

The obligation is designed to reduce the overall emissions intensity of transport fuel. This means that the average greenhouse gas emissions of each litre of fuel used in New Zealand will need to reduce over time. The targets for reducing emissions intensity have been set so that they provide an ambitious but achievable pathway; the target for 2035 is 9 percent emissions intensity reduction. This is a substantial contribution towards reaching a net zero economy. The obligation will prevent about a million tonnes of emissions from cars, trucks, trains, and ships over the first two years of its operation, and up to 9 million tonnes by 2035.

The design of the obligation means that biofuels, which are better at reducing emissions, will count for more. It incentivises fuel wholesalers to source and supply biofuels with the lowest emission, and it guards against the risks that only the cheapest biofuels—which are little better than fossil fuels—will enter the New Zealand market. This will be a significant change for fuel producers, fuel retailers, and motorists. The Government previously intended to introduce the obligation from 1 April 2023. However, in preparing this bill, I became aware about the lack of infrastructure for the first generation of biofuels—ethanol and bio-diesel—and this meant that there would only have been limited and more expensive options available to meet the 2023 target.

To avoid imposing these unnecessary costs on motorists, the obligations will come into effect from 1 April 2024. This will give the industry more time to get ready for the change and to build the infrastructure it needs.

I’ve heard some people say that this is us putting cost of living against climate change. This is not the case, and let me take the House through the numbers. The foregone conclusions, if everybody were to introduce biofuels—the 2023 date is up to 230,000 tonnes of carbon emissions reductions. It is the obligation on us, under the emissions reduction plans, to then tell how we’re going to make up those forgone emissions. What we have done is we have kept the 2035 reductions targets—we’ll need to have a bit of a steeper curve through there. But in reality, the 230,000 tonnes of carbon removed is roughly the equivalent of two relatively small programmes that we’ve funded through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund programme, in terms of industrial decarbonisation. This is the budgeting that Governments now must do. If you are not going to reduce emissions in one area, you must tell us where you are going to reduce this. We need to avoid the climate change equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle of budgeting that we’ve seen across this House.

So my challenge to any party in this House that is not intending to support this bill is to lay out, in fine detail, where 9 million tonnes of emissions reductions are coming from. This is what parties in this House signed up to when they supported the Climate Change Response Act. This is what parties in this House signed up to when they supported the targets set by the independent Climate Change Commission. This is where the rubber hits the road. If parties are not going to support this bill, I want to hear where 9 million tonnes of emissions reductions are coming from in other parts of the economy, and I look forward to that.

Now, some people question whether biofuels are truly sustainable. It is not true that all biofuels are created equal, and overseas there have been instances where some biofuels, such as those produced from palm oil, have harmed the environment and their local communities. Biofuels can cause deforestation, which will have unacceptably high levels of emissions and may be even worse than fossil fuels.

This is not acceptable, and we will not accept these biofuels in New Zealand. To address this, the bill that we are debating here contains a power to create regulations which limit or exclude unsustainable biofuels from the obligation. The regulation-making power can be used to limit biofuels derived from crops which are food sources. This is important; it means our demand for fuel will not compete with the world’s need for food. Earlier this year, we consulted on proposals for these regulations. The obligation on fuel wholesalers is clear—failure to meet it will attract liability for a civil pecuniary penalty. In setting the level of this penalty, I knew that we needed to get it high enough so it gave an adequate incentive for fuel wholesalers to comply and ensure they are reducing emissions.

The Environmental Protection Authority will monitor how fuel wholesalers are discharging their responsibility. This bill is another—and important—step in the Government’s comprehensive plan to reduce emissions in the economy and reach net zero by 2050. It’s also another step that makes parties in this House accountable for telling us how we are going to reach our targets we have all signed up for.

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a wonderful opportunity to speak on the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill, which the National Party will not support.

I thought it really took the cake when the Minister of Energy and Resources talked about the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund and holding that up as an example, which is an example of corporate welfare, not of actually reducing emissions. A prop.

The Minister said that this side of the House had supported the legislation and we have to explain how we’re going to reduce emissions. Well, actually the Labour Party supported an ETS—an emissions trading scheme—to reduce emissions. They seem to not understand how it works; they have no idea how it works. They think that emissions will be reduced by the wise hand of the Minister intervening in little places here and little places over there to lower emissions. It’s an absolute load of nonsense, quite frankly.

I think it’s absolutely brave of the Minister—heroic, I would say—to stand up here and advocate for a biofuels mandate that will add at least 10c a litre to the cost of fuel, when the moment that actual petrol prices started to go up, what did they do? They panicked—they panicked and reduced the excise tax by 25c a litre. We now have the New Zealand Unit price at $88.50 today, driving up the cost of fuel. So do we really think that on 1 January, they are going to reintroduce the 25c of excise tax? I don’t think so. There’s no chance that they’re going to increase the price of fuel by 10c—at least—later on by introducing this bill. They won’t have a show.

This will add further costs. Upstream providers, those that import the fuel, will have to invest significant sums of money. Some are up to $50 million—I don’t know how much others are going to have—that’s their estimate at this stage. However, they haven’t actually gone to the extent of planning exactly what they’re going to spend, because they don’t know. Because the legislation has only just been tabled last week, they have to actually go to their head offices to get the money to invest it. They’ll get the money but they need to know exactly what it’s going to mean.

In this bill, we don’t even know what the definition of the “feedstock” is, because that’s up to the wise hand of the Minister to decide on an ad hoc basis! This is absolute uncertainty—these companies are running around in circles, wondering what the heck they’re going to do. But they’re going to have to recoup that cost, those millions. That will go directly on top of the cost of fuel. So it won’t be 10c a litre; it will be a greater cost.

There are other problems. The RAP—the Refinery to Auckland Pipeline—will not be able to take biofuels, or biopetrol, anyway, down that pipeline. They’re not able to do that. There are significant issues with mixing those fuels. So there will have to be two fuel stores at the ports where the fuel will be mixed into the tankers as it goes off to the fuel stations, adding costs and complications. The downstream retailers will also—that is, the petrol stations themselves—have to invest in updating their outlets. So more cost that will go on to the per-litre price of petrol.

So biofuels are extremely expensive. They’re going to add a lot of fuel. But the question is—the Minister touched on it—are they actually going to be sustainable? What the Minister mentioned was that they wouldn’t take food crops. But, actually, news for the Minister: there are a lot of other crops that are not food crops that can be grown on land that could be growing food. They’ll be displacing food crops—so impacting food production, price accrued, and yet adding more cost.

However, biodiesel, which I haven’t really touched on till now, is used extensively in heavy transport, of course, in agriculture and in fishing. Now, the cost of biodiesel is going to be, likewise, at least 10c a litre. All of those costs go and impact not only those producers but it goes directly on top of the cost of food, because everything that we consume in New Zealand goes on a truck. It might come in by ship, it goes into road transport and will be delivered to a distribution centre, and then it will go from the distribution centre to the supermarkets and all those sorts of things. Those costs just keep going on to all of those goods.

Who’s going to be impacted by this? Who do we think it is? Do we think it’s the oil companies? No. It won’t be the oil companies; it will be low-income families that will suffer the most. It seems ironic that the Labour Party seems to be bringing in more and more bits of legislation that will impact the most on poorer families—low-income families. They don’t seem to care about them.

The issue, then, with feedstocks is that, as I said earlier, these are not prescribed in the legislation. The Minister has the power to say what is acceptable and what isn’t—that wise hand of the Minister, yet again! Unfortunately, central control doesn’t work well in these situations. More likely than not, palm oil will end up as part of these fuels, cooking oil—Neste, who will be a major provider, have said that they will avoid that, that they will use cooking oils. Where do cooking oils come from? Palm oil. So palm oil will find its way into this. So we’re now going to be responsible, in part, for Amazonian rain forest destruction in order to save the planet from climate change. I think the Minister has got this completely round the wrong way.

It would have been far better to have focused on sustainable aviation fuels, if that was where they wanted to go in terms of biofuels. There is no other alternative. There are alternatives with electric vehicles and hybrids. That is already reducing our emissions profile, and that’s been driven by the emissions trading scheme, sending a strong market signal that people are reacting to. But yet, once again, they don’t seem to understand the emissions trading scheme. It’s unbelievable that they can stand up in front of this House and not understand how the emissions trading scheme actually operates. I think that’s actually quite shameful. Tallow was going to be a major part of it. Actually, Z Energy had a biofuels plant in New Zealand and they could not make it work.

The National Party believes in biofuels. That’s great. If people want the opportunity to use them, they should be able to do that. But there are problems. Older vehicles cannot handle biofuels; it ruins their carburettor and fuel systems. So how’s that going to be dealt with? There will be no alternative if this was to go. Of course, the National Party will repeal it if it comes in.

So what we know, though, is that these companies are so uncertain, they won’t be able to meet the 1 April 2024 date, anyway, because of all of the time constraints involved in obtaining the funding, putting in the infrastructure, but they’ll just pay the $800 a tonne—carbon dioxide, which is the fine that’s being mandated in this legislation—and they’ll just pass it on to the motorist, yet again, in the cost of living crisis.

If they think they’re going to bring this in and add 10c—I’ll tell you what: inflation will still be around by 2024—I think they’re dreaming. That’s the political reality. Well, of course, a lot of them won’t be here to find out, anyway.

Tallow, as I said, is part of the—Z Energy had to give up making biofuels, because they couldn’t manage the costs. The cost of tallow went up by 400 percent. You can’t sustain those sorts of levels of costs.

Todd Muller: Tell them they’re dreaming!

STUART SMITH: Yeah, well, they are dreaming.

Hon Member: It went up because of its export price.

STUART SMITH: Well, yeah it went up because it’s an export. It’s a highly competitive market. It’s economies of scale. We don’t have it.

So we will be exporting feedstocks overseas to be processed into biofuels to be shipped back to New Zealand with high emissions.

There’s a lot of platitudes in this, and, as one commentator said, in the war between platitudes and physics, physics remains undefeated. So it’s time they got some good sense on the other side and didn’t come up with silly legislation, and let the emissions trading scheme do its work.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): I’m very proud to stand and speak in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill at its first reading here, and I’m delighted that it’s going to come to the very busy Environment Committee, to be reported back by 27 April.

We all know that transport emissions make up a huge proportion of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions—about 47 percent of the carbon emissions and about 17 percent of our gross emissions—so we need to reduce these emissions; we’ve all agreed on that. How do we do it? Well, for transport, we know that electrification is important, but of course that takes time. As the Minister the Hon Megan Woods mentioned in her speech, vehicles can last for around 20 years. So what we’re doing here is changing the fuel.

At the moment, fossil fuel can be mixed with other liquid fuels, and this bill is about requiring a percentage of that biofuel. What is biofuel? It’s something that is produced from biomass, and of course, it’s not a fossil fuel, so it’s not emitting the carbon into the atmosphere. It’s a great, great thing to be using when we use it properly—which I’ll come to in a minute and acknowledge the concern of the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, about sustainability. Very pleased to hear about that! This bill doesn’t apply to aviation. It does apply to an obliged person who’s covered by the Climate Change Response Act and, therefore, covered in the emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The biofuel must be sustainable, and what is sustainable can be determined by regulations. When making regulations, clause 13 provides matters to consider, and I’m sure the previous speaker will be interested in these. At clause 13, we don’t want to have a significant adverse effect on biodiversity, on deforestation, on food and feed security, on water quality, or a high risk of indirect land-use change. The Minister must have regard to soil carbon and the waste hierarchy, and those classes of waste don’t have to meet the criteria I’ve just read out.

The Environmental Protection Agency is the regulator of this bill. It’s a good bill and, while I accept the concerns about sustainability, which is why there is this regulatory process to address that, that will be a good thing to discuss in the Environment Committee. So I commend this bill. It’s squarely aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it’s one of the many, many measures needed—not just relying on the ETS and market mechanisms, which do not cover everything—which is what every expert ever has ever told the Environment Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I speak to oppose this dreadful piece of legislation. I say that because it is, without doubt, the most vanity-fuelled piece of legislation this House has seen for quite a long time.

Let’s be very clear: the last time the Labour Government was in power, they did bring in a biofuels obligation, and it was exactly the same circumstances, where there was no capacity to supply the biofuel to meet the targets that were imposed by the legislation.

We made it very clear at the time that the expectation that somehow bringing in a biofuels mandate was going to solve some of the transport emissions for the New Zealand vehicle fleet was complete and utter nonsense. Sadly, there were a whole lot of gullible people who thought this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, invested in it heavily, and, ultimately, lost their money because the National Government wasn’t prepared to make the greater population of New Zealand pay for such a dopey idea.

So let’s just go straight to the regulatory impact statement that comes with the bill. This is not my work; this is the work of the Government agencies who are advising the Minister. This is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—their energy section—and, of course, Treasury. Now, you’ll never get me quoting anything from Treasury on authoritative basis, because they never produce anything that’s authoritative enough to be quoted, but they have come up here and said, “As a biofuels mandate is demonstrable Government action to address climate change, the New Zealand Government will also enhance its credibility to influence international climate change negotiations.” That is code for “this gives Government Ministers the chance to prance about the world and talk about how wonderfully we’re doing in this country to reduce emissions while making very little difference at all—if any.” The difference between 2008, when they last tried this stunt, and now is that vehicle emissions or fuel consumption per vehicle is considerably lower.

The worst of it is this document was produced in September of 2021. The initial document was produced in December of 2020. It predicates diesel price at being around about $1.40 to $1.50. Well, that would be great for all those users out there, wouldn’t it? Even then, they were worried about the cost of increasing price through a biofuels mandate.

If we’re going to have the sort of bill that would allow us to seriously knock back vehicle emissions in this country, this is not it. When we look at it, we can see that even in here—even in here—they’re saying that there are large parts, or large percentages, of the New Zealand vehicle fleet that will not successfully run on biofuels, even with a low percentage. It has an effect on carburettors, it has an effect on the internal combustion systems, and it will be cause for so many people having to abandon their cars in a much earlier stage in their life.

They don’t seem worried about those people who are struggling families at the moment, who really need those vehicles to get to work, who really need to get their kids to all sorts of opportunities that they like to provide for their children. But no, they’ll be able to say, “Well, look, you don’t have a family car anymore because you can’t afford a five-year-old vehicle that can run on this garbage. So just take some consolation that you’re doing your bit—your sacrifice—for the wee tiny bit of carbon emission that we’ll knock out in this process!”

I think the worst of it is—why I keep saying it’s a vanity project for the Government, an opportunity for Ministers to go waving documents throughout the world saying, “Look at us, look what we’re doing, aren’t we fantastic?” We hear it all the time, “the nuclear moment of our generation”, all that sort of thing. The reason I say that is, there’s provision in the bill which allows those who are fuel suppliers of more than 50,000 litres a year to defray their entry into the system by up to two years at a cost of 0.01c per litre—an absolutely tiny fee to go about ignoring the dopiness of this Government, while they wait for a good Government that knows what they’re doing. That’s what will happen. So why would a Government write that into a piece of legislation that has been so passionately supported today by members on the other side of the House? I don’t understand that for one little minute.

So then there is, of course, the other aspect of this bill, which talks about that landed price of petroleum in New Zealand, out to about 2025, being between 55c and 58c per litre. Now, we know that there’s all sorts of price impost on top of that; the fuel importers want a margin, the fuel retailers want a margin, and the Government wants an enormous margin inside that—more than the cost of the fuel and the margins of everybody else involved. That’s why we pay these high prices at the moment.

But look what’s happened to the price of fuel. It’s as if the crisis caused by all sorts of pressures on fuel production around the world—not the least of which is climate change—has not happened in the last 12 months. The signs you see at the petrol pump at the moment don’t exist. So now we’ve got a Government that’s happily going to tell New Zealanders that by April next year they’ll have passed this legislation to add another 10c per litre on to their fuel plus the 25c they’re going to put back in January plus, I suspect, the annual increment of about 10c—so nearly 50c per litre being put back on to the price of petrol with what is included in this bill.

People on the other side of the House have been yelling out, “Well what’s your plan? What’s your plan? What are you going to do?” What we’re not going to do is put people in—[Interruption]—I’ll come to it. What we’ll not do is make New Zealanders pay for something as dopey as this—we’ll not make them pay for something as dopey as this.

Where is one Government piece of information given to households to talk about how they can individually reduce their carbon footprint—just one? The Government spends tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars a year on communications, supposedly, with New Zealanders. We all know it’s just Labour Party propaganda dressed up as Government information. We know that it’s airy-fairy sort of stuff that you get in this type of impact report to try and convince New Zealanders they’ve got to stick with this Labour Government. Why isn’t there just a small amount of information provided to New Zealanders to tell them what they can do in their households, now, to reduce their carbon footprint? I think the willingness of New Zealanders to do so is very high, and that’s something that we’ll pick up. It’s something that we’ll run with. But this is not a way in which to move us forward at all.

One of the things that’s most concerning about this is that on page 18 of the regulatory impact statement, there is a graph which shows what happens if this were to be fully implemented, and, by and large, nothing until 2035. So New Zealanders are being asked to pay considerable extra amounts on their weekly fuel bills for an effect that doesn’t even begin to drop until 2035—page 18 of the regulatory impact statement; not my work, the work of the Government.

Then, of course, there is this extraordinary situation, as I mentioned before, that suggests that anybody who doesn’t want to get into this can just go for a deferral. Well, I suspect the Minister will be inundated with requests for deferrals.

But if we have a look at things like feedstock, where is it going to come from? At the moment, the log price out of New Zealand is well ahead of what’s predicated in this impact report. Are we going to reduce an export market, just like we’re reducing farming production, apparently, under this Government, in order to satisfy, as I said before, the vanity option of New Zealand Ministers running around the world saying, “Look at us; how good we are!” We have a lot of work to do; a lot of serious work to do to combat climate change, but this is a back-to-the-future, completely dumb, hopeless piece of legislation that just puts unreasonable costs on New Zealanders who are already struggling week by week.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to take a call on this bill. If there’s something to be garnered from the last two contributions from the Opposition, it’s that they’ve got no plan. It’s that when it comes to climate change, they sit there and they talk about how much we need to change things. But they don’t follow it through with action. And there goes the stark difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. We’re ambitious; we follow up what we say with actual action to try and change the outcome of the future of New Zealand when it comes to climate change.

The previous contribution talked about the small change that it’s going to make to how we do things, talked about how the pricing might be a little bit different, but, actually, if you take a big step back and you think about the financial impact of climate change, that’s why we’re all here. That’s why we’ve actually been working with the sector, working with the community, to figure out how we can do things differently. The other side of the House will take the really conservative approach, which is actually just to kick back, boo the Government, and talk about exactly what it is that we’re trying to do to make changes in this area. But they haven’t got a plan. So the hashtag to go on that contribution from the previous member is #NationalNoPlan, #NationalNotFitToGovern, #Don’tWantToDoAnythingAboutClimateChange.

But on this side of the House, we’re absolutely committed to following through on what we’ve said that we’re going to. And actually, there’s been a cross-party consensus that climate change is real, that climate change is affecting our various communities across Aotearoa. The difference is that this Government are trying to do something about it; that Opposition don’t have a plan.

The plan for today is to talk about this bill. The sustainable biofuels obligation plan will help to deliver on the Government’s emissions reduction plan.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading the notes—say it from the heart.

TĀMATI COFFEY: It’s going to prevent one million tonnes of emissions from cars, from trucks. And that member should read his own notes, because he’s refusing to understand exactly why we’re doing this. Over the next decade, just over a decade, we’re looking to take out 9 million tonnes from the emissions that we make as a country in terms of transport.

Now, that’s really important because, yes, we can debate whether or not we’re doing the right thing. But actually, we’re talking about taking out nine million tonnes of emissions in an effort to be able to meet our targets, as we’ve agreed as a House that this is a really important thing to do.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where did the number come from?

TĀMATI COFFEY: So what we’ve gone and done is we’ve put this bill up—and yes, it’s a rehash from the last time that that member was here in Parliament. Again, in 2008, we had our Minister at the time, the energy Minister, the Hon David Parker, who brought this to the House all the way back then. We could have got started on this a decade ago. We absolutely could have got started on this over a decade ago. But actually it’s taken us this long to be able to get it back into Parliament. We introduced it then. The Opposition did what they’re saying that they’re going to do now, which is they chucked it out. They just chucked it out. And are we any better off? No. Our emissions are no better off. We’ve not moved.

They said at the time that, actually, if they wanted this to be done in a voluntary way, surely the companies would come around. Guess what!

Hon Members: They didn’t!

TĀMATI COFFEY: They didn’t! They didn’t do it. And so here we are again, playing the same old tune. Here’s the Labour Government. We understand the problem at hand. We don’t want to kick the can down the road like the Opposition. So we’re actually stumping up with a bill. Why are we doing it? Because we want to see our emissions come down. Why are we doing it? Because we understand that with every single year there is the impact that these one-in-100-year floods are having in our community. And actually, that’s really important to remember, because it affects us all. We’re trying to do something really proactive to be able to bring the community in on our goals, to be able to reduce our emissions.

This is a good bill. We’re going to do it. I look forward to actually making sure that this goes through the House this time and that New Zealand has a plan when it comes to meeting our targets for climate change—unlike the other side of the House, #NationalNoPlan. I commend it to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): A point of order. I seek leave of the House to table the regulatory impact statement for this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): On the basis that the document is publicly available, no. I call the Hon Julie Anne—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. I’ll just point out, Madam Speaker, that there is, in this Government-produced document—and you say it’s very available—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yep. The member will resume his seat. Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): It’s wonderful to have legislation in front of the House that means that parties are all acknowledging the extreme urgency and need to respond to climate change; something the Green Party has been talking about for 30 or 40 years now—as long as we’ve existed.

So it’s really good that everyone’s come on board, and I actually heard the Hon Gerry Brownlee saying that we need a lot of serious work to respond to climate change. That is true, and I would love to see the National Party or the ACT Party proposing any viable options to respond to climate change. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any.

So the debate from Labour, I have to agree with: that National doesn’t have a plan and that we can’t do everything through the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Any academic or scientist or serious analysis of this situation has concluded that we can’t just rely on the ETS to get the outcomes we want; we need serious, coordinated Government leadership and coordinated action between Government and the private sector in order to respond to the climate crisis and to develop the solutions that will help us radically reduce emissions in a short space of time.

With the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard, there has been quite a significant reduction in the average emissions of new vehicles being imported into New Zealand, and that’s a huge benefit. But we still have 4 million vehicles on the road that were brought over before the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount existed, and people are still using those. So we need some way to reduce the emissions that are caused by those vehicles—and also by heavy vehicles, because heavy vehicles are even further away from having the electrification solution.

So on that basis—because, in the Green Party policy, we had reservations about biofuels back when this policy was first mooted in around 2006, 2007—we did support the bill to select committee, and founding co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons had a member’s bill at the time to bring in very strict sustainability criteria. In theory, there is scope for second-generation wood-waste biofuel sustainably produced in New Zealand, but there’s no question that the quantity we could produce would probably be less than the quantity of fossil fuels we’re currently using to move heavy vehicles, in particular.

It would also probably cost more than fossil fuels, but the cost of fossil fuels is—continuing to use them—completely unaffordable because it’s leading to climate breakdown, which is going to affect food supply, it’s going to affect the ability for humans to live sustainably, and to have stability in their lives that enable us to thrive and to trade and to do other things that we all have spent the last centuries doing.

So the Green Party has serious concerns about whether there truly can be the quantity of truly sustainable biofuel that would be needed to meet the mandate, as it has been proposed in this legislation and the regulations. We have serious concerns that while there might be a very small role that biofuel can play in reducing emissions from heavy transport in the short term, I don’t believe that this bill, as drafted, can guarantee that we wouldn’t have biofuels brought in to meet the mandate that do result in deforestation in other parts of the world or higher carbon emissions than even fossil fuels.

So the Green Party has decided to support this bill to select committee only, but we’ll be looking very, very closely at the submissions and the evidence presented throughout that process. What I understand at this point is that it simply will not be possible, that it becomes a way of greenwashing transport, that there is an industry that has been able to produce biofuels and some of the categorisation of the ingredients in those biofuels is fuzzy—it’s not necessarily from waste products.

So the idea that you could just take products that are purely waste products that otherwise would not be used and turn them into a sustainable biofuel is very attractive. But there is a problem with mandating that we meet a certain supply of that, because there’s a risk that we’re not able to meet the supply.

I do understand that we need coordinated Government action—some of that will be regulatory, some of that will be policy, some of that will be funding—in order to create potential solutions. But I think in this case, unfortunately, the transport emissions reduction plan is leaning too heavily on biofuel without crunching the numbers on the quantity of sustainable biofuel that we would actually be able to source in this decade.

So the Minister did put the challenge to those parties that weren’t going to support this bill to say how they would reduce emissions from transport, and I do think that’s really important. I think it’s a very clear message from the Green Party about how we can reduce emissions from transport in a way that is hugely beneficial to our towns and cities that actually costs less money than what we’re currently spending on transport.

Our current transport system is so heavily reliant on private cars, not because all the people using them have chosen it, but because they have no real alternative. And that is a consequence of Government decisions over decades. So local government and central government, working together, could create communities where it’s very convenient and enticing to use clean, reliable, frequent public transport buses and trains, to have the planning for bikes and other small vehicles that are fully electric like e-scooters—even mobility scooters can use those sort of separated lanes.

If we designed our communities in this smarter way, which many parts of the world do, people get these huge benefits. They have to spend less time commuting, households have to own fewer cars, and that is a direct productivity gain to New Zealand. Because right now, the drag on the total economic cost of high car ownership to New Zealand is an absurd proportion of GDP. We’re talking many tens of billions of dollars annually for households and businesses to own multiple vehicles, to park them in places, and to—

Simon Court: What’s the value of mobility, though? Surely there’s a benefit of personal mobility.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Now I’m being interrupted by Simon Court. Because he’s very close to me, it’s very difficult for me to not get sidetracked by his interjections. So I will say, Simon Court says, “What’s the value of mobility?” And I would say, “Exactly that; exactly that, Simon.”

We can provide low-carbon, affordable mobility to people. We can do that as Government and local government can—working together can provide far greater benefits to people than forcing them into high car ownership. And the difference between—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I just ask the member to come back to biofuels? I’m allowing a breadth of discussion across the House, but I would appreciate if the member could—notwithstanding the member has been sidetracked by another member—come back to biofuels.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Point of order, Hon Eugenie Sage.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague was explaining the concept and responding to the Minister’s comment about parties that have concerns about the bill setting out their alternative. And that was exactly what she was doing. So it was centred on the debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right, thank you for that. Thank you. I will accept and apologise to the member. I will say that when I’m in my office and not in the chair, I’m not necessarily following the debate, but thank you for your intervention. With apologies to the member. The Hon Julie Anne Genter—although it would be great if she said “biofuels”, just every now and again.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the reason we need sustainable biofuels at this point in time is because our transport system is very heavily reliant on cars, but cars are an inherently energy-inefficient way to move short distances around a city and they take up lots of land. So there really is an opportunity—and I’ve always thought this—right across the House for us all to agree that a more economically and financially efficient transport system that enables people to get around both with a car and without a car should be something that New Zealand could aspire to and most other countries have, in fact, delivered.

So that would be one way of reducing the reliance on sustainable biofuels to reduce our emissions in this decade: to go really, really hard on maximising the opportunities for active and public transport in our towns and cities. And more medium and long term, we must invest in high-quality passenger rail and other services. There will be a role for electric buses, of course, for passenger services in some parts of the country.

But all these opportunities to reduce the energy inefficiency of our current transport system is a direct economic and productivity gain to New Zealand—and actually a gain of quality of life, because while there is a proportion of people who quite love driving and want to own cars, it’s not the proportion that currently are forced to do so because there are no viable alternatives. Ultimately, that is a consequence of Government policy and planning rules—something I thought the ACT Party would agree with, that planning rules have forced car-oriented development. So that was unnecessary Government regulation that has resulted in inefficient outcomes.

Anyway, the Green Party has an alternative. We will support this to select committee, but it will take, I think, a lot of really compelling information and some changes to the bill for us to support it past select committee.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you. So there is a problem to solve when it comes to reducing New Zealand’s emissions from liquid fuels, and that is: how do we reduce emissions from the transport sector? Well, if you’ve filled up your car, your ute, or your truck at the fuel bowser at any time this year, you’ll know that it’s costing you tens or, potentially, hundreds of dollars more for a big truck or a big rig, and a part of that cost is actually the emissions trading scheme. You pay for your emissions, which is about 20c a litre for a litre of diesel or petrol, under the emissions trading scheme. If you have to pay an extra 20c a litre, it makes you really seriously think about being fuel-efficient, driving less, being really, really careful with that right foot on the accelerator, and making sure that you get the most out of every tank.

Now, when we think about solving the problem of reducing emissions from the transport fleet, biofuels and a biofuel mandate would be very, very far down the list. [Notices incorrect speech time remaining on Chamber clock]

Point of order, Madam Speaker. As much as I like the idea that I have an infinite amount of time to speak on this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ah, thank you.

SIMON COURT: —I’ve just noted—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, thank you.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So don’t say that the ACT Party isn’t a ruled-based party. The ACT Party believes that the rules of the House should be followed, and even we should be subject to those rules.

Look, there’s a problem to solve when it comes to reducing emissions from the transport fleet. But the ACT Party does not believe that the biofuels mandate is the way to do it.

There are a number of issues with this bill. Firstly, the industry that is supposed to supply the biofuels—the petrochemical industry—actually has already been delayed by a year. If the Government had stuck to its own time frames and passed some legislation, that could have potentially given them a two-year run-up to install new pipelines and new storage tanks and to deal with distribution, logistics, and supply issues in order to bring biofuels from refineries in Asia and Australia into New Zealand. But the Government has taken so long to bring this piece of legislation to the House that even with a year’s extension, that’s not going to be enough time for the liquid fuel industry to gear up and start delivering biofuels at the quantities that they need to to avoid penalties.

There are other practical issues. It’s not just the lead time and it’s not just the fact that the emissions trading scheme already puts a price on emissions that actually creates an incentive to use less fuel and become more efficient in your transport business or your personal life, but we’ve got issues with the feedstock. Now, a number of members, including the Greens and National, have raised the issue of where the feedstock comes from to make biofuels. Well, if they’re intended to be made in New Zealand, we’ve heard from the climate change Minister and others that you could go around all the pine forests collecting up the pine cones and the slash after a timber harvest, after a pine tree harvest, and take it back to some central processing facility and turn that wood waste into a biofuel.

Barbara Kuriger: Create gold at the same time.

SIMON COURT: Yeah. Now, it’s true that you can turn wood waste into a fuel. That is a useful supplementary fuel if you’re, say, drying timber at a big timber mill, but it’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we can possibly coordinate the collection of pine cones and sticks off the forest floor to replace liquid mineral fuels in any way.

Then we’ve got the issue with the feedstock from South-east Asia. Now, if you go on Google Maps and you look at the island of Borneo, you’ll see that about 90 percent of it has been cleared of its native vegetation, where species like the sun bear and where the orang-utan of Borneo live. It’s been cleared and it’s been replaced with palm oil plantations. Those palm oil plantations provide not just a feedstock for food products but they also provide a feedstock for agriculture and other consumables. Now, if biofuel supply out of South-east Asian and other refineries contain palm oil from plantations that are grown where once mighty forests stood, where many, many threatened species once lived, species on the verge of extinction—if the New Zealand Government, if the Labour Party, thinks that wiping out old-growth tropical forests that once homed precious animals like the orang-utan and sun bear is the way to save us from climate change, then there is no hope for the environment. We’ve lost all hope.

Then we think about timing. Here’s a problem: the biofuels mandate comes in and applies from some time in 2024, but by 2025 the Japanese and Korean and European car-manufacturing companies who came to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last year to tell us why the Clean Car Standard was such a bad idea—what they told us was that their factories in South-east Asia, in Japan, and in Korea will be producing more battery and hydrogen electric vehicles between 2025 and 2028 than we could possibly use and that by 2030 they’ll pretty much be producing nothing else, and yet this Government wants the fuel industry to invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure that might have a five-year or a six-year lifespan. It’s completely unrealistic to ask investors in plant and equipment—major supply chain logistics—to make that investment and try to recover it in, essentially, an unknown but very, very short space of time. I would say to those businesses to hold on because there will be a change of Government, and this bill will go in the bin—so hold on.

Then we think about what the alternatives are, because we’ve had a number of Government members challenge ACT on what are the alternatives. Well, here’s what ACT would do. Firstly, we’d let the emissions trading scheme do its job. The emissions trading scheme puts a price on petrol and diesel at the pump of around 20c a litre. If you think that 20c a litre isn’t enough of an incentive to change the way you drive to reduce the amount of fuel you use, then this Government doesn’t understand the cost of living crisis—20c a litre means a lot to people who have to fill up their cars to get to work on any given day.

Then you think, “What else would ACT do?” Well, we’ve actually got a member’s bill—a member’s bill in my name—in the biscuit tin called the Climate Change Response (Offshore Mitigation) Amendment Bill. It’s the offshore mitigation bill, and what that would allow is three things. It would allow New Zealand businesses that have an obligation to reduce their emissions to reduce them using accredited, approved overseas mitigation schemes, just like the one in Fiji that I heard about the other day, which was restoring mangrove forests in Fiji. They provide climate resilience, they absorb carbon, and it’s a form of international climate diplomacy. ACT’s Climate Change Response (Offshore Mitigation) Amendment Bill would allow threatened species, threatened environments, and rare and precious ecosystems to be restored in other countries that we do business with and that we trade with at lower cost than having to pay all of these charges and taxes under this current Government scheme.

It would establish long-term, enduring partnerships between businesses in New Zealand and communities in vulnerable places—places where their environment has been severely damaged by unsustainable land development practices. That includes places like Fiji, where mangroves have been cleared for tourist developments, and places like Borneo, where old-growth tropical forests have been cleared and the habitat of orang-utan and other threatened species has been destroyed.

That’s what ACT would do. It’s practical because climate change is a global problem. Reducing emissions is something that can have a global effect. It doesn’t matter where you reduce emissions, because if this Government and New Zealanders are serious about climate change, they’ll be just as happy to support an emissions reduction restoring the old-growth forests of Borneo, giving a home to the orang-utan and the sun bear, and restoring the mangroves of Fiji as they will paying a tax and paying over four times extra for a litre of biofuel to satisfy this Government’s “zero carbon at any cost to the Kiwi” approach to solving climate change.

ACT will not support this bill. We’ve got a better bill.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s great to take this brief call on the first reading of the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, for her leadership in this area, where she belongs to a team of climate Ministers in the Government side of things.

I am proud to be part of a Government that is committed to target net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and to half of total energy consumption coming from renewable resources by 2035. This bill contributes to that target.

So what the bill does, because we’ve not heard a lot from the other side about the bill, is it introduces an obligation for the entity that imports and refines more than 50,000 litres of liquid fossil fuels for transport in New Zealand to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for their fuel supply and also supplying sustainable biofuels.

Our biofuel obligation is defined in Part 2 of the bill—and if I can just remind the Opposition to go to clause 10 for the definition. As the Minister had said, an obligation is important. Without it, we will not realise the biofuels opportunity because of the significant barriers they face, including a lack of production. You know, unlike the other side, all of whom I have heard are just full of hot air, the obligation is designed to reduce the overall emissions intensity of the transport fuel. The target for 2035 is 9 percent emissions intensity, which would prevent about a million tonnes of emissions from cars, trucks, trains, and ships over two years of its operation, and up to 9 million tonnes by 2025.

I’ve heard hashtags to describe the National Party. I want to add a hashtag to that: #ThePartyOfRepeal”. Repeal, repeal, repeal—that’s all that’s coming from them.

I echo the Minister: the introduction of this bill is another step in the Government’s comprehensive plans to reduce emissions across the economy and reach net zero by 2050. I commend his bill to the House. Mālō.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. #ThankYou for the opportunity to take a call on the #SustainableBiofuelObligationBill, which #NationalWillRepeal if we win the next election—because this is a #BadBill. It’s a bill which will not fix the issues this Government says it will. This is simply the virtue-signalling bill. I was listening to the Minister talking earlier in her speech about how the Government announced their “aspiration” to put in place a sustainable biofuel mandate. But then she listened to people in the sector and realised that it would not be able to be put in place by #2023 because of the costs of the infrastructure involved. That says: this Government #Doesn’tKnowWhatThey’reDoing. #Aspiration, but #Don’tKnowWhatThey’reDoing because, actually, what happened here is they went out there and it’s like everything this Government does when it comes to climate change policy; they want to tell the world that they’re going to fix the issues, but actually they don’t have a plan. They don’t have a plan on actually how to do it.

They still don’t even understand the full cost that this is going to have on the companies which will be forced to mix biofuels with the fuels, the cost of the infrastructure, the advice which has been given here to the House doesn’t understand the cost of the infrastructure, it doesn’t fully understand the cost it’s going to have to the consumer. And guess what? It is not going to have an impact on overall emissions at all because we have a market; the emissions trading scheme has a market for emissions in New Zealand and so if you reduce emissions in one part of that market, it simply makes those emissions available to be burned somewhere else. And this Government’s very good at burning coal. They’re exceptional at burning coal. They went out there and told the world, “We’re going to be world leading, we’re going to ban oil and gas exploration.” Well, guess what? We are importing record amounts of coal into this country, which is twice as carbon intensive as oil and gas, and it’s causing more pollution globally, and that is the legacy of this Government: renewables are going backwards and the emissions are actually going up because of the short-sighted decisions by this incompetent Government which actually doesn’t know what it is going to do.

So the National Party does oppose this piece of legislation, because of the costs, the lack of the Government’s understanding of the cost it’s going to have on the industry, the fact that it will not actually reduce overall emissions, and, also, because of the cost that it is going to put on to New Zealanders at the pump during a cost of living crisis for, actually, no benefit whatsoever. We know this is going to put at least an increase of 10c a litre on the price of a litre of fuel. I think that’s the actual real reason why this Government delayed it. They would have known there had been some costs for infrastructure for the fuel companies. They would have known that this would have been incredibly expensive and difficult for them to put in place in that time frame. But, you know, they wanted to push their aspiration anyway. But the real reason is because this thing came along, which they helped create, called the cost of living crisis—the cost of living crisis, which has meant that New Zealanders are paying more at the pump, New Zealanders are paying more for their food and their groceries, interest rates are now going up, meaning that people have less money in their back pockets, and then they thought, “Wouldn’t it be a bit ridiculous if we go out there and increase the fuel excise in election year and then put another 10c a litre on with a biofuel mandate a few months later?”

I think that’s the real reason why they’ve decided to kick the can down the road—because of the politics and the cost of living crisis. That just shows the cynicism this crowd have: they say one thing about aspiration and wanting to change the world, but when the rubber hits the road these guys are just absolutely cynical politicians who will do anything to try and win a vote. That’s actually what is behind this delay. They don’t actually believe in this stuff. They just want to get good headlines in the Guardian and the New York Times and all these other international newspapers. But when it comes to the reality back at home, they actually will be very prepared to do what this bill does, which is kick the can—the biofuel mandate—down the road by another 12 months. So National opposes this (1) because of increased costs, (2) because it will not reduce overall emissions, and we will repeal it when we come to office if we’re elected next year.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The contribution by the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, really just shows how out of touch the National Party really is with the people outside of this place. We know that this generation, especially my generation, is asking our Government and this House collectively to do something about climate change. We are today to start another part of our work in this space.

The Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill means that we are now asking for greenhouse gas to be considered in terms of our fuel production to make sure that we have biofuels in the mix of the fuels that we have to consume. But that is not all. Look, if this was the only thing that our Government had done in this space, I too would agree that this is not enough. But you have to look at it in the whole range of actions we’ve done in this space, including our supplements to our electric vehicles, making sure that there are now more and more electric cars on our roads; the supplements and the support we’ve given to the hydrogen industry, as well—the fact that we’re now setting up infrastructure, solar panels through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund in our schools, our green funds, our schools, our industries, all of our State-owned enterprises, who are making sure that we actually set up the infrastructure.

Look, I think I’ve repeated in this House one Chinese saying over and over again: that the best time to plant a tree is 100 years ago but the second-best time is to do it today. And, because infrastructure actually takes time—anything in the energy sector actually takes time—we’re starting that today. So that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7 p.m.

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

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity and the privilege to rise and take a short call on this bill, the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill, at the first reading.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources Dr Megan Woods, for the work it has taken her and officials to bring it to the House. I would also want to acknowledge the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Transport officials on their work and consultation to the public, and, in particular, the 24 submitters who provided views on this bill.

Through this bill, the Government is strengthening New Zealand’s fuel sector through a suite of initiatives. The bill is a proposal to increase the use of sustainable liquid biofuels in those suite of initiatives within New Zealand, as the Government looks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. As we know, the transport sector across the motu is contributing and is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. The Government debated this in the House earlier this year when I wasn’t here, but it was supported by Labour, Greens, and the National Party then.

The improvements pave the way for a more stable, low-emissions supply, a greater choice for consumers, and a more competitive fuel market. Biofuels are made from renewable biomass such as plants, and liquid biofuels are a renewable, low-emissions fuel that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. They’re not dependent—they’re not as dependent on new fuel infrastructure or new vehicles as other ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as electric vehicles.

The bill was introduced for any entity that imports or refines the fossil fuels for transport to New Zealand, which must be reduced. The scale of this work needs to be increased. The targets provide an achievable pathway for the Labour Government’s commitment to reduce emissions to achieve its climate change commitments. It is better for motorists, fuel producers—significant change—and retailers. The Environmental Protection Authority will monitor how well wholesalers are carrying out their responsibility. The Emissions Reductions Plan has targets for 2035, but in reality we need to avoid the increasing of emissions. It is where the rubber hits the road. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I was in here for a brief period before the dinner break, and we heard lots of hashtags being passed around. I think, on this bill that is called the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill, we should call it another #BadLabourBill. Or we could call it a #WriteItOnPaperAndItWillMiraculouslyWorkBill, because that actually seems to be what Minister Megan Woods wishes for, every time she puts a piece of legislation or tries to do something. It doesn’t have the climate change effect that she thinks it’s going to have. We all know that there are only four weeks of this Parliament to sit before Christmas. We all know that Christmas trees often have fairies on the top, and we all know that the Christmas fairy will probably not gain the wish of the promises that we’ve had on biofuel targeted to reduce emissions from the other side of the House tonight, because it cannot be possible to wave a magic wand and magic this stuff up.

There have been lots of quotes on the other side of the House about how many tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions this bill, with these black and white words, is going to reduce. I have to actually say it takes a bit more than words on a piece of paper to do that. I’ll give you a classic example, because back in 2018, when the oil and gas ban was done, and I know—I heard somebody in the House before dinner break saying, “But the problem is we have coal because we don’t have enough gas.” Well, 80 percent of the gas we had available for exploration before that bill the investors have walked away from, and that’s actually reality. Jonathan Young told the members on that side of the House, time and time and time again, that if this bill passed, the investment was going to walk away. So there’s one failure. I don’t know how that coal that’s being imported from Indonesia is going to make any difference to climate change. That was one promise, which makes me believe that the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill is not going to make any difference.

The second thing that we have been hearing about, and I particularly talked a lot about this to the industry when I was the energy spokesperson, is Lake Onslow. Everyone’s accusing the electricity industry of everything at the moment, in pricing and all the rest of it, but, actually, when you put a big white elephant out there on the horizon, it means people are going to be nervous about investing and they’re not going to be—there’s a lot of resource consents that are already approved that haven’t got the investment going in it because people are nervous, because you put this big white elephant out on the horizon. It’ll take a long time to build, if it ever gets built—and I hope it doesn’t. But that is another thing that’s actually constraining us from reducing our climate change.

So biofuels is only the next one. No idea from this Government or the speakers that we’ve had so far on biofuels about what the consequences—

Hon Poto Williams: What’s your climate change policy then, know-it-all?

BARBARA KURIGER: —are of this piece of legislation. It’s only a shame, it’s only a shame—and if we’re going to do some name calling in this House; I haven’t done any name calling in this House tonight, Minister, but that’s fine if you want to call me a know-it-all.

What I was going to say is, actually, all these predictions of people saying this is how much carbon dioxide emissions we’re going to save, they actually won’t be here next year to come back and tell us, or the year after, because, you know, there is going to be a change of Government. We’ve heard a lot tonight about #NationalDoesntHaveAPlan. Well, National does actually have a plan, and guess what National’s #Plan is? The #Plan is to actually understand that politicians know far less than what the industries know about achieving these goals. Gosh, listen to them. It’s quite interesting over there tonight. They’re not actually interested in alternative views; they’re only interested in their own. It’s actually really interesting. So when you trust an industry who have the skills, normally they have the people—most of them are a bit struggling for people at the moment because this Government’s actually made people pretty scarce. By keeping the immigration standards pretty low, they’ve made people scarce. But all of the industries who are likely to produce these biofuels are industries that actually have an understanding of technically how to do it, technically how to invest in it, technically how to make it happen. Where National has a plan is that, actually, the industries are the best-placed people to be able to come and explain to Governments how things need to be done.

Unfortunately, this is a top-down Government. They put it in a piece of legislation, they put it on a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work. I challenge anyone—there’s still one more speaker to go on this bill. There’s still one more speaker to go on this bill before the end of the night, and I challenge anyone to stand up and take speech 12 and tell me where the feedstocks for these biofuels are going to come from, because often they vary. They can end up even being damaging to the environment, and they can be damaging to food security. You know, it’d be terrible, wouldn’t it, if it ended up like the coal and we didn’t have enough feedstock in this country to do it ourselves and we had to start importing it.

I guess the most we can hope for is that there will be a few trees that will actually come down the countryside, because there are so many, perhaps, trees being planted in the wrong place that actually aren’t going to end up in any forestry and aren’t going to do grandchildren any favours that, actually, some of that might end up being a stock for a biofuel at some point in the future. But most of those trees have only been planted for two or three years, so it’s going to be a very long time. I heard Simon Court say before about pine cones and some of the pie-in-the-sky stuff that we might be able to use pine cones. Well, again, it’s nearly Christmas—maybe we should spray them with gold paint and hang them on the tree and just wait a while for the tree to grow, because, actually, this is a ridiculous notion, this piece of legislation. It’s set to increase the price of fuel by about 10c a litre, and we all know right now that people can’t afford their vegetables, let alone the fuel to fill up their car. It’s going to disadvantage low-income families who cannot afford to buy a hybrid or an electric vehicle, and they can’t afford to get that tax rebate on a Tesla that everyone keeps getting, because the Government has actually set the levels of the tax completely wrong.

So I challenge somebody on that side of the House to stand up and tell me exactly how much we’re going to save, how we’re going to get the stock for the biofuel, how we’re going to process it, and how we’re going to magically—it’s all very well to declare climate emergencies. It’s all very well to, you know, think that this works in theory, but it doesn’t always.

We over this side of the House, we know that climate change is real, and we always said we would support the targets, but where we’ve got really different views is the path to get there—it’s the place where we always do the most arguments. The problem is this Government always knows best and it tries to think it can tell industry what to do and miraculously these things are going to happen. So where these industries are going to get biofuel from—we want an explanation.

Also, the other thing is there’s a lot of vehicles that don’t actually work with biofuel, or the levels of biofuel for some vehicles are far too high. Many New Zealanders around the country own or belong to clubs which drive classic cars or motorbikes that can only run on certain types of petrol. What’s going—

Maureen Pugh: Hot rods.

BARBARA KURIGER: Hot rods, exactly, Maureen—hot rods. What’s going to happen when they put this petrol in their car with the amount of biofuels that won’t make it run? Has anyone got an answer on that? There’s a lot of things that we’d like to hear on this side of the House that we’re not currently hearing.

It’s interesting, because the Minister’s actually recently slowed down the time frame. Now, we believe that that’s probably got something to do with the fact that it’s not such a palatable option as it might have been in terms of the targets because it’s election year coming up next year. Early Wednesday morning, the Government announced $20 million in climate compensation, and then three hours later Megan Woods announced she’d be postponing the transport biofuels mandate by a year. So, everyone ask yourself what that means. We look forward to some answers. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s been some comments made tonight about what we could call this bill, and if I was going to rename this bill, I would rename it the “National Have Their Head in the Sand Bill”, because climate change—as the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, has said—is real. In my community of Nelson, we’ve had some of the worst floods on record as a result of climate change. It’s an issue that affects our vulnerable communities, and we have obligations as a country to put legislation in place, as a Government, to reduce the effects of climate change on our people and on our planet.

The previous speaker made some comments—and I think it’s fair to ask questions. It’s fair to make comments and raise concerns around the sustainability of biofuels. We don’t want biofuels to end up causing more problems than the problem that they’re seeking to address. So the previous member asked—it is in the bill. If you read the bill, it actually states that “the Minister must be satisfied that any activities that are associated with the cultivation, production, and processing of feedstocks … are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on biodiversity”. It goes on to say “are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on food and feed security”. And there’s more in the bill that specifically states that biofuels can’t also do harm. We will not be approving biofuels that cause other forms of harm.

And, we, as I’ve said, as a Government, have obligations to our vulnerable communities in the Pacific and our low-lying areas in parts of the world that will be affected by climate change. It will be the poorest people that will pay the price, and we have obligations. This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation 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.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to Environment Committee

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move, That the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill be reported to the House by 27 April 2023.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee

House in Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.

Bills

Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Electoral Act 1993

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. We come first to the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill.

Members, before we commence the debate on Part 1, I remind the committee that clause 5 proposes to amend section 35 of the Electoral Act 1993, which is a reserved provision under section 268 of that Act. Therefore, a vote on this provision will be taken separately after the vote on the amendments and the vote on the remaining provisions of the bill. Clause 5 will stand part if the vote is carried by at least 75 percent of all members of the House, which is 90 or more members. I will also scrutinise any amendments to the bill as they are lodged to check whether they also need the support of the special majority. Members, we come first to Part 1.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair, I’m very pleased to be here for the committee stage of this very important piece of legislation, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—a bill which will reduce barriers to Māori participating in elections, strengthening this Government’s commitment to honouring both our electoral system and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I’ll keep these introductory remarks very brief, but I want to acknowledge every single party in this House that will be voting for a Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled this evening which would amend one of the provisions in this bill to ensure that there is a hold, three months out from a general election—a local body election—which is aligned with the by-election provisions.

So, to our counterparts in the Opposition, the National Party, to our counterparts the ACT Party, to the Green Party, and, of course, to Labour, I just want to commend the collective will of this Parliament to see an equitable outcome which will enable an increased and enhanced participation rate of Māori in our electoral system.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to acknowledge the Minister in introducing the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which has changed. So for those tuning in, not necessarily following the way that the Parliament works, when the Government of the day introduces a bill—and the purpose of this bill is to move away from a five-yearly option, so when people are either on the Māori roll or the general roll, once every five years, linked with the census, in order to have the populations right, people have a chance to switch rolls if they are of Māori descent.

So the purpose of this bill is to enable people to switch at any time, not just wait for every five years. That makes it certainly easier, and if people decide that they want to be on a different roll and vote on the general roll or on the Māori roll, then they have the chance to do that. So that was introduced and we had our first reading. And National opposed the bill because we were concerned, particularly, as the bill, as introduced, excluded by-elections from a certain amount of time around a by-election that you couldn’t switch between rolls. Because people were naturally worried that people who might be on the Māori roll in an area, and say there was a by-election in Rotorua—I’m sure that wouldn’t happen with Todd McClay but if, say, there was—if they were able to switch and vote in that by-election, then that would undermine confidence in the way the system worked.

Now, the previous Minister of Justice who introduced this, Kris Faafoi, in writing to me referred to the concern around tactical roll switching. We just held the view that the logic, as it applied to by-elections, equally applied to general elections and increasingly, of course, local body elections where there are a large number of Māori wards. So we asked that the Government consider this.

Now, during the select committee process, which is after the first reading, when people from different sides of the House get together, we hear submissions, and where concerns were raised on all sides—some people wanted even more substantial changes—the Government members didn’t listen to our concerns, particularly, and didn’t make any changes. However, the Minister did at the subsequent stage in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper, and we’re grateful for that. Some cynics have said it’s just because 75 percent is required and they need our support. I’m sure that that’s not just the case actually, but I think the Minister was genuine in her concern to have widespread support for what is a significant electoral change—as this is.

And this gives us the opportunity to make it easier for people to switch between rolls, but also to have that period, three months, around an election when, in an MMP environment, there is movement potentially around if you happen to be on one roll but be in a place where one election is very tight and marginal and the other one is a foregone conclusion—then to have one group able to choose between which one they want to vote for right up in the lead-up to the election, we thought, wasn’t appropriate.

So with that change, which is part of this SOP introduced by the Minister, if it passes, which it sounds like it’s going to, the bill will be different from what it looked like when it came into Parliament, but it will come out the other end achieving its purpose, which is to make it easier for people of Māori descent to engage in politics and be on a roll that suits them best and also will retain widespread support in the House.

And I think that’s a good way of doing things when we’re dealing with electoral law, and so I would just finish by just encouraging the Minister and the Labour Party in particular to adopt that approach generally when it comes to electoral law. Because it’s tempting, when one has a majority, to arrange the rules to suit, but it’s better if it’s done across the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. As my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has done, I want to start by acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan. We’ve had good engagement with her, and it’s important, for the reasons that Mr Goldsmith has outlined, in the area of electoral law, that we have an enduring system. These are the rules of the game by which we must all play. So the engagement of the Minister has been helpful in that regard. I don’t know what engagement she has had with other parties. No doubt she would have reached out to them, and she made a point, in her opening remarks on Part 1, of noting the importance of getting non-partisan consensus. So I think that’s really positive.

Of course, in the spirit of enlightened self-interest, there is the aspect of the entrenched provisions of the Electoral Act. It might have been the case—and, indeed, we’ve heard from the Speaker of the House and now, also, the Chair of the committee that it is the case—that, for certain changes being made within this legislation, it would have required 75 percent of the House. Having said that, just to acknowledge, if the Government had wanted, the Government could have passed by simple majority a repeal of the entrenchment provisions. So it could have got to where it wanted had it wished to force its will upon the Parliament, and therefore the country, but they’ve done the right thing by having that discussion with us. So I wanted to start just by acknowledging that.

I think the only remarks that I would really make in relation to Part 1 would be just understanding the mechanics of how it is that a person can change rolls. We’ve talked about the fact that we want roll changing to be maximised—and therefore the interests of democracy to be served by maximising voter participation in the way that that feels right to those persons who are able to exercise that option—without, of course, jeopardising the integrity of the system as a whole. We’ve talked about that enough at previous stages, but, in terms of the mechanics of how this operates, I guess I do have probably only three questions, and they’re reasonable short. I’ll just give you a heads-up, Madam Chair; I’m not seeking particularly to prolong the matter, but a couple of important points, I think, are worth putting on the public record.

One is that, in exercising the option we see in the amendment to section 78, which is clause 6 within the bill—so that’s talking about exercising the option not only in writing but also the opportunity to do that in an approved electronic medium by providing the required information—I presume that the intent there is to align the exercise of the Māori electoral option at this different timing in a way that is consistent with other ways that people can update their details on the electoral roll; and also just to test with the Minister her thinking about voting by electronic means. I think I’m right in saying that most voices within the Parliament are nervous about electronic voting per se. But it’s worth acknowledging that overseas-based New Zealanders can cast a vote, I think, by faxing it through, of all things, which is kind of amusing in itself. I’ve some written questions on the use of faxing, and as soon as those telegrams arrive in your office, Minister, I look forward to your response by pigeon post!

But, actually, in all seriousness, just to sort of get a feel for, as it will be, amended section 78(1)(b), “approved electronic medium”, and just to see if there were any thoughts you have about the way that we want to make it easier for people, whether in this bill or going forward, and in relation to the Māori electoral roll or general roll, to exercise their preference for being on a particular roll and indeed for voting by some method other than a physical piece of paper and ticking a physical box. I invite any comments you may have in that space.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): First of all, just to the member Christopher Penk, thank you for your considered contributions on these constitutionally significant matters. I appreciate that you always turn your thoughtful eye to these issues with diligence.

With respect to the first question, just on the operational mechanics, the Electoral Commission has a plan for how they will implement the continuous option. The plan is that they will deliver a nationwide public information and education plan to ensure that voters are aware of the option, how they can make their choice, etc., and what it means for them. They will be running this educational and informational drive through personalised mail-outs to all those enrolled of Māori descent with information about how they may switch between rolls if they choose to. They’ll also receive texts and/or email messages where their information is available. They intend to run a targeted community engagement via face-to-face and digital channels, work with various Māori groups, and then advertising across multimedia channels, public information on the commission’s websites and the like.

I guess that ties a little bit into the second question, just in terms of practically how people can go about amending their roll. As you correctly point out, new section 78, set out in clause 6, sets out the ways in which they may indicate their new choice. So an approved electronic medium, as I best recall, is that there are digital applications that can be filled online via the Electoral Commission, but it may, indeed, include some fancy form of facsimile. I will have to get a briefing from my officials there, but the general way that that will be done is through the forms on the Electoral Commission’s website.

With respect to the, I guess, hypothetical situation of electronic voting, the member may be aware that there is an Independent Electoral Review Panel that’s been established to look at a broad range of areas. This, I’m sure, is a part of that, where they look at how we can increase participation in democracy, but I thank the member for his question.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I would like to express our thanks for the work that you’ve done on this bill as well, including looking at some of the concerns that we, as a party, had towards this. Again, this was a bill where we agreed with the concept in being able to allow Māori to change, we were hoping only once every electoral cycle, but agree with your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 280 that people would be able to change the rolls that they’re on as long as it’s not within three months of a local election, by-election, or a general election.

The questions that I have for you, Minister, include—well, there’s a couple of them. One is: why was it set at three months? Is there a possibility it could’ve been six? And if so, I wouldn’t mind tabling a SOP or an amendment to make it six months instead of the three months, which we would be happier with. So I just would like some clarity around why it’s three months and whether or not we could actually look to make it six.

Also, Minister, I just wonder if you could explain to us, please, with this ability to be able to change, except for three months out from one of those three options, how, if in any way, is it going to affect changing boundaries for electoral areas, and, potentially, how would it change electoral seats, especially for Māori seats and those greater boundary areas as well? I’m just wondering, Minister, whether you’re able to address that, because some of the concerns about using the system to game—it can still be there. So I’m just hoping that you can alleviate that concern for those viewers at home. Thank you.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just first of all, I acknowledge the member and their party for engaging constructively through the process, and also for the questions raised this evening. I think that when we can get full agreement of the Parliament on these types of issues, that’s such a successful state for democracy in New Zealand. So me mihi, ka tika, kei a koe e te tuakana [I must be sure to thank you, sister].

The three-month period was selected because it aligns with what is the regulated period, essentially, for elections. So it’s the period where, particularly in a general election, traditionally parties, candidates, really begin to step up their electoral campaigning efforts. So it was to align with that regulated period. Obviously, there were views given to a broad range of periods right from as the bill was, prior to now, relatively free range through to larger exemptions and extensions. It was deemed that this was, essentially, the most appropriate time when people become quite interested, and if there was a hint of gaming or those types of things, it would become most evident in that three months during that regulated period.

Just trying to recall the member’s second question with respect to changing boundaries. With respect to changing boundaries, that’s done once every parliamentary term. It’s done by an independent—well, the Electoral Commission stewards and facilitates with cross-party support. So it wouldn’t change the electoral boundaries but for that period directly after an election.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for that engagement following my first question—that was really helpful, actually, to get bit of a sense of how the Electoral Commission would be looking to engage. And I’d be remiss, I suppose, for not mentioning that the Electoral Commission, of course, is the body that is responsible for the running of elections that are general in nature, as opposed to local—and that’s been the subject of some discussion recently, and I think the National Party’s made pretty clear its view that it should be the Electoral Commission that’s also responsible for running local government elections. However, that’s by the by in terms of this bill.

In terms of Part 1, which we remain on, obviously, at this stage, I’m just interested in teasing out a scenario in which an election is called and where the choice has been made by a Māori person to go from one roll to the other quite recently—such that they would be within the period of time that they’re not allowed to change before an election, and then the election having been called would actually put them in that window. Now, in fairness to the bill, as it was introduced to the House, this situation was contemplated at least somewhat. So looking at section 78Aas it would be, within the legislation—that’s under clause 6—that’s saying that the “Māori option [would be] paused for registered electors and persons on dormant roll if by-election called”.

So whoever’s drafted the legislation, or the policy intent behind it, and the very smart people who have helped put it together have acknowledged that there’s a situation where it’s not an attempt to game the system; it’s just an accident of timing that a person has said “I want to change my roll from Māori to general” or vice versa, and a by-election is called—a “notice of vacancy [has been] published” in the language of the statute and, indeed, the way we operate business in the case of by-elections. We’ve had a couple of by-elections, or will have a couple of by-elections this year; we’re all far too familiar with these mechanisms!

But the legislation has contemplated that. And just so everyone’s aware, what happens then is that the Electoral Commission has to pause at that point. So they don’t process applications that they’ve got sitting on their desks in a pile; maybe a virtual pile or a physical pile of papers, I’m not sure. But they won’t process those until such time as the election’s finished, because that would fall foul of the rule against processing applications during that certain period before a by-election.

And, similarly, with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 280, that the Minister has introduced, saying that that stand-down period, if you want, also applies to local elections and general elections, the equivalent provision’s there. So that’s good; so far so good. I think I’m right in saying that the Minister would intend, and the policy intent is, that if a person happens to want to change roll and then a general election is called, or a local election or a by-election—in whatever instance it is, a person shouldn’t have that undone; their wish to change rolls shouldn’t be undone by the fact that the election would take place within that certain period. And I think that would be fair, because they’re not doing it to game the system; they’re just doing it at a certain moment in time and it just so happens that an election gets called.

But if I’ve made my question clear enough for the Minister to give an answer, then I’ll certainly welcome her comments on that.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): In sum, if a Prime Minister calls a snap election tomorrow, and you’d just changed your roll yesterday, does that stay valid? Yep. So in SOP 280, at what will become the new section 78AA(4), it sets out—this is on page 2 of the SOP—the relevant period: if less than three months’ of polling day is given that the period commences on that day on which public notice of the polling day is given, and it ends on the polling day itself.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. That’s actually a really helpful answer, and if anyone had just tuned into Parliament TV at exactly the wrong moment, they would have heard a Minister of the Government talking about a snap election being called tomorrow. But it was a hypothetical; to be fair, she did say “if”. So that’s helpful engagement actually, not least of all because I clearly hadn’t read the Supplementary Order Paper fully, but, in my defence, it was only dropped this afternoon. So that’s helpful. That’s, I think, actually really useful lawmaking in the sense that that scenario, unusual as it is—and certainly, as I say, wouldn’t necessarily arise as a result of someone trying to game the system, but nevertheless could be something that was potentially problematic—actually has been contemplated. So that’s a good news story.

I’ve got one more question actually, in relation to Part 1, and then, pending other colleagues’ questions and comments, certainly that would be my dash done. It’s just in relation to section 77 as it will be within the primary legislation, or the legislation that we’re amending, which is “Exercise of Māori option”. So this is “Exercise of option by 17-year-olds”. Just to get a bit of a feel for what the intent there is, and I presume that the idea is that in the same way that we allow people to apply for registration as an elector—maybe the 18th birthday’s coming up and they’ll be able to vote in the general election, but until such time as they turn 18, if we don’t have a mechanism like this, then they can’t actually get on the roll. And it might all happen very quickly. We don’t want them to miss their opportunity to #PartyVoteNational—a lot of hashtags have been thrown around tonight, so I just put that out there.

But, anyway, if the Minister can just sort of explain that that is indeed her intent, that would be helpful. I, for one, support it and I think on this side of the House we’d say that mechanisms that apply generally should also apply to the Māori roll of course, and, in relation to the change, which of course only people of Māori descent can change one way or the other, because for the rest of us it’s the general roll or nothing. So without going too deep into that underlying philosophy behind the legislation, just that 17-year-old registration bit, if the Minister can just sort of helpfully elucidate the thinking behind that.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The member is absolutely right in his analysis there. Currently 17-year-olds can enrol to vote. This clarifies and really expressly states that when that 17-year-old goes to enrol on the roll, if they choose to select that Māori option, they are indeed entitled to do that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just wanted to comment on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 282 from the Māori Party, from Rawiri Waititi, who was wanting to change the names that we have in electorates. Currently, it’s the Māori roll and the general roll, and his suggestion is to change the general roll to the “non-Māori roll”. I just wanted to make it clear that we don’t support that. I don’t describe myself as non-Māori; I don’t describe myself as general, either. But, having said that, I don’t think people should be defined by who they’re not, and I don’t think that’s a very helpful distinction to divide the country into Māori and non-Māori. It’s a pity that we haven’t had any real sort of explanation as to what the idea is behind this SOP, but we certainly wouldn’t be supporting it. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper number 280 be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Rawiri Waititi’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 and 282 are out of order as being outside the scope of this bill.

Part 1, excluding clause 5, as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 17, which is the “Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just an even briefer contribution from me on this one. I’ve got even less to say about it. I’m sort of looking nervously in the direction of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who has something dismissive to say, no doubt. My sole question relates to clause 16. It’s to do with amending Schedule 1A where, in new clause 72(2A), there’s a report that’s done, following a census, and it might be that the census has been completed but the report hasn’t yet been completed, and so the legislation is contemplating a situation where the Electoral Commission has to supply, to the Government Statistician, information that’s listed in the Act, and then the Government Statistician has to prepare an alternative report for the purpose of the Act. So it seems like an interim kind of measure whereby if it’s the case that a census has just been conducted and there hasn’t been an opportunity for a report.

So my question, really, in addition to any general comments the Minister of Justice might want to make about it, is: how quickly could we expect this to take place? As soon as practicable after census day? I’m just wondering what would be a reasonable kind of time frame for us to expect in that scenario; not expecting a number of weeks or months or a particular limit to be put on it—a hard limit, certainly. Obviously, there’s a certain extent to which the phrase “as soon as practicable” could mean just that, and it might be that it’s practicable or not to have it within, say, four weeks or—I was going to say four months; really, actually that does sound quite long. Anyway, I’m now at the point where I think I’ve, basically, posed my question. The Minister is engaging with her excellent officials, who will, no doubt, provide some advice, and I’ll just sort of pause for a moment to allow her to get any advice that she needs to be able to answer that.

I’m looking to see if anyone else has any other questions to ask, and, if not, I’ll be in the familiar territory of just, simply, talking anyway, and I think the Hon Mark Mitchell has—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I can ask a question if you sit down.

CHRIS PENK: OK. Well, I will sit down then. Fine!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): One question I had for the Minister is: this is just a clarification that the changes to the definition of the Māori electoral population are indeed, as I understand it, sort of a technical change to ensure that there isn’t an overlap, or that you can’t be on the Māori and general electoral districts, and on the dormant roll at the same time—that there isn’t a policy shift in the way that we calculate people on the Māori roll for the purposes of determining how many Māori seats there are. If I can just get some clarification about that, I’d be keen.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you to both members for the interesting questions. So, to clause 16, my understanding is that this is required—so, where a census is held in the year of a general election, you have an exemption so no boundary redraws occur within that period. That exemption is not required for local body elections; so that’s what that one is there. I just might have to get the member to repeat his question; sorry, I was slightly distracted. Sorry about that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was just asking the Minister to clarify that the changes made to the definition of Māori electoral population, particularly in clause 14, are technical amendments because of the fact that nobody can be on the electoral districts or general roll at the same time as on the dormant rolls, but it hasn’t been a policy decision to change fundamentally the way that the Māori electoral roll is calculated—or number is calculated—as relates to the proportion of Māori seats. So I just want you to clarify that.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that helpful question. Yes, you’re right. So it restates the current position in the Electoral Act, and so no policy changes have been made at all with this one; just pulls it right through.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I just acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Kiritapu Allan, as well, in terms of bringing this piece of legislation to the Justice Committee and the bipartisan approach which she takes to be able to get important legislation like this through the House.

The only point that I was going to raise is sort of in the same vein as my colleague Chris Penk’s, and that is that through both parts, there is quite an important interaction between the Electoral Commission and the Government Statistician—both ways. So the Electoral Commission must, as soon as practicable on census day, supply information to the Government Statistician, and the Government Statistician must prepare an alternative report, which is Schedule 1A.

I was wondering—that interaction is actually really important. There is definitely, without a doubt, some risk that something may go wrong on both sides. And I was just wondering whether the Minister and officials had sort of turned their mind to how that would interact and how there’d be accountability in the legislation should either the Electoral Commission fail to get the information to the Government Statistician or the Government Statistician fail to prepare an alternative report.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I think across all electoral law, that interaction between the Government Statistician and the Electoral Commission is fundamental. They are essentially one half of the other when it comes to working out who should, who can, and who ought to vote in any particular period. One thing that has been quite important as we’ve approached these amendments in this particular bill is that the Ministry of Justice has worked very closely with Statistics New Zealand on all these amendments to ensure that those critical relationships carry through and anything that’s been touched by this amendment for the Māori electoral option has been caught up. So my understanding is, and I’ve been advised, that Statistics New Zealand are comfortable with the engagement and with what’s been set out in this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 280 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Rawiri Waititi’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 Title and Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, the debate on the title and commencement.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question—and probably reasonably easily expressed—around the time frame, commencement date. I wonder if the Minister gave any thought to having the Act come into effect on 1 January, given that so much of electoral law is based around the idea of an election year being a key concept and a key marker for various obligations; as opposed to 31 March 2023.

I mean, it might be that that time is needed for the systems of the Electoral Commission to come into effect or for the information campaign to gear up and so on. So not suggesting that the date that’s set down isn’t appropriate, but just to get a feel for the reason, particularly, that that was chosen, as distinct from marking 1 January, which of course, in the case of 2023, almost certainly will mark the start of an election year.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, we did turn our mind to that provision. It would have been ideal if we could have kicked off all of the necessary forms from 1 January; however, just to enable the system to have the time it needs to adjust and adapt, it was considered it was appropriate to come in on the commencement date, which is 31 March, 2023.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 and Schedule 1, the preliminary provisions. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There’s a certain familiarity to how proceedings are taking place, and I appeal across the Chamber to anyone who feels like helping me out. No doubt the Minister herself, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, will give good contributions as well, so I don’t want it to be too one-sided an affair, that’s all. I know that there are valiant members of the Justice Committee, and another one is about to take her seat, Dr Emily Henderson, who will be very interested in having a discussion and debate about this bill.

We made it clear at the time of the first reading that we agreed with its intent. We did, of course, want to know that the detail was going to work. We had the opportunity in the select committee process to interrogate the detail and to work through that. At the second reading, we made it clear that we supported the changes that were made. We had some good discussions with Labour colleagues who I’m trying to bait into taking calls to join in. There’s nothing wrong with others doing that as well, so I’d look in the direction of my friends from other parties who are also on the Justice Committee; I’m not regularly a member of that, but I was able to join that committee for the purpose of looking at this bill. So I’ve been made aware of a certain amount in that process, and I’d be quite curious to know the Minister’s thinking, just to get it on the record as much as anything in the committee of the whole House kind of a way.

So National security interests—the idea that the security interests of New Zealand and, actually, further afield, which we’ll get into, are important. This is a concept that’s central to the idea that we need security information and proceedings legislation in the first place. We’re acknowledging a situation where the usual rules don’t quite apply. Which is to say that whereas justice should always be as open as possible and the flow of information should be as free as possible, nevertheless, there are situations in which it’s necessary for purposes of national security interests—to use that phrase as defined in Part 1—to consider how the information flow needs to be managed, and the openness of the justice has to be, you know, constrained to some extent. That’s a challenging thing to say aloud, but, nevertheless, the intent, I think, is an entirely reasonable one.

We think the detail’s about right. But, having said that, these are very serious human rights that are involved when we talk about the right to a fair trial and related matters as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for example. So we don’t take lightly the fact that we are limiting people’s rights; we try to do that in a reasonable way, indeed, a “justifiable limitation” if we want to use rights-balancing kind of language.

Anyway, that all brings me to national security interests, which are at the heart of the need to do something at all in this space, and so I see the “security or defence of New Zealand;” is listed as one of the meanings or sub-meanings of national security interests. We’ve got “international relations of the Government of New Zealand;”, we’ve got “security or defence” of “the self-governing State of the Cook Islands;”, “the self-governing State of Niue;”, or “Tokelau;”, or “the Ross Dependency;”, and so on. So, actually, it’s pretty broad. But the one that intrigued me a little bit was “the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence” by the Government of any country, an agency of a Government of any country, or any international organisation. And that’s defined within the Official Information Act, fondly referred to, of course, as the OIA.

So I’m wondering if there’s any situation that the Minister can think about where perhaps there might be security issues involved but that she would envisage would be outside the ambit of the legislation. It seems pretty broad, this kind of definition, and probably rightly so, but if there’s any scenario that she would say, “Well, actually this kind of thing isn’t included”, that would be helpful. And, particularly, I suppose, it’s worth referring to clause 7 within the bill, which says the “Act does not apply to proceedings under [the] Immigration Act 2009”. I’ve just read the heading, but the clause is basically the same. What’s the rationale for having proceedings under the Immigration Act set aside from the ambit of this legislation?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member Chris Penk’s contribution and thoughtfulness as we go through this bill.

So with respect to the wide definition of “national security information”, clause 4 adopts the definition of “national security information” that was recommended by the Law Commission. So that definition there, it identifies a specific interest that may be prejudiced by the disclosure of national security information, and these interests are: New Zealand security; defence operations; international relationships, including information-sharing relationships; and economic interests, including interests related to international trade.

With respect to the breadth of the interest protected by the definition, I think it just illustrates the difficulties of defining the scope of “national security interests” with any specific and particular precision. So the disclosure of national security information in the proceedings could have implications for New Zealand’s obligations to its intelligence-sharing partners. A disclosure of substantive information may not in and of itself pose a security risk, but it could inadvertently lead to the uncovering of intelligence-gathering tools and techniques—for example, the identification of an undercover intelligence officer or agent or informer whose safety would then be put at risk. So part of the difficulty is that there may be degrees of threat to national security, and degrees of importance of national security interests.

With respect to immigration and the queries raised about why this bill doesn’t expressly apply to the Immigration Act, the reason is that—well, there is a sound rationale to treat immigration decisions differently from other decisions involving national security interests. Each of our Five Eyes partners has a specific scheme for dealing with national security interests and immigration cases. So this is despite Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom having a central national security information statute.

Immigration decisions are high-volume areas where decisions are made necessarily rather swiftly and in very close collaboration with foreign partners. So controlling our inward flows across our borders represents quite a unique challenge, particularly the need to rely on sensitive information sourced from overseas partners.

Immigration, as well, is an area where the executive has the prerogative to exercise significant discretion about who can and who cannot enter into, or stay in, New Zealand. So our international partners require assurances that information that they share with us would not be disclosed. The current immigration scheme explicitly prevents the court from disclosing national security information, which is an appropriate setting in the immigration context. In the immigration sphere, protecting our borders from people who present a high risk, and quickly providing certainty and finality have been the critical determiners there.

Just finally, I’ll note that it was observed by the Law Commission that the current immigration scheme contains sufficient protections for non-Crown parties, including the provision of special advocates.

So, overall, I think I’m satisfied that the right balance has been struck with respect to a separate national security interest scheme for immigration at this time.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Procedures to protect security information in proceedings

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 8 to 28, “Procedures to protect security information in proceedings”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just a couple within this part from me at least. I know Todd Muller is looking forward to taking a couple of calls on it as well. He’s told me how interesting he’s found the debate so far. I think the only thing that could possibly make it more interesting was if he were to join in.

Hon Member: Go, Todd!

Arena Williams: Come on, Todd. Let’s go, woohoo!

CHRIS PENK: Well, members of the Justice Committee are encouraging. I think they should look in the mirror.

But, anyway, seeing as I’ve currently got the dubious honour of being on my feet to talk about Part 2 of this Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill, I am interested to know about the role of the special advocate. It’s a key feature of the legislation that a person is going to be appointed as a “special advocate”, and there are ways that that takes place, and the legislation sets out certain things about what the special advocates will do, of course, and a little bit about what kind of person they should be.

My concern is that it’s quite a specialised kind of role. We’re going to need people who are knowledgeable in the law generally, because a wide range of kinds of matters could come up for the person who happens to have some sort of interesting security situation in their background. Ideally, special advocates will be quite experienced. In any given matter, it will be important that they don’t have a conflict of interest; that’s always the case for lawyers. Obviously, you don’t want someone standing up and appearing who went to law school with the judge or has some other kind of, you know—I was going to say cosy relationship. That’s probably not only disgracefully informal but also probably understates the seriousness of this idea that we have to have people who, in this particular instance, aren’t actually even appointed by the person who’s the subject of the proceedings as their lawyer. This person is imposed. And I don’t mean that rudely, but they’ll be imposed on the person. This is your person who’s going to make sure that your legal rights are not derogated from, they’re the champion, they’re the trusted adviser, and they’re the legal representative, and that’s a very serious thing. So we need to have good people, people who are appropriate for the role of special advocate, appointed to such.

I just really hope that we have enough such people in our justice system, in our legal profession, who haven’t been burnt out or found another area of practice that they want to hold, and so on, such that they’re not available for this important task, to the extent that it’s possible. I know the Minister doesn’t have a magic wand to wave over the profession, but, you know, it is a challenging time at the moment for the legal profession, particularly with courts under a huge amount of strain generally, huge amount of stress, burnout—all these issues are familiar to us as people who take an interest in the justice system in general. Particularly with relation to the special advocate then, I ask the Minister: is she confident that we will have enough such people available to fill these roles, to be on the panel, and so forth?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity just to respond to some of the insightful questions from my colleague Chris Penk. The role of the special advocate, I think, will be quite critical to the operational aspects of these procedures. But what I’ll just make a brief note on is that it’s not a novel solution. So, you know, we’ve seen, for example, the Immigration Act and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act—they make express provision for the use of special advocates. And, in these areas, prior, the court’s also relied on its inherent jurisdiction, in some cases, to appoint special advocates, with the consent of parties, to lessen the risk of closed-court procedures undermining the affected party’s right to natural justice. The only other brief note I’ll make there is that this is something that the Law Commission recommended.

With all those caveats that you rightly raise around capacity, competency, etc., there is a process as to who can be appointed as a special advocate, as you rightly pointed to, in clause 17. One thing I will note, though, is that the—and it might not have been as clear on a brief read. I make no comment as to the member’s observations here, but the non-Crown party, as opposed to having a special advocate imposed upon them, can choose their special advocate. So they can nominate a lawyer from a panel; that’s sort of set out there at clause 17(2). They are provided with a list, so that list will have a range of special advocates that the court deems appropriate, and then, from that grouping, the individual can therefore choose who would be appropriate to be their special advocate and represented on the panel. But there is some element of choice there.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Minister Hon Kiritapu Allan is fair to point out that it wouldn’t be a complete Hobson’s choice in terms of an advocate being imposed—and I didn’t meant to use that word perhaps as bluntly as I did—but, nevertheless, a person must choose from the panel. So it’s still a limited choice, so I think the Minister’s allowing me to make that point with that reasonable characterisation that there’s an element of choice—not quite “any colour you like as long as it’s black”, but, nevertheless, we are limiting rights. So, you know, to acknowledge the importance of the advocate role and the desirability of having sufficient of them—apart from anything else, that’s encouraging to hear that the Government’s turned its collective mind to that.

I did have at least one other question in relation to Part 2, and it’s to do with clause 12. So this is the “Obligation to give [the] court, special advocate, and special adviser access to security information”. So this is a scenario where the Crown is obliged to give the authorised court “access to any security information at issue in the specified proceeding.” So, more or less, there’s an obligation of disclosure. Of course, the Crown, which is the party that’s, effectively, going to be making a case against the non-Crown party, has got to provide access to that security information. My question is: what’s the consequence if that doesn’t happen or, probably in more real terms, if it happens quite late in proceedings?

The reason I ask is it’s not just a hypothetical, theoretical point for the sake of filling in a committee of the whole House stage, my understanding or, certainly, my knowledge—based on discussions with defence lawyers at the moment in general proceedings, so outside the security realm—is that it can be the case that the Crown can—for example, police prosecutors—disclose quite late in the piece information that they hold that’s relevant, to which the defendant or accused is entitled. And if the lawyer for that person gets the information very much last minute but the trial proceeds anyway, then that can put them at quite a disadvantage, actually. So, notwithstanding that, the technical obligation—yes, the information has been disclosed and, you know, let’s have the trial now.

I guess what I’m really sort of angling for is some sort of indication from the Minister, to the extent she can give it, yes—and we’re talking about the court procedures and the executive doesn’t run those, rightly so—that she can provide some comfort or some direction about how she envisages the policy to play out if it’s the case that the Crown provides the information that they’re required to provide, but quite late in the piece—I would like to think that the non-Crown party wouldn’t be disadvantaged by that.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Oh, this is actually a very interesting question, which goes to some of the broader issues that are occurring within the courts right now, which the member rightly raises. It’s outside the scope of this bill, but I note that the work that’s been done through the Criminal Process Improvement Programme (CPIP) at the moment is directly targeted at looking at these types of issues around disclosure and when non-Crown parties are getting the relevant information etc. And I think that there’s a bit of room to run there, and there’s some learnings that will be taken from the CPIP trial, if you will, that will probably address and align, I think, with some of the observations you’ve heard from some of your defence legal colleagues.

Those issues to the side for the second, with respect to clause 12 of the bill and the obligations that it imposes, you’re right: the Crown must provide access to the information. So where the information is relevant, the Crown must always disclose to a non-Crown party. I know that your question was more around the timeliness and others, but, as I think we’re all collectively aware, there are no hard-wired time frames for disclosure currently, across these types of proceedings. But I do think, as I’ve sort of alluded to, there is some scope there and some learnings that we’re taking from the CPIP process, which I think may have an impact here as well.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. My final question under Part 2 is in relation to clause 28, “Agreed general practices and procedures”. I thought this was interesting just to highlight that what we’ve got here is a situation where the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General are being asked, I think, in essence, to agree on general practices and procedures that might be necessary to implement special procedures and ensure that security information is protected at all times. It’s just interesting to me because normally, of course, in legislation, an obligation is framed as an obligation—you know, it would be, for example, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, agree on any general practices, and so on. Here we are just saying “may”. I presume that’s sort of a deference to the courts; in this place, we shouldn’t be instructing the Chief Justice on how to do her job—currently her job. But, nevertheless, presumably the Minister would agree with me that it’s going to be absolutely central to the operation of this law that general practices and procedures are necessary to ensure the protection of security information.

Of course, again, that’s at the heart of the whole regime, the idea that there is such thing as security information, that there are such things as national interests in relation to security, and that’s protecting individuals who give us this information or intelligence, and it’s to protect our reputation and our interoperability with Five Eyes partners and others. So any assurance the Minister can give about her expectation, framed, of course, in the language that’s appropriate for the comity between Parliament, the executive, and the courts.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely correct—the language in this provision is structured to acknowledge comity and to avoid any inference that the executive would be directing the Chief Justice to undertake any particular action. So, as is appropriate, the agreement will be struck, and, as the provision sets out, on a basis that is as soon as practicable.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Security information in civil proceedings

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 29 to 47 and schedule 2, the “Security information in civil proceedings”. The question is that Part 3 stand part. I call on Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, I thought you might, and I thank you for it. Really, just in relation to Part 3, I mean it’s probably worth noting for anyone following along, this is the civil proceedings, as opposed to criminal proceedings. It’s still important. There might be security information that is swirling round, and the conduct of a person might explain their actions, might explain their rights and responsibilities in relation to a matter that’s actually just civil in nature; it’s not that they’ve done anything wrong, or even potentially done anything wrong, under the criminal law, but, nevertheless, the information has to be out there because it might explain why they’ve done a thing or not done a thing that they should have done.

So any thoughts the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan can provide about the difference between this civil regime versus the criminal would be helpful, but, you know, not particularly asking for a long exposition either. I just think it’s interesting to note that we’re covering both sides of the civil-criminal divide.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The member is doing very well tonight in his line of inquiry; well done. So, yes, turning to the security information in civil proceedings, Part 3 of the bill, the right to natural justice is fundamental to the integrity of our justice system. The bill has safeguards to protect the rights of affected parties and is consistent with the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Where an application is made for information to be treated as national security information, the court will be required to use a closed-court process for a preliminary hearing. The Law Commission turned their mind to this and they considered that it was acceptable to adopt a closed procedure at this preliminary stage to protect the information until there has been a determination on whether it should be disclosed to the affected party.

During the preliminary hearing, the court will determine if the information is national security information and how it should be protected during their substantive hearing. The affected party will be excluded from the closed preliminary hearing, but they will have their interested represented by, as we’ve discussed, a special advocate. The judge and the special advocate will have full access to all the national security information that is the subject of the application and that is at issue in those proceedings.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 4, which is the debate on clauses 48 to 150 and Schedules 3 to 9, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 4 stand part. I call on Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, of course you do. I don’t really actually have much to say in Part 4, but I would just point out that the translation service failed us when Paul Goldsmith was speaking before. I couldn’t understand him, so I just wondered if someone could sort that out for the future.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): It’s a good point, Madam Chair. I think we do need to understand what Paul Goldsmith’s saying most of the time, and perhaps a translation service might be adequate. My question to the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan is: your Supplementary Order Paper 273, Minister, is looking at pulling the legislation into two pieces of legislation, and I’m wondering why that is. It’s an omnibus bill anyway. So could you just explain to us why we’re pulling Part 4 out and the thinking behind that, please?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, and I think that, on behalf of the member, he, Christopher Penk, acknowledges you for your contribution in this debate tonight.

The bill is an omnibus bill and it amends several Acts to implement one single, broad policy. The break up by the Supplementary Order Paper is required to divide the bill into two parts. So that’s the Security Information in Proceedings Bill and then the Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. Break-up Supplementary Order Papers aren’t that common, but are used when an omnibus bill involves both a new principal Act and then significant amendments to a number of other Acts, which is the case here. So dividing the bill in this way, essentially, just avoids cluttering up a new Act with a whole ton of amending provisions, and keeping the amending provisions together in a single bill helps users find in one place the amendments for these reforms.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment replacing Schedule 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 Title and Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to clauses 1 and 2, which is the debate on the title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I move Supplementary Order Paper 273 dividing the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into Security Information in Proceedings Bill and Security Information in Proceedings (Repeal and Amendments) Bill.

House resumed

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment and divided it into the following bills: Security Information in Proceedings Bill and Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments Bill). I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I present a legislative statement on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill was first read on 27 September and it has been the subject of an accelerated process. I want to thank the Primary Production Committee for dealing with the bill so quickly while also maintaining the careful scrutiny and informed consideration that legislation requires.

The bill as introduced sought to strike a balance between enabling Fonterra to pursue its capital restructuring with certainty while managing risks to the wider dairy sector that might arise from that restructuring. The capital structure that Fonterra and its farmer shareholders have chosen is designed to ensure that Fonterra has a sustainable milk supply in the future. This is important for our largest dairy cooperative’s future commercial success, for farmers’ incomes, and for New Zealand’s economy. But the bill also recognises the interests of the wider dairy industry, which collectively remains a mainstay of New Zealand’s prosperity. That is why the bill strengthens existing safeguards in the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) to ensure that the market for farmers’ milk remains contestable. By that I mean that all dairy processors can compete fairly for farmers’ milk and farmers can freely choose which processor they want to sell their milk to.

The Government also wants to make sure that the interests of farmers are well served. That means having a strong, innovative, efficient dairy sector that can meet the challenges and growing complexities of international trading conditions, climate change, efficient and sustainable land use, and consumer demands. I am pleased to see that the select committee has reported the bill back without major changes to the key enabling provisions and safeguards in the bill. I am also pleased that the committee has heard and taken account of the views of the stakeholders and has proposed a number of amendments that will improve clarity and ensure equity and effectiveness of the DIRA regime in the future.

The bill enables Fonterra’s move to a new capital structure by addressing a legal risk that Fonterra might have otherwise faced. It also addresses risk inherent in Fonterra’s new capital structure by strengthening some of the existing regulatory settings in the DIRA. The bill introduces two broad categories of safeguard: (1) measures to support liquidity in the trade of Fonterra shares in its restricted farmer-only market and improve transparency in relation to Fonterra’s performance, and (2) measures to improve the transparency and robustness of the governance operation and Commerce Commission oversight of Fonterra’s base milk price-setting arrangements. I’ll do a short recap of both.

Firstly, on liquidity, Fonterra’s new capital structure will mean that there is a restricted farmers-only market for shares. A restricted market could constrain share trading. Farmers wanting to exit Fonterra may find it more difficult to sell in a timely manner or may have to do so at an undue financial loss. This would mean costs to individual farmers, but it would also mean potential loss to the economy by limiting the ability of farmers to switch milk supply to other potentially more efficient or innovative dairy processors, or to alternative, potentially more sustainable land use. So the bill introduced measures to support liquidity in the trade of Fonterra shares by requiring a market marker to be designated under NZX rules and requiring Fonterra to make independent financial markets research and analysis of its performance accessible to current and future farmers and unit holders. The market marker will offset low trading volumes of Fonterra shares.

The bill ensures that the market maker will be operating in a way that would make it accountable under NZX rules, providing for independent financial markets expert and regulatory oversight. The requirement on Fonterra to make independent financial markets research and analysis available will fill an important information gap that might otherwise result from the capital restructuring. A restricted farmers-only share market will likely attract limited attention from expert market analysis. The bill aims to ensure that current and future farmers and unit holders continue to be well informed about Fonterra’s performance. This, in turn, will help guide future investment decisions.

The bill as reported back also increases the independence and transparency of the base milk price-setting regime. As I have noted before, Fonterra’s size in the market for farmers milk means that it essentially sets the raw milk price for the whole dairy sector. The bill strengthens Fonterra’s base milk price governance by increasing the number of ministerial point nominees on Fonterra’s milk price panel from one to two; requiring the chair of Fonterra’s milk price panel to be fully independent of Fonterra and appointed by Fonterra with the approval of the Minister; and, thirdly, requiring Fonterra to change on at least a six-yearly basis the person or persons charged with calculating the base milk price for Fonterra’s milk price panel. These measures collectively aim to ensure the governance and operation of key elements of Fonterra’s base milk price setting arrangements preserve an appropriate distance from Fonterra’s management and the board.

In addition, the bill strengthens the transparency and scrutiny of Fonterra’s milk price manual and base milk price calculation. The bill gives the Commerce Commission the power to direct Fonterra, if necessary, on matters arising from the Commission’s review of the manual and base milk price calculation and requires Fonterra to disclose non-sensitive information requested by or provided to the Commerce Commission in the course of its reviews of the manual and base milk price calculation.

I am aware that some stakeholders question whether this new power would impose undue costs and process. I anticipate the Commerce Commission will rarely need to resort to actually issuing directions to Fonterra. This new power is primarily intended to incentivise Fonterra to have regard voluntarily to the Commerce Commission’s review findings and recommendations arising from its existing review functions. With the exception of some upfront preparatory funding, extra costs will only be incurred in the rare cases that a direction actually proceeds. The bill also takes a measured approach to the exercise of the Commerce Commission’s new directions power. The direction can only be given after due consultation with Fonterra and consideration of evidence and directions must be clearly aligned with the statutory purpose of the DIRA base milk price regime.

The requirement on Fonterra to disclose non-selective information is also an important factor in the mix of safeguards introduced by the bill. As I’ve already noted, Fonterra, by default, sets the price of raw milk for the dairy sector, and this means that the dairy sector as a whole has to have confidence in the assumptions and inputs that make up the base milk price calculation. The disclosure requirements will help to support that confidence.

The select committee has reported the bill back with some amendments to provisions relating to the base milk price-setting regime and these amendments have regard to matters raised in submissions and will help to avoid potential unintended consequences, and I will run briefly through them. The bill as reported back removes the right of persons other than the Commerce Commission to bring injunction proceedings directly against Fonterra for potential breach of the DIRA base milk price provision. It also removes any right to bring damages claims for breaches of the base milk price provisions. These amendments ensure that the Commerce Commission has the necessary enforcement tools to effectively carry out its new functions under the bill, but avoids potential unintended effects of third parties taking direct enforcement action against Fonterra in relation to its compliance with the DIRA base milk price provision.

The bill as a whole also widens the grounds on which Fonterra could withhold information under the new information disclosure requirements introduced by the bill. The amendments suggested by the Primary Production Committee support the original policy intent of the bill is introduced and, as I have already said, improve both its clarity and effectiveness. I commend this bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, that was a little heavy going, I’d have to say—probably was for people listening over the television—but I will try and add some perspective to it. Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill—we’re here at the second reading. So I will say, from the outset, that the National Party will support this bill. We supported it—

Anna Lorck: Thank you very much, Todd.

TODD MULLER: My pleasure. We supported it through the select committee process, but I have to admit that—as I sat through that process on behalf of the National Party, with my great colleagues Nicola Grigg and Tim van de Molen—this is really a solution trying to find a problem.

Angela Roberts: Tell that to the Fonterra shareholders.

TODD MULLER: They say, “Tell that to the Fonterra shareholders.” So I will unpack that a little bit. The elements of the Fonterra request were saying, “Hey, look, we want the opportunity to manage our own capital structure. We’ve run an extensive process through our own shareholder base. We’ve agreed that we would like to make these changes that, essentially, decouple the unit fund from the shareholder fund. And we would like to be able to make a couple of amendments to make that happen.”

Now, to your point of interjection, had the Government simply said, “Yes, that’s fine. That makes a whole lot of sense. We’ll do that.”, we could have run with this; my speech would be shorter, and I would be saying, “Well done, Government. You’ve actually got the balance right.” But, no, as is often the case when it comes to issues relating to the dairy industry, and to Fonterra in particular, now we need to have this significant debate again around what additional powers we need to put in for the Commerce Commission, to assure ourselves that the milk price manual and the milk price itself is not in any way being distorted.

This has been at the core of the perspective that Minister O’Connor has brought to the dairy sector for 20 years. Right when Fonterra was established, back in 2002, he had a very strong view that, because it had significant, and it does have significant, market power, there wouldn’t be a regulation or a constraint or a rule that couldn’t be imagined to make it harder for them to be able to land on a milk price, in terms of their disclosure requirements—of their requirement to be able to show what they do and how they calculate it—directly to the Commerce Commission annually. And this has been the tension with a business that has this scale: what is the appropriate regulatory balance—or constraint, if you like—that needs to wrap around their organisation? Here we have a scenario where Fonterra says, “We’ve done the consulting. We want to make this change to our capital structure. We want the ability to do that.”, but, oh no, on direction from the Minister, the Ministry for Primary Industries has to come with a whole lot of additional obligations with respect to the milk price.

Just let’s have a look at some of those. Now we have an independent chair. We have two members appointed by the Minister, because apparently the previous model, where there was one appointed by the Minister, wasn’t independent enough; so we needed to have two more. The Commerce Commission, which reviews the milk price annually and has done for the last 10 years, not only the milk price but also the manual—for 10 years the Commerce Commission has pored over the processes that happen internally to make sure that the milk price is calculated in the appropriate way. And, over 10 years, there have been two changes, which have seen a change, in one year, of 1c and, in the other year, of 2c. So, as opposed to looking at this and going, “Actually, it sounds like we’ve got the appropriate regulatory scrutiny right here.”, the Government says, “No, we want more independence that has to sit in that milk price panel.” Of course, not surprisingly, Fonterra’s competitors say, well, that move to more independent directors isn’t enough; there should be a whole lot more than just the, effectively, three that there are at the moment.

So what else has this Government identified through this process? A huge obligation on Fonterra to report, to disclose its approach with respect to the calculations, and some of that, frankly, from our perspective as a committee, actually went too far. So, in the amendments that we as a committee have decided make sense—in the proposed new section 150JA(2), which focuses on non-sensitive information—we defined that to enable Fonterra to be able to withhold information that was commercially sensitive and to withhold information that was legally privileged and also protect the privacy of a natural person.

There are huge enforcement clauses around the powers of the Commerce Commission with respect to the milk price manual, the calculation of it, and the disclosure regime that sits around it, including a very onerous clause that proposed new section 150ZA, which would allow the Commerce Commission or any other person beyond the Commerce Commission to seek an injunction against, essentially, Fonterra for contravening Subpart 5 or 5A or any of the subsequent regulations. After testing the officials’ thinking on that, the officials came back and said, well, actually, that was not part of the policy intent, to grant third parties the right to take direct enforcement action against Fonterra or seek damages in relation to Subpart 5A of Part 2, which is, essentially, the milk price regime.

There was a section 150ZB that would extend existing liability for damages for contravening the milk price regime and its regulations made under section 115, and also to apply to contravening Subpart 5A, and we as a committee decided that it would not be appropriate for the Commerce Commission or a third party to seek damages for a breach in those provisions. So a new section 150ZB has been suggested.

We have made some changes with respect to pecuniary penalties, and I think, ultimately, we have got the balance in a reasonably adequate way. I mean, I know that there will be those who are Fonterra competitors who would—[Interruption]

TODD MULLER: Take a call. I’d love to hear your contribution!

Anna Lorck: I am.

TODD MULLER: Oh good! I’m sure it will be phenomenal!

I am sure there are those who are listening who will say, “Well, you know, have you got the balance right for protecting the smaller players?” Well, look, those smaller players have come in over the last 10 years. Initially, the expectation, when these regulations were established, was that they would be focused on the domestic market. None of that has happened, of course. They have appropriately, I guess, commercially fought Fonterra for the supply, to then take them on in the market. And that’s the market working. So, when you look at those suppliers and the balance sheets of those suppliers, to the extent that you get visibility on it, and where they compete against Fonterra in the world, of course they’re going to say that any additional constraint and obligation and cost and compliance that can be put on their competitor they are going to welcome.

Understandably, of course, Fonterra pushed back pretty hard about that, and at the core of their frustration—which I have a fair amount of sympathy with—“We want to change a capital structure. We go to do that. Yet again, no; we have a list as long as your arm of additional obligations and costs that we have to wrap around our milk price manual and calculation.” Bearing in mind that this is the same milk price manual and calculation that has had 10 consecutive Commerce Commission reviews that have, essentially, found nothing. So you’ve got to wonder whether a lot of this is actually needed and is really just an exercise, as I said, of a solution looking for a problem, particularly on the milk price side of the equation.

But, hey, we will support it. It has been, as always, a robust but collegial select committee process, ably chaired by Jo Luxton. We all get the opportunity to hold a view and to test the thinking of both the various submitters and also the officials. So, whilst it was a truncated process, I think it has landed, as I say, in a reasonable place, and the National Party will support it in the second reading.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. Unlike some of the members who have stood already this evening to speak, I find this a rather invigorating topic.

We know that it’s been 20 years since this first came in, and the market has changed significantly since then. We’ve got the development of competition in processing. Fonterra has just under 80 percent of the market share compared to when we started on this journey. So even though we have smaller players, it is Fonterra that effectively determines the farm-gate milk price for the entire industry. That is why we need to make sure that we have got the increased transparency and robust governance, and that the independence of price setting is as robust and clear possible, to ensure that we sustain the competition that is going to continue to drive our dairy industry to be world leading.

As usual, when you want to be sure about what you’re doing is right, you go to select committee, and you ask the experts. Of course, that’s always the workers, the farmers themselves. We had a great submission from the Dairy Workers Union. They actually want all processors to succeed. They support regular review and reform of dairy so that Fonterra can continue to meet the current and future challenges. They want to make sure we have a just transition.

We heard from some young and new-to-the-industry farmers who are really excited about the prospect of the reduced barriers to joining Fonterra and becoming a part of the cooperative. Trish Rankin, one of our great environmental leaders in Taranaki, talked about the fact that by having a little bit more capital freed up, she’ll be able to continue their programme: 1,200 riparian plants this season, extensive pest control, and huge improvements that they’ve got planned for their land that they’re more likely to be able to do if they’ve got some capital freed up.

We heard from a few farmers who are excited about the prospects. We know how important dairy is. This bill is about supporting Fonterra, farmers, workers, and, in fact, their processing competitors to secure a just transition and to continue to develop a dairy industry that is fit for a better world. This is why I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was brief but enthusiastic. So, look, here we are on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill second reading. I think it’s quite interesting to reflect first and foremost, if I can, on some of the contributions made through the select committee process. We had a variety of different submitters and we saw some quire strong views at one end, in terms of Fonterra’s position that the proposals being put forward by the Government were, in a number of regards, a significant overreach, and then we had, at the other end, a number of competitors’ views that the impositions or the conditions being put in place—Fonterra would call them impositions—were insufficient and actually needed to go further. So, of course, that then creates the challenge for the Primary Production Committee to try and bring that together and find a workable solution within that.

Now, as I said in the first reading, the proposal put forward by the Government at that stage was actually somewhat different to what had been proposed by Fonterra. Fonterra noted that in their submission as well—that we had seen a bit of overreach. And this Government is never one to miss the opportunity to put its sticky fingers all over something that doesn’t need additional Government control. Yet this was a prime candidate for them, and so they said, “Right, we’ll bring in an independent chair and we’ll put in an additional person on the milk price panel, and, of course, we’ll give the Commerce Commission directive powers to require Fonterra to enact the change proposed by the Commerce Commission, even though it may be that Fonterra and the milk price panel retains the expertise more so than the Commerce Commission.”

But, that aside, we went through the select committee process and we heard the different views on the appropriateness or not of that, and indeed whether those needed to all be done in conjunction or whether one or the other could affect a similar outcome to what had been intended by the Government when drafting this legislation. I think, for me, the key highlight is if we’re giving the Commerce Commission the power to direct Fonterra to make changes—obviously off the back of their view that the process has not been followed appropriately in terms of setting that milk price or some aspect of the process that they have reviewed was found insufficient—then surely that is a reasonable backstop without the need for therefore having, as well as that, both an independent chair and an additional person on the milk price panel, given that the majority, as proposed under the legislation, still falls in favour of Fonterra and that milk price panel anyway.

Ultimately, we landed at the position that those proposals would continue to remain in place, but I am relieved that we did manage to see some change through; particularly, the risk of direct legal action that Mr Muller referred to as well—clause 27, I believe it was—that enabled the Commerce Commission, or any other person, to take legal action against Fonterra. The risk there being that we could end up with an industry bound up with numerous legal challenges, additional costs, ultimately farmers bearing the brunt of that, and there being some risk around whether that was done, potentially, for commercial gain around the sensitivity of information that might have to be released through that process. So I think it was an appropriate step to take that back out of the legislation because it certainly wasn’t the original intent to enable that to occur.

The other one that was, I think, an important consideration for me was around the additional liabilities that were being potentially placed on the members of the milk price panel—the director’s liability, as it were, around them therefore being more liable for their own personal penalties than they had been previously. So, again, a carve-out there enabling them to have a reasonable reliance on information or, again, anything that was beyond their control, and both of those scenarios for them to be exempt from prosecution themselves as well. That aligns with standard clauses in the Companies Act for directors of other companies, such as that they should have the ability to rely on information that they believe has been provided to them in a manner appropriate with the duties of the person providing it and at a level sufficient for them to be able to make decisions, etc., and so, therefore, that being a reasonable defence against liability. So, on that basis, I think it’s appropriate that we’ve landed where we have.

Now, there was one concern raised by a few submitters that it would be more difficult for Fonterra to compete, given that the overall milk pool is not expected to grow significantly and, indeed, may potentially shrink—that by requiring farmers to share up fully, as has previously been the case, it would make them uncompetitive. And so this part of the proposal that Fonterra put forward was allowing them to share up to only the one-third level rather than the full shareholding. Whilst I have some support for that, at the same time I would note that, actually, the structure that they operate under is quite different and I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that you would be comparing apples with apples in the scenario where open country, for example, as a privately owned company, brings on board a dairy farmer, a supplier, who supplies milk but does not have a shareholding in the company and therefore does not have a say in how that company is run. That’s quite different than Fonterra as a share—or coming in as a supplier, you are a shareholder, you buy shares in the company, you therefore are a part-owner of the company and have a say in how that company runs. So I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that they should be able to compete at an exact level playing field when actually the structures of the entities are quite different. That was one area that I think came through showing that there wasn’t quite a good understanding, or a clear understanding, necessarily, amongst submitters around the different entity structures that can prevail in the industry and the different rights and responsibilities that go alongside that for a potential supplier, or for the dairy farmer, in whichever case it may be.

But, broadly, I think we’ve landed in a reasonable space where, I think, no submitter will be entirely happy with us. So it’s probably a reasonable balance on the face of it, and we’ll now go through the remaining stages to see whether we can get this through, or whether there needs to be any further amendment at the committee of the whole House stage. But, on this basis, we do support it at this stage and look forward to the continued progression of this bill. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this legislation coming through the House, and really to repeat what everyone has said around it striking the right balance. But what’s important with this bill is that we are increasing transparency and improving the robust governance and independence of price-setting.

I want to talk just briefly on the independence that we’re seeing, through the number of ministerial nominees on Fonterra’s milk price panel from one to two; requiring the chair of Fonterra’s milk price panel to be fully independent of Fonterra and appointed by Fonterra with the approval of the Minister; and requiring Fonterra to change, on at least a six-yearly basis, the person and persons charged with calculating the base milk price for Fonterra’s milk price panel. I think, on that, I can commend this second reading to the House. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill, or “DIRA”. DIRA’s such an unassuming, disarming name. It’s like DIRA is an old friend—“I’m going to pop up the road and have a cup of tea with old Dira. Me and Dira go way back.” The problems, however, that the Greens have with “old Dira” is that there are two areas of concern that still remain with us through the first reading and through the select committee process. Thank you to the select committee for doing that work but, for us, “old Dira” is still not up to the mark. Those two aspects are around emissions; implications and issues around entrenching monopolies. So, in layman’s terms—sorry about it, DIRA—there’s been a whole lot of promises made about dealing with submissions, and also we don’t like the way you’re hoarding all the cookies. So that’s the bit on entrenched monopolies.

The emissions implications, in summary: we still see that the legislation is likely to have a negative impact on emissions reduction efforts, making it more difficult to leave Fonterra and incentivising increased milk production, and will dis-incentivise sustainable land-use change and entrench intensive dairying. And, as a reminder for folks that are just tuning in tonight, climate impact policy assessment was not completed for the policy as it did not meet the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) requirements, which seems inadequate given we are in the middle of a climate crisis. MfE did note, however, preliminary views that the proposals would lead to increased emissions. The regulatory impact statement also noted that reduced shareholder requirements will free up farmer capital, which could be invested in sustainability and climate improvements. However, there will be no requirement for investments to be focused on sustainability; they could equally be targeted at increasing production.

I reflected on this as I went through a number of the submissions, and I just wanted to reflect on the combined submission of Forest & Bird, Greenpeace Aotearoa, the Environmental Defence Society, and Choose Clean Water. I want to thank them for submitting to the committee—for a well-thought-out submission—because it crystallised for me the need for the Government to really think across their legislative programme; to really think about it; to look at the connections which, for us, are still missing from this legislation. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Does the left fully know what the right wing is doing in that corner? On one hand, we are saying that the climate crisis is our nuclear moment and, on the other hand, we are giving the nuclear codes to the agribusiness lobby—and in particular Fonterra.

The Environmental NGOs have said it better to me, and I will quote them from their submission: “We consider the decision to progress The Dairy Industry Restructuring … Bill”—old Dira—“fails to take in to account key environmental issues. It is inconsistent with important developments in wider public policy that are starting to address environmental issues that are national and international priorities and commitments. In this respect it feels like the Bill has been drafted in isolation from the significant public policy changes the government has adopted to address climate pollution and environmental degradation. These include:”—and they list them—“…The National Emissions Reduction Plan 2022 … The National Adaptation Plan 2022 … Te Mana o te Taiao – Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and Implementation Plan [and] The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management … and related regulations under the Resource Management Act.”

If I can just emphasise part of this by quoting from the emissions reduction plan, whose goal, amongst other things, is about reducing emissions: “Reducing [agricultural] emissions is needed to achieve our 2050 target, including the requirement to reduce biogenic methane emissions by 24-47 per cent by 2050. Reducing agricultural emissions will enhance Aotearoa New Zealand’s reputation as a low-emissions and trusted provider of agricultural products. This plan must work with other initiatives to improve productivity, sustainability, inclusivity in the primary sector in line with the Government’s Fit for a Better World – Accelerating our Economic Potential roadmap” and outlines that key action is to, and I quote that—double quote that, just for all the DIRA fans out there—a “transition to lower-emission land uses and systems.”

So it was interesting to hear the call for support for a just transition, and I wonder from my Labour colleagues how they see this is helping to do that—to help to move people from more intensive dairying practices into something that is more regenerative, because that is what the climate moment is calling for. In that submission, they also point to the evidence of environmental degradation—so actual evidence.

We consider that the effectiveness of the original 2001 DIRA has been eroded by successive amendments. It has not adequately managed the risk arising from Fonterra’s dominance in New Zealand dairy markets for some time. As a national membership organisation, Forest & Bird, in particular, see these risks materialising across the country. This is evident in parts of the degraded state of Aotearoa’s rivers and lakes, as well as our high level of ongoing climate pollution.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! There’s two things, Teanau Tuiono. I’d appreciate the member not reading the speech; he’s been here for a couple of years now. Secondly, I am looking at the bill and listening very carefully to the member’s speech and I invite the member to address the issues that are in this bill. The member has had a few moments on other issues unrelated to this bill. So I’m asking him now to come back to the bill.

TEANAU TUIONO: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I was just reflecting on some of the submissions that landed at the select committee. But I will move on.

Another one of the major concerns was around entrenching monopolies. The bill does provide new measures to support the dairy monopoly, including restricting Fonterra’s exposure to external ownership by delinking its unit fund and making it more difficult for other processors to compete with Fonterra, by reducing barriers to entry. This will have the effect of stifling innovation in the sector. This is because, as a monopoly provider, Fonterra has less incentive to innovate, and competitors face greater difficulty in entering the market.

I reflect on the submission put forward by Miraka, Open Country Dairy, Synlait Milk, and Westland Milk Products, who expressed similar concerns, in their own way, when they reflected on the history of the DIRA and concerns around Fonterra’s over and above anti-competitive impacts that the DIRA was supposed to guard against. Just a quote from their submission: “Once again the Government is shoring up the [continued] dominant position of Fonterra without adequately balancing that … rightful concerns of other parties”. So that bit about hoarding all the cookies in the cookie jar—well, what about everybody else that wants to participate in the market?

So, in conclusion, industrial dairy farming is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Aotearoa, and therefore a leading cause of climate change. So if we’re going to these types of law, it needs to be comprehensive and cohesive across the legislative programme, and the Greens don’t see this. We will not be supporting this bill.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I just want to highlight the Labour member that made a contribution earlier, talking about $22 billion, $23 billion worth of industry and offered about a minute’s worth of submission, and I think that’s quite egregious really.

The bill brought about rigorous debate. I think we all reconciled that in the Primary Production Committee; we were all very collegial. We heard both sides of the equation of the debate from officials, from members, and from multiple submitters. There were about 30 submitters, all told. They were openly supportive of the bill, but, equally, they were opposed to it for notable reasons. The group expressly raised concerns on both sides of the equation, like the submitters that I’ve just mentioned. Half the submissions were in favour of the bill because they saw it as about industry certainty moving forward, and the others spoke to environmental concerns and degradation, and I think the Green member highlighted that. There were also other players in the milk processing industry, outside of Fonterra, that raised their concerns.

The various submissions acknowledged the challenges that the dairy processors face in this industry, especially Fonterra and the liquid milk or raw milk supply. All across the dairy industry productive sector it was noted that there was a shrinking milk reality and hence why this piece of legislation, as proposed, was so heavily supported by those in it.

The predicate of the bill speaks to accountability for the base milk price-setting governance and oversight and the capacity for public transparency, and I think that was where a lot of the concern lay, in the role of the Commerce Commission and what, ultimately, the Commerce Commission’s role would look like moving forward. In terms of oversight, submitters levelled many concerns as well as positive outcomes and the tensions between those realities; issues of heightened and poor environmental outcomes, which I have traversed and made mention of, and dairy intensification. Now, we’re trying to still reconcile that on this side of the House when we’ve got a contracted milk pool, and that was well canvassed by both sides of the submissions and in the debate. Equally, for those that submitted, was the appearance of the lacking of neutrality. Fonterra, we understand, is about 80 percent of the liquid milk supply, and there are other processors that felt that the neutrality had been eroded—Government officials and the oversight openly supporting Fonterra in a manner that seemed to strengthen Fonterra’s dominance. Now that was actually raised, and again we debated this issue in a very collegial way. It seemed to accentuate the lack of contestability in the rural milk market. Now, again, this is the House of debate, and we saw that noted in the submission process and they’ll have to bring that forward tonight.

Here is where ACT was concerned, and it was shared by some of the submitters: the liquidity of the reality of sharing down. I know that this is going to be quite concerning for some of the Fonterra shareholders that are shared up. We appreciate the reality of sharing in and how that structure had changed, but sharing out, especially with a potential loss of equity, was deeply concerning to some who submitted. Issues were raised about the open entry and open exit strategy; what it meant to actually leave the industry and potentially go through land use change or ultimately supply other processors. Was that reality being given consideration completely in this piece of legislation? The original 2001Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) put that provision in place, and subsequent amendments have removed it, and there are concerns about its removal. As amended, the provisions of the open entry no longer require Fonterra to accept all milk. There’s certain regions in New Zealand that Fonterra is the only processor of that milk, so you can see how some people might be quite concerned by that reality.

It was noted that the Government confirmed in the original DIRA that the key regulatory tools—and I noticed the member out of the Green Party Teanau Tuiono mentioned it before—for managing Fonterra’s dominant risk, the open entry and exit provisions, have actually now been removed and that is, again, quite concerning. It was also noted that the Government—it was necessary to continue to regulate the activities of Fonterra to promote efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand, and, certainly, as the ACT Party, we are absolutely all for free markets.

The question I have, and I think it changes the dynamics, is all around the exit and entry provision in the new DIRA bill. Now, I understand why, and I’ve canvassed it before: it’s about creating liquidity, potentially, in the market for those that want to exit, and an environment for young investors coming into the industry. The issue will always be about those leaving Fonterra and going across to other processors, or going through land-use changes I’ve previously canvassed, which I think really, potentially, risks weakening the share value, and, by virtue, puts prescriptions on those potentially going through land-use change, and that needs to be reconciled in the committee stage.

ACT appreciates that Fonterra has put provisions in for a share buyback programme, and I think it was recently announced that it is commencing 30 June 2022. That was $50 million, and it was framed as the market share buyback, part of a wider $300 million announced last year to support liquidity in Fonterra’s shareholder market—we appreciate the reasons for this, but, again, we are concerned. This will allow the transition to the flexible shareholding capital structure, and this is, ultimately, where this stuff lands: creating an environment to give Fonterra and those that supply them, which is the lion’s share of all of this, operational certainty.

The ACT Party will support this DIRA bill with considerable reservations, and I think I’ve brought them to the House and discussed them tonight. For various reasons, there are other processors in the liquid milk or raw-milk sector that are concerned about the dominance of Fonterra and how this appears to put a continuum on that reality. We accept that 85 percent of Fonterra shareholder supporters agreed with this transition and the progress of this bill in the House, but I can certainly say that the ACT Party will look to be heavily engaged in the committee stage of this and see how we can further iron out those concerns and or kinks. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill at its second reading. The bill gives effect to the Government’s response to Fonterra’s intended capital restructuring.

We heard from the previous speaker, Mark Cameron, that this is creating an environment to give Fonterra certainty and it does that with two features to improve the transparency and independence of the governance and operation of the milk price-setting arrangement. Firstly, it increases the number of ministerial nominees to Fonterra’s milk price panel from one to two and requires the chair of Fonterra’s milk price panel to be fully independent of Fonterra. Fonterra will also, first up, need the Minister’s approval of a candidate before it can appoint the chair.

The Government believes that it’s important for Fonterra to be able to make changes to respond to a changing environment and to be able to proceed with certainty. That is something that we’ve heard all along in these speeches; the importance of that. The benefits of a high-performing and efficient Fonterra will flow through to its nearly 10,000 farmer shareholders in our rural communities. This bill will play an important part in ongoing resilience and prosperity of rural New Zealand.

Now, I wasn’t part of the select committee but I did hear Mr Todd Muller, I think, refer to the chair, Jo Luxton, as an “able chair”, and I’ve heard words as a “superb chair”. She shepherded this bill through the select committee process: the 30 submissions and the 15 oral submissions that were heard. The select committee, from what I understand, unanimously recommended some of these minor changes to the bill, which will help to avoid unintended consequences. The Minister Meka Whaitiri spoke on those as well.

The bill’s key risk mitigation measures and improved transparency were developed following consultation with industry and they will support ongoing performance. I commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney, five minutes.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill (DIRA bill) this evening, on behalf of the National Party. This bill enabled the formation of Fonterra in 2001, and manages risks arising from Fonterra’s dominance on New Zealand dairy markets.

I heard a few words from the Green Party before, and I think I’ll just clear something up as I get into this. New Zealand dairy farmers have the world’s lowest carbon footprint at half the emissions of other international producers—half the emissions of other international producers. New Zealand has approximately 5 million people and about the same number of cows producing 21 billion litres of milk every year—the eighth-largest dairy producer in the world with 11,000 dairy farmers. Now Brazil, by way of contrast, has four times the number of dairy cows, over 20 million, but produces less than twice the amount of milk, 36 billion litres, with a huge 900,000 dairy farmers. So just to put it in context, with a significantly smaller, four times’ smaller herd, we produce an incredible 21 billion litres of milk with the most carbon efficient footprint in the planet because our dairy farmers are incredible. I just want to put that on the record.

I should just say dairy farming has carried this country through the pandemic, like our agriculture industry has done an incredible thing for this country. Dairy exports in the year to June 2022 reached a record high of $22.1 billion in export revenue and make up 3.1 percent of our GDP. New Zealand’s dairy industry is of significant national interest, and that is really important that we recognise that, and we recognise that these are the most efficient dairy farmers on the planet.

This bill regulates Fonterra’s activities to ensure efficient operation of a dairy market with contestable goods and services in the face of a forecasted static or declining milk production. I should make that clear, New Zealand milk production is flatlining and expected to fall. That needs to sink in—expected to fall. So that is not something many people, I think, who are attacking dairy farmers in New Zealand actually understand. So this capital restructure aims to ensure that Fonterra’s factories remain full of milk by making it easier and cheaper for those wanting to join the cooperative to buy shares in order to be able to supply milk. Fonterra collects just 80 percent of the country’s raw milk. When it was created under the enabling DIRA legislation 21 years ago, it controlled 96 percent. So it’s down from 96 percent to 80 percent.

Just to keep another factor in mind that’s probably quite important, New Zealand’s second biggest dairy producer, Open Country Dairy, has said that it had a 40 percent lift in demand for product from its Australian customers. That was just published yesterday: a 40 percent lift in demand from its Australian customers. The Australian milk pool is declining and limiting milk supply, and so New Zealand dairy exports to Australia in the first nine months of this year earned $8.6 billion, compared to $7.3 billion in the full financial year prior. So Australia’s milk production is falling, they need our milk, they’re getting it from New Zealand. This is actually really important, and combine that with our flatlining and expected to fall milk production in this country. So we’ve got a very different market ahead of us. This bill is aiming to try and do a little bit to support Fonterra and the milk market.

Fonterra’s farmer shareholders voted in support of the changes in December last year. The changes in this bill will see Fonterra adopt a more flexible shareholding structure, allowing farmers to hold fewer shares and widening the pool to include sharemilkers, contract milkers, and farm lessors as associated shareholders. Fonterra’s competitors don’t require farmers to purchase shares to supply milk, and Fonterra has had concerns that it will become a smaller, less efficient business that would continue to lose milk supply without this amendment, forcing factories to close and reduce farmer milk payout.

As a large-scale farmer-owned cooperative, Fonterra can invest in innovation and sustainability when capital is freed up. In the face of this forecast, a static or declining milk production, the amendment will enable it to better compete for farmers’ milk supply and efficiently use its existing processing infrastructure.

The bill supports the new capital structure intended to reduce long-term risks to the sector, increases the number of Ministerial nominees to Fonterra’s milk price panel from one to two, requires an independent chair, gives the Commerce Commission power to issue binding directions to Fonterra, supports liquidity and transparency in the share trade of Fonterra shares, and requires Fonterra to maintain and publish a dividend and retentions policy. With that, I support this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): This is an industry I know about from a different point of view. I was the lawyer for the Dairy Workers Union, and over that time I saw the contrast—this industry with others.

In this industry, people are paid really well. Farmers and the workers are both doing well in this industry, mostly because of the cooperative structure that was set up. So that structure is looking for a reboot. This is the reboot; this is the Government supporting the way that the industry reform to make sure that they can really have the capital that they need.

I welcome the introduction of the sharemilkers into those schemes because those are hard-working people I know would like to be involved in this way. I think that’s a really good part of it.

It’s also a balanced piece of legislation which allows for people to make sure that there is monitoring on the prices and there is this attempt to make sure that Ministers, etc. are involved in the pricing of milk.

So this, to me, seems a really good piece of legislation that will support an industry that Joseph Mooney is quite right to applaud for the contribution it’s made to New Zealand. Labour supports the farmers. I’m glad to see their support across the House. Labour supports the farmers and this is good proof of the understanding that we both share.

Penny Simmonds: That’s not what the farmers think.

HELEN WHITE: And rather than mock, perhaps it’s time to actually take note. This is how Labour supports the farmers. Thanks.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take what will undoubtedly be a rather short contribution in support of this bill, the dairy industry restructuring amendment bill. Given it has somewhat been unceremoniously personified earlier on by the Green member, let me just reiterate that it’s the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. I would just want to acknowledge the Minister of Agriculture and the officials for the work that’s been done to date, and the Primary Production Committee, who scrutinised this bill, no doubt with great enthusiasm.

As has been said by several people today in this debate and is worth reiterating, I think the one point that we can take from this is that last year Fonterra—Fonterra’s farmer shareholders, at least—voted in favour of having a new capital structure, and a new capital structure that specifically would make it easier for farmers to become shareholders in Fonterra and therefore to continue supplying milk. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Government also agrees that it is important for Fonterra to be able to do that and to be able to make those necessary changes to what is undoubtedly, inevitably, a changing environment.

As we’ve heard earlier, the committee received submissions—about 30, I believe, if I have my numbers correct. Most of those, however, were in the service of providing further clarity and they didn’t result in any kind of substantial changes to the bill itself. So this is a good bill. It’s a bill in support of Fonterra, which is a good thing, and therefore I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Madam Speaker, I’ve heard two extraordinary things in the House this evening. One was the Greens’ tear-down of New Zealand’s largest and most successful company and the other was that Labour supports farmers. Ha, ha! I’m still laughing about that! But God loves a trier, as they say.

Look, all jokes aside, we’re actually here this evening on some quite important business. We’re here to amend the legislation that’s governing the biggest business that New Zealand has ever produced, and that’s the Fonterra Cooperative. It has, in its 20 years, gone on to become the sixth-largest producer of dairy product in the world, and it really is a New Zealand success story. So it really shouldn’t be taken lightly. And I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am still quite stunned at the Green Party’s apparent antagonism towards a dairy company that, at the end of the day, produces protein for hungry nations.

Chris Bishop: Why are you shocked?

NICOLA GRIGG: Well, Chris Bishop, I’m still new, I’m still easily shocked, and I’m still wet behind the ears.

Anyway, look, in acknowledging that the decision to restructure has been made by the farmer shareholders, the National Party is comfortable with the decision to reduce minimum shareholding and we do continue, and will continue, our support of the bill through the House as we did during the select committee process. And much has already been said of the collegial environment in which we on the Primary Production Committee work.

The proposed changes that we’ve supported, primarily, are to give Fonterra the opportunity to free up capital and for its shareholders to have that capital to invest in the future of their business, of their operations. We did hear a number of shareholders, first-time farmers, young couples—those kinds of examples of people who are really going to take advantage of having this extra cash, this extra capital, to be able to reinvest in their business. However, it’s at this juncture that it would be remiss of me, as the member of Parliament for Selwyn, to not make a few comments on behalf of the local suppliers in my electorate who supply to other companies. Because we’ve certainly heard concerns, particularly from the likes of Synlait and Westland, that they have about the implementation, eventually, of this amendment.

Now, to be clear, the last thing anyone here wants to see is any competition being squeezed out of the market. We in the National Party very proudly support capitalism, as I’ve said in this House before, we support competition, we want to see businesses growing and doing well. And we do, however, in Selwyn, have to acknowledge the fact that it is probably one of the very few areas in New Zealand where Fonterra doesn’t have a near complete monopoly on the milk trade. As has been acknowledged by a number of speakers this evening, there are risks in this amendment bill. And if those are not properly managed, these amendments will risk companies like Synlait and Westland in their ability to pay competitive prices to the likes of Selwyn-based farmers. We should also note that Fonterra’s competitors, like those I’ve mentioned and also Open Country Dairy, who came and presented at the select committee, don’t require their suppliers to purchase shares to provide milk. So therein lies quite a difference.

In its considerations, the select committee did really test the officials on ensuring that there is a robust system in place of independent oversight. And that’s the really critical part to all of this. I think there has to be independent oversight on that milk price panel, and the select committee noted that Fonterra made quite strident lobbying towards wishing to remain in a position of influence on that milk price panel. However, we as a committee have chosen the middle ground and we believe that the changes that have come back in our report back to the House should mitigate the worst of the risks of any possible monopolistic behaviour on behalf of Fonterra. Other changes that we did also introduce were that the chair of the milk price panel has to be fully independent of Fonterra and that the day-to-day administration of the base milk price calculation has to be provided by an external—and periodically replaced—party.

So, just to wrap up, there are risks to this bill. The National Party has been extremely cognisant of the fact that we do want to support competitors. By the same token, we do absolutely want to support New Zealand’s biggest company and our greater success story. And more specifically, might I say, we want to support the farmers and shareholders that provide milk to all kinds of dairy companies in New Zealand.

So with that, we look forward to the committee of the whole House. We will continue to support this bill and may I commend it to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. Now, I’m not a member of the Primary Production Committee that heard the submissions on the bill, but, living in Southland, I’ve got a good understanding of the huge contribution the dairy makes to our local economy.

Just noting that earlier this year, Fonterra Edendale marked 140 years since the processing first started on their site, back in January 1882—so a huge contribution over time to the Southland economy. And so now, at Edendale Fonterra, there’s about 670 people involved with the site—that includes transport and processing. And it basically makes a huge contribution to the local economy. When you’re out and about there, they’ve got 80 tankers out on the road every day, and you see them when driving around Southland. And basically millions of bags of milk powder are produced each year. I think the contribution the dairy payout makes, not only to our local farming community but just through the knock-on effects to the community as a whole—so it’s incredibly important that we get this right.

So this bill—well, it’s quite technical. For me, reading through it, just a couple of high-level things stood out, and the first one is that Fonterra’s farmer shareholders voted in favour of moving to the new capital structure in December last year. What this bill does is that it enables that to occur. And also what it does is it lowers the capital costs for farmers who want to become shareholders in Fonterra. What that means is that the next generation of farmers can come in and supply milk, which also ensures further supply for Fonterra. But it’s also really important that we make sure that farmers can buy and sell their shares freely, because what that means is that if you get more innovative or efficient producers emerging, those suppliers can swap, and that encourages—or ensures—that Fonterra also has to innovate in that space. So this is a really important bill, and I’m very happy to commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I present a legislative statement on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to start by thanking the Finance and Expenditure Committee—

Barbara Edmonds: Great committee.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —for their work on the bill, which has resulted in some thoughtful amendments to it. A very modest committee, unlikely to sing their own praises, so I shall make something of it at the start of my speech, particularly for the member Barbara Edmonds behind me! The amendments strengthen the safeguards in the bill to make sure that the new levy-making power is used well. I’d like to thank, also, those who submitted on the bill for their valuable contributions.

The Companies Office maintains 16 different registers, all of which benefit our society and economy in different ways. Those registers include registers or entities such as the Companies Register and the Incorporated Societies Register; professional service registers, including for licensed auditors and insolvency practitioners; and registers for disclosure of financial products and security interests over personal property. By maintaining these registers effectively, the Companies Office helps to build trust and confidence in the economy, and that is part of what makes New Zealand a great place to do business—the ease of doing business, the acceptance that it’s a fair and transparent place to do business.

Importantly, the registers also allow New Zealanders to search for information to help them make sound business and investment decisions—you can see who you’re dealing with through those registers. The Companies Office registers also bring wider benefits to society, such as not-for-profit entities, like sport groups and community groups.

The registers were set up under 16 different Acts of Parliament, all at different times and in different contexts. Over time, the Companies Office has developed an increasingly holistic approach to running its registers. That approach has had its benefits, including achieving the economies of scale and a provision of registry services, and all registry users benefiting from the registry expertise of the Companies Office.

The bill is designed to support such a holistic approach to running the registers by allowing a funding model that supports that approach. That’s needed because, while the Companies Office remit, environment, and operating model has evolved over time, the legislation governing it has not. At the moment, the legislation requires that each register is funded only from fees collected from specific users of the particular register. As people who use modern IT systems know, that can create a good deal of inefficiency.

Money collected from users of one register cannot help pay the administration of another one under the current law. The Companies Office, therefore, cannot pool any money to use for the good for the registry system as a whole, nor to make fees paid by users of the smaller registers fairer and reasonable. In short, there’s a mismatch between how the funding model is legally supposed to operate and how it actually has been operating.

The bill will change the funding model. It’ll allow the Companies Office to charge levies that can be used across the different registers to fund shared resources such as IT and registry staff. It will be able to collect and use money more flexibly across the whole registry system, and I expect that that will ultimately lead to a more efficient and effective use of taxpayer resource.

As I said, the Finance and Expenditure Committee proposed a number of changes to the bill, mostly to strengthen the safeguards around how the levy-making power can be used. The committee has recommended that the levy-setting regulations be a confirmable instrument, and that adds an additional procedural safeguard in the bill’s regulation-making process by expressly allowing for Parliament’s scrutiny of the regulations.

Another of the committee’s recommendations was to require a review of how the new levies are working within the first five years of them first being introduced. That’s something that the Companies Office is already planning for, and the committee has also recommended strengthening the consultation requirements in the bill.

The bill requires that before any levies can be set by regulation, the responsible Minister must consult, therefore, with anyone who is affected. The committee has also recommended inserting an explicit statement in the bill that the consultation material must be published on a website of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

I’m pleased that the committee recognised how important consultation is in this particular area. The first stage of implementing the new funding framework will be a full public consultation. It will be detailed. It will cover who will be charged levies, how much they will be, what the money is intended to be used for and why, and how and when levies will be paid. I am looking forward to hearing people’s views on the options once those detailed proposals and analyses are available to them.

It remains for me to again thank the committee for their work. They made recommendations back to the House, I understand, as a group, unanimously. It’s great that that degree of agreement could be reached on the committee and that they could work constructively together to ensure that we have fit for purpose legislation for running our Companies Office system—where we get the benefits of scale, where we get the benefits of modern IT systems, and where we use taxpayer resource wisely, carefully, and appropriately. So I take some pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to be talking on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. I see the Minister didn’t quite get to 10 minutes, but, anyway, he did seem to traverse some of the issues in the bill.

Hon Dr David Clark: Succinct. Accurate. Incisive.

ANDREW BAYLY: Nicely written prepared speech for him. Unfortunately in Opposition, you don’t have that liberty and that support. But anyway, we are opposing this bill. We’re opposing this bill—I like that lovely, glowing sort of summary that the Minister gave.

The main reason why, is this is a fundamental principle that has been broken by this Government. I’d say to you, Madam Speaker, that this bill actually preys on the generosity and the goodwill of the Opposition and the members of this House, because it wasn’t long ago that this entire House came together and recognised that the Companies Office had illegitimately, inappropriately—whatever words you want to use—been cross-subsidising and charging a number of people and organisations an incorrect fee and levies over a long period of time.

Somehow this mistake was brought to the attention of the Minister and the Minister brought the bill, which was to recognise that illegal activity, and we retrospectively passed legislation not that long ago to say that was OK. You don’t normally do retrospective legislation, but there was a wrong and Parliament agreed to it. Yet, here we have a Minister putting up another bill which says, “Hey look, you know how we came and saw you about this thing and said it was all wrong and let’s pass the piece of legislation. Let’s not worry about it; let’s just enshrine it—let’s have the principle going forward.”, Minister. What has happened in this bill is that the Companies Office will be able to cross-subsidise a whole range of registers. And we just think that is wrong; we really do think that is wrong. The main reason is, for anyone who sat on the Regulations Review Committee—and I’m looking at my esteemed colleague here, Mr Bishop, who going back some time ago, we had the privilege of sitting on regulations—

Chris Bishop: We were on it together.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I know, we were on the regulation—

And I see Hon David Parker over the other side. He was the deputy chair of it when Labour were in Opposition and Hon David Cunliffe was the chair. But guess what happened? Mr Cunliffe moved on and Hon David Parker took over, didn’t you, Mr Parker?

Hon David Parker: What’s this for?

ANDREW BAYLY: Regulations Review Committee.

Hon David Parker: No, I took over from Richard Worth.

ANDREW BAYLY: No, you didn’t; you were with me. Anyway, how many times did we get Government agencies in front of that Regulations Review Committee—the only bipartisan committee, basically, in that Parliament—and get them in? And remember we got the fishing people in because they were cross-subsidising, and we got them to show us their models, Mr Parker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

ANDREW BAYLY: Absolutely related to this and I’ll tell you why, because it’s about cross-subsidisation. I can say that member over on the other side, the Hon David Parker, was vigilant, was keen to see a wrong put right. And we did—together. Cross-party support; we got it right. And here we are tonight, Mr Parker. We’ve got a Minister from your party putting up this bill, saying, “Let’s now make that the standard practice. This is the new principle.”

That is why we are opposing this bill. Some of the members are going to get up and say, “Oh, you know, it’s administratively easy.”, and I heard the Minister talking about, you know, efficiency. Efficiency? Efficiency? It is nothing about efficiency; it is about charging costs where they lie. This bill cuts across it, and that is why we are going to oppose this bill.

Certainly I acknowledge the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee work collaboratively. We tried to improve it and there are some improvements, and my good colleague over here, Mr Simon Watts, was heavily involved in that, as all members were. So there are some improvements, but it still is the precedent that will be set and used going forward. And that is why we are opposing it.

So look, it’s going to be an interesting time at the next stage of this bill going through the House, but it’s fundamentally wrong and we oppose it.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to report back to the House on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. What’s probably really important is the first sentence in that particular commentary of the bill: “The Finance and Expenditure Committee has examined Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.”

As the Minister has already canvassed what this bill will do, I will go straight to the changes that the select committee made and cover them again. The select committee received three written submissions on the bill, and I’d like to thank the submitters for their time. Of the three submissions, two said we shouldn’t invoke levies; the third one said we should make sure there is public consultation and then we shouldn’t invoke levies. I’d also like to take this time to thank Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials; the Office of the Clerk, who do a stellar job of supporting the committee every time we meet; and to Parliamentary Counsel Office for the quality legal drafting.

Again, like the member across the House and the Minister, I’d like to acknowledge the Regulations Review Committee for their review of the bill. The Regulations Review Committee recommended that we consider strengthening the procedural safeguards in the bill’s regulation-making powers process by expressly allowing for parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations. One of the changes that was made was to reclassify the regulations in clause 4 of the bill as confirmable instruments.

The select committee also suggested three other changes. One clarified that fees be combined into one payment. The Companies Office, though, would still have to be transparent and need to tell users what portion was for the purpose of the levy. So it wasn’t just a split $20, that’s how much the fee was; they’d have to actually split out, of that $20, what part goes to what service and to what levy.

We also recommended we strengthen the consultation provisions, again, as a result of one of the submissions, by removing the validating provisions—and also by the Regulations Review Committee—and requiring that proposals for regulations being made publicly available on a relevant Government website.

The last one I will touch upon is a result of a committee request, and that is a post-implementation statutory review of the levy system be conducted within five years of the date that the first regulations were made and for the report to be made publicly available. This was as a direct result of the committee’s concerns around the bringing together of the different levies and also the sharing of them across the different shared services. So we asked officials how difficult would it be to do a post-implementation review, given that it is a new regime in some respects, and they confirmed that it would be a change that would be easily made.

This is a good, tidy bill that brings the legislation up to speed and was within the operations of the Companies Office, who operate a number of shared services. My concern is that, if you don’t pass this particular bill, those levies or fees will possibly have to go up. They will have to maintain 16 different types of fees and levies, and therefore, ultimately, the cost might go back on to those people that need to register with those 16 registers. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill, second reading. It is an absolute pleasure, as a member of Parliament for North Shore, to have this opportunity. I had the pleasure, as the prior speaker member and chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee just noted, to sit on this committee through the deliberation process of the select committee. Madam Speaker, as you’ll appreciate, on such processes, while we didn’t have a large number of submissions, it was interesting to get some feedback on those that did make submissions, and it raised a number of concerns for us in regards to, I guess, the process which was undertaken, or not undertaken, in regards to drafting and recommending this bill.

In the submissions we heard, we asked a simple question. We asked: is there any way, other than putting this legislation on the table, to fix the problem? I think that’s a pretty legitimate question to ask, and you would expect that we would’ve got an answer that was reasonably comprehensive from officials, to say, “Yeah, absolutely. We’ve looked at all the different alternatives across the board, and we’ve come up with this as the preferred option.” In short, that wasn’t the case. A horizon scan of ways in which to fix this problem, using international examples or other jurisdictions where they have similar systems, was not undertaken. This solution, in terms of legislation in an amendment bill, was deemed as the only solution option that was basically considered and therefore recommended. I don’t think that’s unreasonable to say from an Opposition perspective that that doesn’t necessarily feel like we’ve been through due process.

The example in terms of the way in which my colleague Mr Andrew Bayly noted around cross-subsidisation: there are, for example—and we questioned officials in regards to this—other mechanisms to achieve the split-out or the separation, such as through systems enhancements and other technology solutions. You know, call me old-fashioned, but some of the accounting systems that are available in the market can actually achieve in part the solutions that are required under this bill. But those aspects were not considered, and this piece of legislation was rammed through by majority by the members on the committee, with opposition, obviously, from National and, I believe, ACT as well at the time. You know, that is disappointing in the context of where we are, as the prior speaker, Mr Bayly, noted.

The actual process in regards to what occurred in the past, in that amendment that was done on a bipartisan basis, was, in our view, the way in which to deal with this problem. But what we’ve gone back to and set quite a significant precedent on in terms of the cross-subsidisation model—which very much sits out of piste in terms of where we should be and sets, I think, a precedent which isn’t consistent in regards to how we should be approaching such problems. So that’s a little bit of context in terms of just one small element around why we have been and continue to be opposed to this legislation.

The other aspect is one around simple fairness of the appropriation, and, in effect, the cross-subsidisation now of certain levy groups on to others means that some of the blurring of, you know, in effect, the Companies Register or the Personal Property Securities Register—previously, we had a good, clear articulation in terms of each of those different registers and whether they could stand on their own two feet, but, in effect, now we’ve got a blurred model of cross-subsidisation, and one of those levies being collecting their fees and using some of that to pay for another. At the end of the day, these levies are collected off hard-working taxpayers across this country, and I think they have a right, at its simplest level, to know where their money and their taxpayers’ money is going. That is no longer going to be the case under this amendment.

While there’ll be a lot of people sitting at home tonight thinking, “Geez, companies levies—geez, I’m glad I stayed up to 9.55 to watch this speech.”—because that’s exactly what I would be thinking about, potentially, if I was sitting at home in the beautiful North Shore on an evening like tonight. But for those that are sitting at home going, “Yep, I absolutely agree.”, I just want to make it very clear to those people that we did do what we could do in terms of opposition around that and raised the questions I think most Kiwis would raise, around whether this is fair, whether this is appropriate, or whether we’ve actually done a proper options analysis around the solutions that would solve this problem. But the reality is that—and I won’t go on too much further because I know we’re all looking forward to the end of this—that is what occurred, and that is a great shame. On that basis, the National Party will be opposing this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is suspended until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

Debate interrupted.

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

TUESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2022

(continued on Wednesday, 16 November 2022)

Bills

Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good morning, everyone. When the House finished last night, we were on the second reading of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Mōrena, Mr Speaker. I’ll keep this really short. I don’t understand why the Opposition is making a brouha over something that is a rationalisation of—[Interruption]—a brouha—

Hon Member: A brouhaha.

INGRID LEARY: —a fuss—a system that is already in place. Basically, the primary legislation and the fees that have come as a result of it, there’s a mismatch, and they need to be lawful. This system works, and it’s really looking at efficiency of the system rather than something that requires a big policy analysis to say, “Are there other systems that should be in place?”

So it’s really just about rationalising what’s already happening, and it’s a great bill and I think we need to just move on. So, with those words, I commend it to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will also be taking a short call on this bill. The Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill is a common-sense bill that wants to gather some other changes that have been done to, effectively, create a new regulation-making power that will enable regulators to impose levies, and certain users of the register administered by the New Zealand Companies Office. Pretty straightforward.

I want to commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they have done on scrutinising this bill and coming through with some proposed amendments that were accepted unanimously. Some of these amendments include reclassifying the regulations as “confirmable instruments”, clarify that future levies can be combined in one payment, strengthening consultation provisions, and a statutory review of the levy system.

I note that there were only three, I believe, written submissions for this bill at the committee. We often hear from people opposing the legislation, and, when there’s something controversial, we get a lot of submissions trying to either improve or oppose it. I think that the fact that there was a bit of a low-level interest in this bill just shows that it is a common-sense bill. We commend this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill will be supported by ACT at the second reading. It amends the Companies Act 1993; it actually covers across 15 Acts and tries to clean up 16 registers.

But honesty’s required here: there is a funding shortfall, and the cost of upgrading these systems and registries needs to have a slightly changed model, which includes levies, and that is something which is a move on from just charging fees.

The bill itself does help to recover costs—not excessive costs—and it affects companies in the sense that they will have to pay, and protects incorporated societies from overinflated costs; i.e., they will be actually subsidised to participate on the registers themselves.

There were several changes at the select committee, which made sense. So the technical amendments do add some modernisation to the levy-making powers. We believe that it’s time to clean it up and we don’t have any administrative arguments with that. The important thing is it’s reviewed as a confirmable instrument over the next five years and ACT will be supporting this bill at this reading. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I start by acknowledging the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on this particular bill and my colleagues who are a strong team speaking in this bill this morning with less brouha—I think that’s our word for the day, brouha; we’ll continue that through.

The New Zealand Companies Office administers the corporate registry system of 16 registers and supports other statutory functions of its registrars, and this amendment bill amends the Companies Act 1993 to create a new regulation-making power that really makes the system a lot fairer. We don’t need to traverse this bill too much this morning. I think there’s some very good work that has been done by my colleagues on this, so the brouha can be minimised this morning, and we can get on with the mahi. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Todd McClay—it’s a five-minute call.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you. So early on a Wednesday morning when the House is not meeting in committee but is here to do what the Government says is important business that we have to set aside the work of committees to get on with, I don’t think we should suggest “Let’s rush through this to get rid of some of the brouhaha.”, as the last speaker, Shanan Halbert, said.

National is opposing this legislation, not because we don’t think those who receive a service should pay for it, but in this instance that’s not what the Government is doing. What the Government is doing is saying, “We’ll collect money whenever we want from anybody that’s involved with the companies register, and then get that used any other way.”, and what that means is that there are likely to be some people that pay for a service, but, actually, the fee that they pay isn’t used for that service and it’s used somewhere else. In essence, in a way, that could be seen to be subsidising others at the best, but at worst it comes to having a lazy Government.

When originally the legislation was put through the House to fix an issue because the companies house or the register was charging fees without the legal ability to do so, National supported that. However, this wasn’t looked at at the time and the Government didn’t make those changes then, and it’s now revisiting giving the ability, again, to officials to make rules or laws or decisions through regulation—without the oversight of this House—to collect fees and then use that in ways other than what the fee was used for.

To give you an example, the Government announced a short while ago that it wanted to increase the significant cost of clearing the border in New Zealand. When somebody arrives in New Zealand or leaves New Zealand, a fee is charged as part of, I suppose, the ticket to come in or come out, and that money is used directly and on a cost recovery basis just for the cost of running that service at the border. Well, in this case, this isn’t cost recovery. This is “Collect some money, use it however we want to within companies house.”, and, to give the same analogy at the border, it’s a little bit like saying, “Well, we’re going to collect some money from Australians who are coming to New Zealand as they go through the border, because there’s a cost of running that service of customs and immigration at the border, but we’re going to collect from them more than probably we need to, based on the service we provide to them, and we’re going to use it for something else.” I don’t know of anything we want, including “Let’s move it over to use for the companies register.”

We won’t be supporting this, because we don’t think it’s fair and we don’t think it’s proportionate. It is the case that people who register a company and who have access to the companies register must pay a fee as part of the cost of the service they’re provided with, but that’s not what this bill or this legislation is doing. It’s saying that an official, through regulation, can decide what the fee is and what it is used for, and it can be nothing to do with why the person is actually paying the money in the first place.

So this isn’t brouhaha. This is about charging hard-working New Zealanders a fee—it’s a type of tax, I suppose. We know that the Labour Government loves new taxes, and in this case they’re saying, “It’s not enough just to say that we’re going to collect this tax based on the proportionality of user-pays. What we’re going to do is collect this tax and use it however we want.” So it’s the user paying for things for which they receive no service for at all. It’s not good legislation, it’s not something that we can support, and we won’t be voting for it.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I see the Māori Party’s chosen not to take its call, so I’ll just make a couple of brief comments in response to the member, who doesn’t seem to understand what fees and levies really are all about. It’s not like going to the shop and purchasing something off the shelf. The Companies Office manages a number of registers. This is simply a tidy-up so that the law—which, across multiple Governments, has been erroneously applied—is tidied up to make it clear that the fees and levies charge can be used to fund across the various registries that are administered. A sensible piece of legislation—surprised the National Party once again is standing in the way of sensible progress.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I was on the select committee that considered this bill, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I’m fully supportive of it. Just to respond to the points made by the Opposition, there’s a five-year review on this bill. People did that because they were mindful of the issue about making sure that fees were reasonable. There’s also a consultation being recommended over those fees. But, basically, what I would say to the New Zealand public is I remember being a search clerk many years ago and it was a very laborious and expensive process for everyone. We’ve come a long way. This is about a modern bill, and, actually, if the Labour Party stands for modernising this area and the National Party doesn’t, well, I think the New Zealand public will draw its own conclusions. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to add to the brouhaha—and I note all the syllables in that as rightly expressed and fully expressed by the Hon Todd McClay. I mean, I know the Government is taking very short calls this morning but I thought, you know, whacking a syllable off the end is unnecessarily tight.

So the member who’s just resumed her seat, Helen White, has talked about the New Zealand public being able to form its own conclusions. I mean, one of the things that we say on this side of the House is that the Government is taxing far too much and spending far too much, but at least with taxation proper they come to the House of Parliament and, at least nominally, go through a process—you know, the Budget process and there’s tax legislation. But of course, the point about regulations and levies in this case, and we’ll get into the detail of what actually a levy is, at least to some extent, for the benefit of members of the Regulations Review Committee who I know will be—

Hon Member: Hey!

CHRIS PENK: There we go, a shout out to the Regulations Review Committee. And I note that the deputy chair of it is here today and I hope she doesn’t disagree with the points that I have to make. But anyway, that’s her lookout, or so I suppose.

Anyway, so tax is fine as far as it goes. I mean, obviously we say it’s a necessary evil and, you know, a certain amount is required obviously to run the country. And yes, it is necessary to have a certain amount of it—and to be fair, parties of the left no doubt would say much the same thing in principle, albeit that they would draw the line in a different place about the extent of taxation. Of course, we can argue and differ over where taxes should be raised, how they should be raised, and certainly how they should be spent. But of course, the point about tax, as I’ve said already before, in that more particular sense of the phrase is that it’s a duty of Parliament or a right of Parliament to agree or not agree to the plans of the executive to raise taxes. So they have to come here and it’s appropriate that appropriations take place through this House; we call them Votes in the Budget and so forth. However, in the case of a kind of taxation or at least a kind of raising of revenue, that’s not technically taxation, but it’s levying that’s imposed on the people of New Zealand, maybe particular users of a service and so forth by regulation—and of course that means it’s the Government of the day, it’s Ministers, it’s Government agencies, it’s technically the Governor-General—bless her heart.

By the way, while I’m on the subject briefly, Mr Speaker, if you’ll indulge me for a moment, it was nice to see Her Excellency launch a book on the constitution of New Zealand yesterday. Anyway, I feel bad that not all members of the House were able to get to that for reasons that we won’t sort of dwell on, but that was unfortunate because it was a really interesting book launch. Justice Matthew Palmer and Dr Dean Knight put forward a really good contribution to the discussion in New Zealand about our constitution. I haven’t had the chance to read it; it was only last night, but no doubt there would have been something about the way that Parliament, as opposed to the Government of the day, raises taxes and levies and so on.

So, in relation to this bill, it’s really important to note that the kind of revenue raising is being done without reference to Parliament, is being done without reference to the House of Representatives, and that’s fine as far as it goes. Again, we delegate our authority in this House to Government agencies to raise money that they need for particular purposes. And that’s the key. It’s the particular purpose for which the money is to be raised or levied upon the uses of those services, and that’s the basis on which the money should then be spent. So when we have this raising of revenue for the use of one service but applied to another purpose, another bucket of money—I suppose in accounting terms, not that I’ve used the technical term, but you know what I mean—then it’s a problem actually. And it’s precisely because it was a problem that this practice had taken place over a number of years that a bill in the nature of a tidy-up already came to the House, already was passed, and yes, National supported that. So Dr Duncan Webb is right to characterise the situation as a tidy-up in some sense, but that’s the bit that’s already taken place, that’s the retrospective validation of the thing that had already happened in the past. But this is now a conscious policy decision by this Government to say that it’s OK to levy funds for one particular purpose and apply them to another—and that’s just actually constitutionally not very sound.

We say that the cross subsidisation, to use the phrase aptly employed by my colleague and friend, the Hon Todd McClay, isn’t appropriate. And so, naturally, we resist this; “naturally”, we say, this is a step in a direction that the country should not be taking. We know it’s not fair, frankly, that people would be paying money, you know, for one particular purpose—the context is the Companies Act and, of course, there are lots of different types of entities that have different registers, so just again, without harping on to belabour the point too much, these are different purposes, these are different entities and these are different registers. And so we say, let’s keep it clean. Levy the funds for that which is needed, don’t levy—

Hon Dr David Clark: They love their red tape over there. They love their red tape.

CHRIS PENK: Oh-ho! We have the Hon David Clark saying that we love red tape. Well, all I can say is there’s less red tape in our approach to this than in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act regulations as ushered in by that Minister. Goodness me, I’m very surprised that he has the gall to raise the subject of red tape in this House in connection with regulations. But anyway, that’s for him to answer, not me. It’s beyond the scope of the bill so I won’t go any further except to emphasise again: we can’t and won’t support this bill.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill is about efficiency. I think that one of the things that I continually hear from the Opposition is them complaining about the reason to complain. This bill is just about getting on with the business. And every time I get to stand up and talk about business, I frankly wonder what sort of businesses that the Opposition even think about. For a company, what this means is efficiency and getting it done, on time, and if this can help that—remembering that this was a request of the Government, to come in and make this simple efficiency, to make it all better for us to get our companies registered on time and more efficient. So on that, I commend, as a final speaker, the second reading to the House.

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

Ayes 86

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Plant Variety Rights Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Plant Variety Rights 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 Plant Variety Rights Bill be now read a third time.

Before I get too far into my contribution, I do want to acknowledge the kind folks in mid-south Canterbury Federated Farmers, who have allowed me to come prepared with the appropriate attire. The member Jo Luxton brought them in to talk to me about this matter, amongst other things, some time ago. The kind folks there left me with this beautiful tie—

Hon Todd McClay: I think it’s ‘cos they didn’t like the tie you were wearing.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —with the sheaves of wheat on it. I’ve worn this tie through the readings of this bill in the House, at various points, to acknowledge the contribution of farmers—

Dr Duncan Webb: Great seed there too.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —we will have no more jokes seeded of that nature through the debate!—to acknowledge our growers and the importance that they play in the economy. There’s been debates in my office this morning about the appropriateness of wearing it with this particular shirt, but we’ll put that aside. I think it’s a style choice and a strong choice to make the point today.

Anyway, let’s come back to the bill almost immediately. The bill governs an area of intellectual property law referred at PVRs, or plant variety rights. It’s focused on promoting innovation and, with it, economic growth for New Zealand through encouraging the development of new varieties of plants.

Now, many of these new varieties underpin the success of our economy, particularly in horticulture and agriculture. Our beloved kiwifruit is an example that’s often cited. We’ve got the green one, we’ve got the gold one, and now we hear, more—

Hon Kiritapu Allan: The red.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and more, about the red one—my colleague points out, and absolutely right. There are more and more examples of innovative breeding that is benefiting our society.

Another example is grass that has been developed after decades of trials to deter birds by lowering the amount of insects harboured in the plant. That’s been a huge success near airports, where bird strike, otherwise, is a challenge. We can all imagine the benefit that is created by that.

The PVR regime has to try and strike a balance between rewarding plant breeders for their efforts in developing a new plant variety and providing access to these new varieties for the population, for the growers, and for the consumers so that society as a whole benefits from these new varieties that are bred.

The bill does this by strengthening intellectual property rights to encourage innovation while still freely permitting breeders to build on existing innovation to create new varieties, while freely permitting farmers to save seed to plant for next season’s crop, and freely permitting home gardeners to grow new varieties for themselves. These things are important to get right, in terms of the balance.

On top of that, what makes the bill especially unique is that it protects kaitiaki relationships with taonga species if they would be impacted by a PVR grant.

The bill has, therefore, three overarching purposes. In addition to the intellectual property (IP) purpose—which is about encouraging that innovation, the benefits to the economy that come from it, and making sure our IP developers are rewarded—the other two purposes relate to New Zealand’s international and domestic obligations. The balancing of obligations reflects a uniquely New Zealand approach to PVRs that we can, I think, be very proud of as a small country. We’re not afraid of forging our own path here and acknowledging our own history and developing a policy that fits us, here, in this corner of the world.

So, first off, the bill enables us, here, in Aotearoa New Zealand, to meet our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which requires us to have a suitable intellectual property regime in place. It requires us, in that, more specifically, to align with what’s known as UPOV-91, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991—everyone calls it UPOV-91—so we’re aligning with that set of intellectual property obligations. Now, giving effect to UPOV-91 will ensure, effectively, through that that we’re in line with international best practice and intellectual property law and better reflect the realities of modern plant breeding.

The second thing we’re doing is to ensure that our PVR regime recognises and is consistent with the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty. Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Wai 262 claim, found that kaitiaki relationships with taonga species are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection. The bill establishes a Māori Plant Varieties Committee whose primary role will be to assess the likely impact of the grant of a PVR on kaitiaki relationships with taonga species. Essentially, it’s about ensuring there is no detrimental effect on that kaitiaki relationship. Having said that, if there is an impact, it’s about mitigation and ensuring that that relationship can be mitigated.

The bill does go further in strengthening kaitiakitanga within the PVR system, and that was as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal. The Government recognises the need to better protect taonga species, taonga works, and mātauranga Māori. The establishment of a Māori committee with genuine decision-making powers protects that kaitiaki relationship and reflects true partnership.

I will say that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did an excellent job in scrutinising the bill. The changes made by the committee will strengthen the legislation and ensure it operates to the benefit of all of Aotearoa New Zealand. I particularly want to acknowledge the introduction of an appeal right, through that process, in line with what the courts thought was appropriate—we, too, agree that it is important to have an appeal right—and that goes through to the Māori Appellate Court. So I do want to acknowledge the select committee doing that work and introducing that aspect to the bill; I think it improves the bill.

To conclude, the bill brings us in line with our international obligations and our Treaty obligations. Those international obligations are both in terms of the CPTPP, fulfilling our obligations there, and also in terms of making sure that we have an appropriate regime that aligns with UPOV-91 and rewards our intellectual-property developers and the benefits that they bring to our economy. It strikes a sweet spot, I think, in being true to our free-trade agreement and also true to our history, in terms of our Treaty—a nation founded on partnership.

Finally, I want to thank all of those who contributed through their submissions to the select committee, through the committee’s work and the improvements that they have brought, and, overall, I want to acknowledge the importance of the CPTPP and trade to New Zealand. We are a small trading nation, a long way from traditional markets, and having fit for purpose trade agreements—and I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker and the Hon Damien O’Connor for their work on our trade agreements—mean that we can trade with the world, that we can earn export dollars, and that we can reward those in our country who innovate, to that end.

So, with that, I commend this bill to the House for its third reading.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak this morning on the Plant Variety Rights Bill third reading. I wasn’t a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee as it went through this process, but there are two people, in Melissa Lee and Todd McClay, who are here this morning, who were part of that committee and did the excellent work.

What I will say to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in line with some comments he made earlier in the House, is that National is completely opposed to too much red tape, but I am pleased to see that the Minister is wearing a tie from the mid-south Canterbury Federated Farmers—a very nice tie; wearing it with pride. It’s really interesting that the pride in farming and growing is increasing on the other side of the House. I don’t know, Minister, whether it’s got something to do with 2023 coming, but I do like the tie and I do compliment you on that this morning.

I just want to make another comment about something that the Minister said this morning about the importance of developing—and National is really in favour of free enterprise, and intellectual property (IP) is really important in this. The Minister talked, this morning, about a grass that is used to deter birds away from airports. I just want to say that, in this space, there is a lot of IP, there is a lot of work going on in New Zealand to develop pastures and grasses which actually will lower the methane emissions from ruminant animals. Unfortunately, at the moment, some of our regulatory systems in place don’t allow our ability to trial some of those important grasses in New Zealand. That’s something that, possibly, if the Government really did want to do something to help farmers—they may want to have a look at those regulatory systems, to make sure that we’re not giving our advantages away to the rest of the world.

So, look, most of these plant variety rights are sought for fruit crops and arable and vegetable crops, but there are pasture plants, ornamental plants, and even fungi.

It is important, as the Minister said, for trade and New Zealand’s obligation to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). That’s also something that’s quite interesting—that the Government was actually out protesting against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and—

Hon Member: Labour—Labour Opposition.

BARBARA KURIGER: —they actually put—the Labour Government, yep—a “CP” in front of the TPP, and, now, all of a sudden it’s acceptable. But I am pleased that this Government does support trade. Intellectual property is very important to those trading rights.

Now, having said before that I wasn’t on the committee, I did learn a lot last week throughout the committee of the whole House stage, listening to the debate between the Minister and Andrew Bayly. It was quite a long committee stage and it was largely focused around kūmara. One of the big learnings of last week was that the kūmara was a species that may have been here originally but it caught a terrible disease. Mr and Mrs Gock, a Chinese couple, developed a plant variety that allowed the kūmara to survive, and the kūmara that we know today is here because of Mr and Mrs Gock. If anyone wants to know that story—and Melissa Lee, I think, knows it very well—there are many stories and videos if you go on to Google and you look up about how Mr and Mrs Gock saved the kūmara—and thank goodness they did, because we all love kūmara!

But what it did is it brought the question about how, when we’re protecting the kaitiaki relationships of these species, extra intellectual property rights come about by people developing things further. National are supporting this bill, but we do have some reservations around—and I understand, from the Minister, that there’s quite a small list of plant varieties which really do fit into this category, and that the committee that’s being put in place, which is called the Māori advisory committee, to advise on these matters, will only be having a very small number of species referred to them. We hope, over here at National, that that is the case, and that’s something that the Minister went to great length to assure everybody of, last week.

So we support moving to a new plant variety rights regime that will give effect to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 and strengthen that protection for plant breeders. We understand that it does need to be in line with the world because we are a trading nation and we will always be a trading nation. Certainly, the things that we’re trading on now, agriculture and horticulture—I know that, when you go back to the 1980s, agriculture was called a sunset industry. People can call it “agriculture” all they like, but, actually—and that was under a Labour Government as well—it is food. That is the important thing about agriculture and horticulture: it’s very important that New Zealand feeds the world.

Interestingly, I did see a little quote this morning that was put in a comment on my Facebook—over at COP27, they’re questioning what’s going on and what the Government is currently trying to do to the best and lowest-emission farmers in the world. So that was a rather interesting comment that I read there.

But we are in the food business, we are in the trade business, and this is extremely important. So as long as the scope and the function of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is clarified very well, then we are comfortable to see this bill go forward, because, certainly, the extent of what this bill is trying to do is extremely important—so as long as it’s an advisory body and it’s only used for the small scope of the plants that it was designed to do.

So, really, at this point, having not been on the committee and having probably extended the full amount of my knowledge that I have on this piece of legislation, I’m going to stop there. Thank you. We commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. It’s been a very positive process. I’d like to acknowledge all of those who have worked in terms of the select committee—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—on this process. I’d like to acknowledge all of those who’ve made submissions on it. We’re now at the third reading, and this bill is about to, I believe, pass into law, which is good.

The bill represents a new and uniquely New Zealand approach to plant variety rights that will ensure our responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are upheld, also aligning the highest international standards of plant variety protection. It links into the work that we’ve been doing in terms of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91) and the place that we play with the other countries around the world. We’ve taken a unique approach to the part that we play in this in terms of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and we’ve taken an approach where we’ve brought in a lot of our indigenous plants into this in order to protect the intellectual property that comes with those.

Our select committee suggested a number of amendments, which, you know, have strengthened the bill. Yeah, look, it’s an important piece of legislation in terms of our UPOV-91 requirements and our connection with the rest of the world on pieces of legislation like this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill in its final reading before it actually becomes law. As the previous speaker has said, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has done a lot of work, and I’d like to thank all my colleagues in the select committee. We work as a team in the committee, I think, and, regardless of different parties, I think we tend to agree on what is actually good for the nation. And I’d also like to thank all of the submitters on the bill, and also the Minister, Dr David Clark, for participating very actively during our committee stages. Although there were some frustrations in certain areas, I think he endeavoured to answer them fulsomely, and I appreciate his efforts and all of the officials and the clerk of the committee who have put in extreme hard work to get this bill to this point.

On this side of the House, as my learned colleague Barbara Kuriger actually said, we support moving to a new plant variety rights regime that gives effect to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). Because it’s an international treaty, we have to actually do this. But, I think, as Ms Kuriger said, there were certain things that we did actually talk through during the committee stages, particularly in terms of the kaitiaki rights. I think, you know, for a person who comes from a different country with specific cultures that we have very big pride in—for example, our dress, our food—

Stuart Smith: And golfers.

MELISSA LEE: And golfers. But sometimes the cultural appropriation by other people gets us really riled up. So we understand the issue in terms of cultural appropriation and the kaitiaki relationship that we need to have for traditional plant varieties and the culture that exists in this country. The cultural appropriation almost happened, in my case, where as a young person coming from Korea and having grown up singing a particular song called “Yeon-ga” in Korean—I sang it thinking it was a Korean song, and it goes like this:

비바람이치던바다

It starts like that. But it sounds very much like a te reo Māori song, and it’s actually “Pokarekare Ana”, but Koreans sing a slightly faster and funkier version of it.

Tāmati Coffey: Show us!

MELISSA LEE: Not going to be singing—not doing that today. But I thought, as a child growing up, it was a Korean song, without knowing that it actually came from Aotearoa, and moving to New Zealand and learning that it actually came from here, I was absolutely shocked, because all Koreans thought it was a Korean love song. To think that it was actually the New Zealand soldiers and Navy personnel who went to the Korean War in 1950 that passed on the song, and the Korean verses and the lyrics are exactly the same, or have very similar wordings to te reo Māori words, actually gives it a bigger meaning for me. So the kaitiaki relationship, and not the cultural appropriation by Korean people of “Pokarekare Ana”, I think we actually get to understand—that we understand.

So we were talking about the kūmara, that it is actually a traditional plant variety of the Māori people that came on the first waka to Aotearoa, but the thing is that in the 1950s, the black rot literally decimated the kūmara stock that existed in New Zealand. What we wanted to get to was: where does the kaitiaki relationship actually sit when the original plant stock was decimated, and it was, in fact, Joe and Fay Gock who developed a new plant variety that resisted the black rot, and they literally distributed this particular plant variety, free of charge, to the rest of New Zealand? It was their gift to New Zealand, and where does the kaitiaki relationship actually sit for that particular variety? That was a question that, I believe, never really got answered, but I think we sort of got to a point where the Minister said that the intellectual property (IP) does belong to the Gock family, and I think that protection is actually acceptable.

I don’t think the Gock family wants New Zealand to pay for the gift that they’ve given the nation, but I think the recognition that they have the kaitiaki rights and the management of their particular plant variety—and it’s not just the Gocks; it’s people who innovate in horticulture or agriculture. Their IP and the kaitiaki relationship: does it only sit with the Māori community, or is it for everyone who wants to protect the variety that is developed in New Zealand and Aotearoa, so that we protect our IP against the rest of world who may actually culturally appropriate—or horticulturally appropriate—what is rightfully a New Zealand variety?

This has been a long journey to this point, and I shouldn’t take too much more time because I think we need to make sure that this gets passed and we, basically, put the UPOV-91 regime in place and make sure that people have time to clearly know where they sit in terms of the new plant variety rights. So I commend this bill to the House.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): I do agree with my colleague across the House Melissa Lee that this has been a really long process. In fact, I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when this bill came up on the Order Paper once again after such a long time; I thought we had passed it a while back. However, I have thoroughly enjoyed the select committee processes. As my colleague across the House is on our Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—one of the best in the House. Also, I recognise the chair, who has just contributed to this debate as well. During the select committee process, it was one of those weird and wonderful bills where you expanded your knowledge in a subject matter area very, very extensively in a very short amount of time. This whole entire International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants process, whether we follow the Australians, whether they’re going to amend their own process of their protection of intellectual property (IP) of their plant varieties, or we’re going to go down the European way—all of those things, I really want to thank all of the officials especially for guiding us, especially when this is not a very common and popular kind of area we all bring something to.

However, like my colleague has just mentioned, intellectual property in plant varieties is actually quite emotive as well for some people—emotional. We often connect food with emotions, and I just want to pay a special shout-out to one of my friends, an artist in our community called Cindy Huang, who put in an installation, an interactive art instalment called Twin Cultivation, where she particularly explored the different connections that food brings different cultures, for instance the Pacific community and the Chinese community and our kūmaras, and making sure that there are different types of kūmaras that actually get recognised. It was the first time I actually knew that the indigenous kūmara, the Māori kūmara, is only that small, because we imagine kūmaras being quite big and substantive. But she managed to create them out of ceramic.

So those things I think—protecting our IP in our food and in our plants—actually tell a story about our nation, about our cultures and the people that live on this land, and so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a privilege to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill, at the third reading, on behalf of the Greens. I know some of the speakers have talked at length about the kūmara and the importance of the kūmara, and I just wanted to make a brief reflection that for many of us from the Latin American region, and for many indigenous peoples from the region, the kūmara also plays a really important role, and it’s one that actually connects the Pacific side of the Latin American region with Aotearoa. I think it’s interesting to hear those different stories about the role that kūmara plays.

This bill, I acknowledge, does try to modernise New Zealand’s plant variety regime, which is fixed-term intellectual property rights granted to plant breeders over the variety they develop. The idea of modernising our variety regime is really important, and it is needed. I do also hear that throughout the debate it’s been mentioned that the intent of the bill was also to better protect indigenous people’s ability to not forego those rights over endemic species, and to meet our Treaty obligations. I think what we’ve unpacked in the first and second reading of this bill in our debates is that this desire to meet our Treaty obligations within this bill is at odds with the fact that this bill is also here to basically fulfil our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) obligations. When we think about the fact that we’re tying our approach to this bill to a trade deal which the Waitangi Tribunal found to be insufficient to protect Māori rights and our obligations pursuant to Te Tiriti, and that the Government didn’t fix this—I think the broader intent of this bill is at odds with the larger picture.

Throughout the submission process—and I touched on this in the second reading so I’m not going to go to great lengths in here—we did end up getting quite a few contributions, whether it was from the Māori Law Society, Professor Jane Kelsey, or Te Kāhui Oranga, who talked about some concerns about the insufficient aspects of this bill around genuinely protecting indigenous rights. So, once, again, the Green Party does have a long history of ensuring that we take a holistic view of legislation. We have had historical concerns over the CPTPP and what this will mean for indigenous rights, and so we do think that this bill as part of that broader approach could end up being part of a project that does not sufficiently protect indigenous rights, and, for that reason, we cannot support this bill. Thank you.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

I don’t sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, though I have sat through the debate process in its rigour and enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s been well articulated that the bill is to create a correct and needed legal framework for plant varieties to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). And I think we all agree that’s tantamount to a good outcome given that the convention of UPOV-78 that we have adhered to as a country—to do with all things to do with intellectual property rights in the horticultural arable sector and other sectors—is now no longer fit for purpose, and that leaves New Zealand outside of the scope of a lot of our international trading partners.

But there’s an old saying in politics: it’s more important to kill a bad bill than pass a good one. And I just want to convey why. We’re not being divergent in the ACT Party, in our views, for the sake of being divergent or belligerent; this has got quite a lot of problems—this piece of legislation—especially when it speaks to parts, including in Part 5. It’s littered with potential problems and outcomes that have yet to be canvassed and well-articulated.

We all accept that the bill by its design is to try to attract international and domestic investment and intellectual property (IP). That’s the point of this; we understand that. But when we’re actually looking at plant varieties and those grants and the grant process, 70 percent of it comes from offshore; 30 percent is domestic, of which 5 percent is Māori.

Now we have heard of the kūmara being articulated in the House today. I’m a Northlander, I’ve been up there for 35 years. I live in kūmara country, and we have seen massive investment from all manner of international and domestic players coming into New Zealand—or here in New Zealand—into that reality. That is a massive local economy and it’s had multiple parts—not just Māori—and that’s where we take real umbrage with this bill.

I want to speak to, if I can, Part 5, clause 52(b), providing for a plant varieties administrator who proceeds to make determinations about kaitiaki relationships. How does that work in that instance of kūmara? Totally appreciate it. We understand its tie to New Zealand—everything Kiwi—but we’ve all seen massive foreign and domestic investment.

And I go on: clause 53, the part applies to plant variety right (PVR) application “relates to plant variety that is derived wholly or partly from”. Well, you’re trying to reconcile that and this is the point of this debate. “Partly from”: what does that mean if it’s indigenous or partly indigenous? Who makes that determination?

The bill departs from several areas of its origins that have raised significant concerns by those in the industry. It’s hard to see that investment both domestically and to New Zealand—whether being foreign or here—has surety. Whilst we accept and agree with the Treaty provisions—we understand this concept; we understand the issues in and around Wai 262—but the percentage of PVR applications in taonga species is 5 percent. This is about property rights for all investors, whether they’re domestic or international.

Interpretation of the kaitiaki relationship to be determined by an independent plant varieties committee: well, I’ve canvassed my debate point earlier on. This is fraught with a lot of problems, and you can see international players coming into New Zealand being deeply concerned about the convoluted language that may come out of that process. It should give consideration to the appeal process; natural justice seems to be potentially eroded if you are in a legal battle over what is construed as indigenous to New Zealand or not—and by virtue, you can see how that really affects investment into New Zealand.

The whole point of this legislation is to give certainty by acceding to UPOV-91. We totally agree with our international obligations and our free trade, but by virtue of this Māori Plant Varieties Committee that has granting obligations that can potentially run roughshod over a big cohort of international investors, this stifles that opportunity.

ACT fundamentally cannot stand and support this bill. This is about property rights of all investors, and by virtue this has quite a convoluted process and we don’t support this bill.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

On Saturday, we saw the nation unite around—what has been shared in this House—the success of the Black Ferns, with the singing of an anthem by Dame Hinewehi Mohi that, at the time, was lambasted as a departure from our great anthem. But we saw her comeback—26 years—and it was a celebration. We saw the conclusion of a great match, where the crowd sang “Tūtira Mai”.

I want to stand up in response to that member, around the vision. Earlier this year we also had the gifting of Matariki, which has continued to unite and put New Zealand on an international stage, celebrating indigenous knowledge to add to the body of this great nation.

I’m standing in support of the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and wanted this House to rest assured that this component that we are celebrating is not a divisive measure. It’s an acknowledgment of the indigenous knowledge that has sat quite comfortably, and I’ve given you two recent examples where the gifting of a great body of knowledge to the greater good of the nation has unified the nation—it has unified the nation.

I know there’s been talk in this House about kūmara, so I just want to add my little kōrero about kūmara and our tipuna. I come from the mighty East Coast, of a tribe called Rongowhakaata, and our story is that our ancestor Hine Hākirirangi brought the kūmara to this nation on the great Horouta waka. Hine Hākirirangi was the sister of the captain of the Horouta waka and his name was Paoa. That tuber that she brought, tucked under her breast as a way of keeping it moist on that great journey across the mighty Pacific was actually planted in a maunga called Manawarū, and it is really at the base of where I live right now, in a village called Manutuke, just south of Gisborne.

And so, in terms of acknowledging the passage of this bill and the connections of our indigenous people, I’m sharing but one story of how our tipuna Hine Hākirirangi brought the kūmara to this nation. But not only how she brought the kūmara to this nation—acknowledging it was many years ago and things have moved on and things have changed. It’s that innate responsibility of manaakitanga, of kaitiakitanga of our indigenous knowledge, that we gift to the nation. In the passing of this bill we had the opportunity to meet with other indigenous growers—the significance of not only acknowledging that indigenous knowledge but allowing it to be gifted to the nation, just like we saw on Saturday night, and just like we saw at Matariki.

It is not a thing to be afraid of—putting indigenous Māori people in part of our development as a nation is a good thing for this nation. It is not a divisive tool that, unfortunately, some members in this House always refer to. They look at the glass half-empty as opposed to the full glass.

I am pleased to take this short call acknowledging the modernisation of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I congratulate the Minister, also the hard-working select committee that scrutinised this, and, of course, all the submitters. It is a great time to celebrate not just a modern plant variety Act in this country, but, by association, the significance of the indigenous knowledge that is built into this bill. I commend it to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will bring, perhaps, a slightly different perspective. So I speak in support of the Plant Variety Rights Bill in this, its third reading, which of course replaces the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, which really hasn’t kept up with the changes in plant breeding, in technology, and in science. Now, being so heavily dependent on our wonderful, successful, world-leading primary sector, New Zealand has, of course, been at the forefront of, particularly, developing plant species. So this bill is an important one, because it supports the industry that really is the heartbeat of this nation.

I was pleased to see the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, wearing his Federated Farmers tie, although many might—perhaps unkindly—say that that’s the only support that this Government has given to any of our New Zealand farmers. However, the plant variety rights are an important form of intellectual property rights for our plant breeders, providing exclusive rights relating to reproductive materials, and, of course, mainly sought for fruit crops, arable and vegetable crops, pasture plants, ornamental plants, and fungi.

I think when we’re on this important subject, it really behoves me to mention and acknowledge those wonderful organisations that we have in New Zealand that help so much with our plant development, and that is Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research. While this bill concentrates on the protection of New Zealand intellectual plant property rights, I do want to acknowledge what an enormous part both Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research play not only for development in New Zealand but also on the world stage. If I can refer to some recent collaborative research that Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research have been doing with a Netherlands university and a research company and also a Japanese breeding company to identify ways to produce plant seeds that are genetically identical to the parent plant—this is incredibly important work on a world stage, and the impact that it will have for subsistence farmers needs to be acknowledged.

I really think it’s important for us to talk about these things in the House, because in the House last night, I heard a Green Party member knocking our primary sector loud and clear, so it is really important that the people in this House and the people of New Zealand understand just how much the New Zealand primary sector and our research institutes and universities working in that primary sector space contribute not only to the developments that occur in New Zealand but also to the leading science and technology that assists agriculture worldwide, and see the impact that this joint research that they are doing will have on subsistence farmers and their ability to produce more food in, particularly, areas where there is food scarcity. We should be very, very mindful of how good our primary sector is. So, in the context of this plant variety bill, I do want to acknowledge those incredibly important research entities that we have contributing to the development work that we do here in New Zealand and worldwide, and I hope that the Green Party will get out of their fairy land and understand how scientific and technologically advanced our agricultural developments are in New Zealand and stop bagging our important primary sector.

I know that I’ve moved a little broader than this Plant Variety Rights Bill in the third reading, but it’s an incredibly important thing for us to realise how well we apply science and research to our agricultural sector to be world leading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Terisa Ngobi—five minutes.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Ata mārie, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a short call today on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. To be honest, I didn’t know that we, Aotearoa New Zealand, were world leading in terms of our plant variety industry and really leading the way in terms of our research and planning, for example, the mahi New Zealand Plant Breeding and Research Association is doing, including its forage industry strategy.

This bill will replace the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. The changes will strengthen our already thriving local plant breeding industry while also showcasing to foreign breeders and investors the value in investing here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The bill also implements the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to the plant variety rights regime.

We heard earlier, with Minister Whaitiri, the Waitangi Tribunal considered the Crown’s obligations in relation to the plant variety rights regime in the Wai 262 report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, and the recommendations included a Māori advisory committee to advise the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights on this matter. The bill strengthens these recommendations by establishing a Māori plant varieties committee with a decision making rather than an advisory power.

Again, just tautoko-ing what Minister Whatiri said, this is to enhance Aotearoa’s standing—sorry, I should have said earlier. This is nothing to be scared of; this is something to celebrate. This bill represents a uniquely New Zealand approach to the plant variety rights. It ensures our responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it aligns us to the highest international standards of plant variety protection while meeting our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. So again, it’s a real pleasure to rise and support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. When I first learnt that I was speaking on this bill, I said to my friend and colleague Ms Brooking, “Excellent. I love plants, I’m an avid gardener.” She said to me, “Emily, this is not about plants, this is about the intellectual property of plants”, and she is absolutely right.

For those who are just joining us, there are two things this bill does. The first is it aligns us with international obligations under the treaties and it actually strengthens the rights of our remarkably innovative and effective plant-breeders, like my neighbours, in my little garden in Whangārei, Lynwood Nurseries, who are remarkably innovative in their breeding of avocados and their development of grafting technologies. The other thing it does is it brings in a unique and very powerful protection for our indigenous community’s relationships with the indigenous flora of this nation—the kūmara has been mentioned on many occasions this morning.

My friend Mr Cameron across the aisle in the ACT Party mentioned he has lived in Tai Tokerau for 37 years. Well, I trump you at 43 years, Mr Cameron, and he tangata Tiriti ahau, a sixth generation Pākehā Kiwi. What I want to say is this: I do not understand the white fragility that leads to the concern over the protection of indigenous relationships and mana whenua relationships with their plant varieties. I am sixth generation, I stand proudly with my colleagues, Meka Whaitiri, and my other colleagues and mana whenua in this land.

This is a good bill. Too often have we watched overseas when indigenous peoples’ knowledge of plants has been stripped, taken by companies from outside, and used to make profits outside their country of origin. We are not going to let that happen in this Government. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I’m going to try my very best not to be diverted by that last speech, with the exception of mentioning white fragility. The member Dr Emily Henderson said “white fragility”. I’m not sure at all what that has to do with this legislation, other than a view on the part of the Labour Party that anybody who is Pākehā in New Zealand that doesn’t agree with them completely is fragile, and, I’m sorry, that’s not the case in this legislation or anywhere else. Anybody in this debate that has raised concerns about the legislation is not doing so because they don’t want good legislation; it’s because the Government often rushes things through with mistakes and then has to come back to fix it. We’ve heard a lot from members of the Government about the kūmara, and, in fact, in the committee stage there was very long discussion about that. Well, there’s an old Māori proverb that says the kūmara never speaks about how sweet it actually is, and it’s a shame that members opposite have brought the intellect of a kūmara to this debate and are talking about how good it is as opposed to focusing on what’s important here.

National supports the legislation because it was a commitment that was made in the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that some of the members opposite looking blankly at me right now protested in the streets against. It’s the same commitment that’s in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), an agreement that largely is the same as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, without America and with the words “Comprehensive and Progressive” in front of it. But nothing in this legislation—the commitment that was made to look at property rights for plant variety rights in respect of a Treaty of Waitangi obligation is not a single word different from the TPP, which they protested against, to the CPTPP. That’s important to note, because as members opposite talk about white fragility and the great important job they’re doing and their commitment in this area, they are passing this legislation because of something that was not negotiated by them; it was inherited by them. It’s important to set the record straight.

In as far as intellectual property rights are concerned, they are important in any part of our economy, and when it comes to plant varieties even more so. The last speaker was partially right in as far as us needing to protect intellectual property in New Zealand so that others offshore don’t take advantage of it, but it’s more than that: it’s so that the rights of the people who invest their time and their capital in scientific research for better productivity, production or find solutions to environmental challenges can get a return on that, and someone else just doesn’t get to merely benefit from it. This legislation does that.

In fact, we heard from many submitters in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, when I was on the committee and we went through this, that the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants agreement actually would achieve everything that is needed in as far as the CPTPP is concerned, or the original TPP, and we would find a way to protect indigenous rights, as other countries have, where they need to be protected.

The Government’s decided to go much further than that, and, in essence, we have a different regime than many other countries of the world. It will be important that we monitor how this is rolled out and the impact or effect it has, because wherever a system is different without there being a clear reason for it to be different than other countries, particularly when it comes to intellectual property, then there can be delays or costs to the business concern, or the protection that the Government says is delivered to intellectual property holders here will not be afforded in other countries. Indeed, I think the route the Government has chosen to go down—there’s only one other jurisdiction in the world that has followed this. Sorry, two: one that has followed this; the second is Australia. Australia built in a legislative review to their legislation, and my understanding is we received advice or evidence to the committee that Australia will make a change when they get to their legislative review of their legislation because they don’t believe it is providing the protection it should and it’s holding back business.

A lot of members have talked about the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. National doesn’t stand opposed to that, but what we would stand opposed to is the ability for one committee that set up on the side of this whole process around intellectual property to slow down decision making around the granting of rights where there is no need to and there is no kaitiaki interest. We were given assurances in the committee, but from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in committee stage, that it would be the chief executive of the overall organisation that would make decisions both of what is referred to this committee and then the final decision as to whether or not there is an indigenous right.

It’s very important that that is the case, that we hold the Minister to his word. It’s not to say that where there is an indigenous right it shouldn’t afford protection—that’s what the legislation is providing—but I wouldn’t like to see a process slowed down purely because something could or it might, because, ultimately, what will happen is if it’s not working well in New Zealand, if there is uncertainty, if the process is slow, if people who want to invest and perhaps bring a product to the New Zealand market to develop it here and will look for a protection of their intellectual rights—if there is uncertainty they just won’t come and invest here; they will go to another country, and that would defeat the purpose of the intellectual property part of indigenous rights in this legislation. The reason for that is, actually, these rights that are being afforded in New Zealand are only for the New Zealand jurisdiction. Somebody could pick up the so-called kūmara or anything else and take it to another country and develop it, and because the rights that are afforded in this bill are not recognised elsewhere, they won’t be there.

So, actually, I think what everybody wants in New Zealand is for a stronger economy, for science to find solutions for us to be more productive on the farms and in our forests and on the orchards, but, ultimately, in as far as rights holders or people who want to develop rights in New Zealand, for instance, or somebody from overseas wanting to bring a variety to New Zealand—if there is uncertainty, if it takes too long, if it is too costly, they just won’t come here. We’re 5 million people—we’re not 50 million people, we’re not 500 million people. They will go somewhere else. So with the very best intention in this legislation, it will be important to monitor it to make sure there aren’t delays, there aren’t barriers, and that the commitments the Minister has given the committee and this House are delivered upon.

This legislation is about intellectual property. In as far as previous rights are concerned, it is very, very hard to prove. The Minister has said, in as far as kaitiaki rights are concerned, it will be very narrow; there would be very few. In fact, the legislation does go to some degree of saying what is not included and excluding some things, but regulatory creep or the creep of jurisdiction when it comes to decision making within our ministries and departments is of extreme concern. I would hope that the House or the committee, who say they’ve worked so hard and understand this fully, would at some time in the future revisit this to see if it’s working well, because it isn’t working well. It’s not just Māori or the so-called white people that the Labour Party and the last member was speaking of who are fragile, or others in New Zealand that will be disadvantaged and not benefit; it will be every New Zealander and every part of our economy.

Intellectual property actually can enhance economies. It can offer great opportunity, it can grow, it delivers advancements, but where legislation gets it wrong and things are stifled, it has the opposite effect. And wouldn’t it be a shame if this legislation was in all those years ago when New Zealanders decided to take a small gooseberry and turn it into a kiwifruit that delivers, with a worldwide reputation, so much for our economy that so many growers in New Zealand can be proud of. In the processes the Government had set up—there was a claim put in and it took many, many years to work through. It was finally found that that claim wasn’t justified. Well, would we have that kiwifruit as we do today? Now, that’s not likely to have happened back there, but the point of that is, if there was a delay of some years as committees consider and get advice and talk to lawyers and go to so-called experts and so on, then, actually, the business community gets on. It may not be called a kiwifruit; it could be called an Australian fruit or a Chinese fruit or an Italian fruit, because, actually, today investors can go anywhere in the world with their scientists to develop new varieties that people will want to purchase, and if we are slow in New Zealand, as this Labour Government is often far too slow, we would miss out.

We are supporting it, but we will be keeping an eye on it to make sure the commitments and promises that the Minister made to us are honoured. And I want to say to that last member: there is no such thing in New Zealand as white fragility—you’re out of your mind.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I am not a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who considered this bill. However, I am a member of the esteemed Regulations Review Committee, and one of the privileges of being on that committee is that we cover a broad range of topics. Our substantive focus goes from lobsters to optometrists to e-scooters, and—yes—to plant varieties, and we did engage with this bill because it creates regulation-making powers, as we do for bills across a number of areas.

We are interested in everything, and it was with that interest and great excitement that I read the select committee’s report, and there were three things which stood out for me in terms of my role within the Regulations Review Committee. The first was the committee’s diligent consideration of a letter written to it by the Regulations Review Committee in June that considered the use of powers in clause 150. So it was really good to see the committee engaging actively with that piece of advice.

The second was the committee’s decision to make a recommended change around clause 116, which gives the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights the ability to delegate their functions and powers to others. The committee noted that that was actually framed quite broadly, so they drew down those powers, which as we all recognise within the regulations space are extremely important in terms of ensuring clarity, and then a number of other speakers have referred to the significant insertion of the right to appeal contained in clauses 68A to 68D.

So a really thorough job was done by the select committee, and I would like to commend them for that. I commend the Minister for his diligent work in bringing this bill to the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Plant Variety Rights Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 97

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33.

Noes 22

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Natural Hazards Insurance Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 November.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is really bringing to light the Cartwright recommendations for natural hazards around reducing the impact of the trauma of natural hazards but also mitigating the risk to the Crown or the exposure, and it is also enabling the Crown to get involved in the transfer of reinsurance for risks that fall outside of the bill.

At the select committee process, the main changes that we made were around the scope of the research and education functions but there were also clarifications that those reinsurance matters would lie outside of the bill. There were a number of technical changes, modernisations, and improvements—for example, we spoke quite a lot around drains, walls, retaining walls, bridges, culverts, and so on, trying to work out where the lines would fall around liability and compensation. I just want to thank the independent adviser for his really good advice as we worked through those issues.

There were a couple of areas where, as a committee, we wanted to increase the rights or the protections, if you like, for those who would be insured. One was around the commission being required to settle claims as soon as practicable, rather than within one year. Secondly, there was a provision that enabled the commission to recover moneys paid in error, and there was an assumption that this would be perhaps because of the withholding of information from a claimant when, in fact, it could be possible that new information could come to light. So we recommended that some natural justice prevail there in the event that the claimant wouldn’t have an enduring liability in the event that there would be a cap to it. Finally, we suggested getting rid of a one-off charge to enable cover to continue after a claim is settled.

So those were the changes. It was a pretty thorough investigation. I’d just like to commend Minister Dr David Clark, who’s sitting next to me, for shepherding this through. It’s really important, given that we have increasing natural hazards with climate change, and so New Zealanders can be assured that we still have a robust system that is going to work when these unfortunate events happen. I commend it to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

Actually, on Monday 14, that was the sixth anniversary of the Kaikōura earthquake, which was the genesis, I guess, of a lot of the changes in this bill. After the Christchurch or Canterbury earthquake sequence, there were significant issues with people having to go through two steps. First of all, they had to establish that their claim was outside of the $100,000 cap from the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and often they took forever to get through that process. Then, if it was above that cap, that triggered a claim going to the insurance company, where, of course, they were at the back of the queue there to go and get their claim processed—hugely stressful for people uncertain, and a bureaucratic nightmare, quite frankly.

After that sequence and as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake, the insurance companies and EQC came to an agreement amongst themselves where the insurance companies would process the claims: one claim only and you don’t go back to the back of the queue if you didn’t get through when you eventually got over the $100,000 cap. That is in this piece of legislation. That is how it has worked its way through practical, on-the-ground experience. That made a significant difference in the user interface with insurance companies and with EQC, smoothing that process. And it’s greater to have that in this bill, formalised now, rather than just being a side agreement, effectively. So that is a magnificent part of this bill, I think, even though it hasn’t really been touched on by anyone else, as far as I’m aware, in this debate.

I think that one of the things that most of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee spent a bit of time getting our heads around is the issue of landslips. When a landslip starts and when it ends can be quite important in the rules. I think we’ve done a pretty good job on that. It’s the nature of these things, I think that, as demonstrated with the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquake sequences, these things are like a great battle plan—they’re very good until the first shot is fired, and then you find out where all the weak points are. I think there’s been a really good job done on this bill, but there will inevitably be issues that will come up in the future.

The issue of volcanic events, which we now extended an event from 48 hours to seven days—I think New Zealanders have forgotten about the risk of volcanic eruptions in New Zealand. The risk of a Hikurangi subduction zone rupture, which is just sitting out off the coast over there behind you—that is quite high, but it’s an equal risk to volcanic eruption in Auckland. So that is something that Aucklanders seem to forget. They look quite smugly down at people in Wellington, thinking they should have all the risk. Well, actually, there’s quite a bit of risk up there, not to mention Lake Taupō—I think the estimate is something like 3 metres of ash here in Wellington should that event happen. So there are massive risks in New Zealand.

Look, there’s a lot of talk about climate change, and I accept there’s a climate change risk. But, actually, New Zealand’s biggest risks are the catastrophic events that happen from earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. There’s no doubt that this will need to be updated again in the future.

There are a lot of issues, as I was mentioning around landslips before, about retaining walls, and it’s been a lot of heartache. We heard evidence from people in the select committee about the ongoing nature of trying to fix their retaining walls and not actually having the ability to access their homes unless the retaining wall was fixed. We are now going to an undepreciated value with a limit of $50,000 per dwelling for a retaining wall, and $25,000 per dwelling for bridges and culverts. That is something that comes up from time to time and will be a significant help, anyway. Obviously, in some cases, that will not be enough, but we can’t cover every eventuality with these sorts of socialised funds.

I note that the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, mentioned that reinsurance could cover things outside the bill, and I think one of the things we talked about in select committee was flood insurance and flooding, and my concerns—in particular, that we don’t try and replicate the flood re example in the UK, which ends up locking people into their flood-prone homes by having a social type insurance, like EQC, which is, I think, what some of the members on the other side have in mind: to extend the commission’s cover to those sorts of events. I don’t think that we should be going there. I think it would be far better that we got together with the insurance companies, councils, and central government and help where necessary to relocate those people away from that flood risk, rather than locking them into their flood-prone homes, which has been the case where these types of schemes have been introduced overseas.

I think that the Privacy Act implications—we discussed quite a bit about that and we can understand why EQC would like to gather information from people affected in events and keep that information for future use, as well as identifying all sorts of other learnings that could be helpful in the future. There are a lot of Privacy Act implications around that, so we discussed that at length. I’m pretty comfortable that we landed in a good place.

We extended the implementation of the bill. The insurance companies were very concerned about the amount of time it will take them to rejig their contracts. They needed time to get their systems in place, I think. Well, it’s a bit of a compromise; it’s not quite exactly where they wanted to be, but we’ve got it in a fairly good position, I think, anyway.

The disputes resolution—well, by its very nature, homes are most people’s biggest and single investment. When they have an event when there’s significant damage done, they are thrown into a position, often, where they have to get into negotiations to get things—their insurance settled or EQC settled, and then the construction done and reinstate their home, if that’s what’s going to happen. It’s a really stressful time for people and there are a massive number of disputes that come up—sometimes they’re quite valid; sometimes they’re not. But there’s a lot at stake for people. The last thing we really want is to have people spending a lot of money and enriching the legal profession, and, really, at no gain for the people involved.

The change—up now to a $300,000 EQC cover—doesn’t come without implications. Those people living in low-risk areas are actually going to pay quite a lot more. There are more losers than there are winners in that change, quite significantly so. So, yes, the costs for people for their earthquake cover, which includes all losses, in Wellington and other places like Marlborough, where I live, which are considered quite high risk—the costs of their insurance will go down, but the vast majority of New Zealanders actually live in lower-risk areas and their cost of their insurance goes up quite significantly. So it’s really an unfortunate thing, but you have to make a judgment somewhere along the line. But I think it hasn’t come out as has been sold by the other side of the House. On this side, we realise that those costs are going to fall on people who are living in relatively low-risk areas. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It’s a real pleasure I stand to take the final call in this reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. And it’s interesting to listen to Mr Stuart Smith talk about the fact that, for someone, Earthquake Commission (EQC) premiums might not relate exactly to their risk. I can tell you that in Christchurch pre-2011, people didn’t think it was particularly high risk and yet billions upon billions of dollars had to be forked out of the EQC fund to rebuild and repair homes in Christchurch. So I think we’ve got to be a bit cautious about sort of not spreading the risk across all of New Zealand.

Look, there are some big changes here, the lifting of the caps is the most obvious one and it’s a really good one because certainly, when the EQC framework was designed, the cover was expected to be that of a modest dwelling. Well, $300,000 doesn’t come close to the cost of rebuild of a modest dwelling now, but it’s a much more substantial contribution than the previous was. It certainly will cover most natural damage claims. But what I do actually want to identify from my time working for quite a long time in this space as a lawyer for homeowners, is the fact that this is a bill which goes through in detail and sorts out all of the little problems that hold up issues. I can remember sitting with a plan of university halls of residence with coloured pencils and markers, marking out which units looked like dwellings and which ones didn’t. It was a laborious task that took months of negotiations with EQC. Well that’s just one of the things that this bill makes clear so that that kind of problem won’t arise again.

Boarding houses, what’s happening when a house is being renovated, common and shared property, part-commercial part-dwelling properties—all of these things which can take a lot of time if you don’t have clear rules in advance. This has been worked through, and I must say I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the bill first came before it, and after being moved on to other jobs I’ve taken the opportunity to sit on the select committee from time to time. The committee did a great job in going through, in detail, a lot of these difficult points that a lot of people will never take any notice of, and, in most people’s lives, won’t arise. But in a large natural disaster, getting the law right at that level of detail is absolutely critical. It will save time, it will save grief and anxiety, it will save money, and it will give people back their homes sooner and better. That’s a great thing. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Māori Purposes Bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, and the Statutes Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Māori Purposes Bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, and the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come first to the Māori Purposes Bill, Part 1.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave of the House for all provisions in the bill to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections to the motion? There are no objections. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I acknowledge Minister Jackson, seated beside you, and also the officials, the advisers, who have entered the Chamber to provide advice and support.

Before I do address the detail in relation to the Māori Purposes Bill, I have, previously in this House, addressed members and those listening from the public: those of our people who have given service in this sector with purpose and with kaupapa Māori, and with the Māori purposes that have been their pursuit in service. I say this because this afternoon, at 12.15, there is to be a memorial service for Sir Wira Gardiner, Tā Wira Gardiner. There are a number of us present in the Chamber at the moment who knew him both professionally and personally, and so my whakaaro, my thoughts, turn to the whānau of Sir Wira Gardiner, and also to the service that Sir Wira Gardiner gave a lifetime of, with purpose, to the Māori community but also the nation of the Aotearoa New Zealand.

I now turn to the Māori Purposes Bill. As a member of the National Party, I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee with other members in the House. We scrutinised the bill after hearing submissions from members, and after taking the advice of Ben Paki, seated in the Chamber. Ben, I acknowledge you, because we have given service in the days of the Department of Māori Affairs, and now your advisory role with Te Puni Kōkiri.

Minister, as is known, the bill is in three parts, and what came before the select committee were recommendations for amendments that have been detailed and outlined, and they’re highlighted in the bill that we have before us. Minister, it’s known to those members who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee, after hearing submissions, the reason and the purpose for the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust to have specific amendments within this bill.

Minister, my eye in looking through the bill—it doesn’t give context unless it’s known what it is in terms of the Treaty settlement that came about. It hasn’t been addressed by way of any Supplementary Order Paper, or, certainly, in the detail of the proposed amendments within the bill, other than saying that under clause 5, section 4 is to be amended in terms of the interpretation; where Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, which is the trust that has the authority and the responsibility of the administration of Waitomo Caves, “means the trust of that name constituted by the Maori Land Court on 2 October 1990 under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and continued under section 354 of this Act”.

Madam Chair, through you to Minister Jackson, it’s a somewhat complicated way of trying to interpret what the purpose is of this trust. So, Minister, perhaps in terms of some advice from the advisers, the officials seated in the Chamber, wouldn’t it be a simpler way just to say that this trust has been tasked and recognised with the authority for the administration of the Waitomo Caves, as pursuant to the particular Treaty settlement and arrangement that came about? Just clarity, really, Minister, whether that would be possible and permissible, because we know that legislation—and we’ve had come before this House plain English bills and the like and other matters: it’s about the benefit of those who are reading and interpreting, our laypeople, members of the public, to understand rather than having to rely on lawyers or people specialised in this area to have to interpret and to clarify.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank that member Harete Hipango for her cooperation, too—and all members, actually, during this process. It’s been a very collaborative process. I want to thank the Hon Meka Whaitiri for standing in and speaking on the bill on my behalf in the second reading. It was pleasing to see the House coming together. As the member knows, just with that question, that trust has a very unique history, doesn’t it? It does have a unique history, and we certainly want to give it effect in terms of the early Treaty settlement concerning the lands at the Waitomo Caves, so I will work through things with my officials to try and make it as efficient as possible.

I need to clarify, I suppose, that this bill makes a series of small amendments to four Acts that are relevant to Māori affairs: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962. I mention first some of the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Amendments in the bill ensure that Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries as intended by the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 Treaty claim. Further amendments with this kaupapa will allow for meetings for assembled owners of Māori land to be held by electronic means. We’ve seen through the COVID-19 pandemic how critical technology is to ensure that entities can continue to operate even if they cannot meet face-to-face, or kanohi ki te kanohi. Attending meetings in person is difficult for many owners who now live away from their lands. This change will make participation in meetings much easier.

Other amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act increase the notice period to owners and wider whānau of proposals to sell or transfer Māori freehold land from 15 to 20 working days. Amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 will make it easier for the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust to administer their freshwater fisheries. Amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 will remove the requirement that the members of Māori trust boards provide their resignations in writing to the Minister for Māori Development; instead, they’ll be able to make their resignation directly to the trust board, who will then notify the Minister. Amendments to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 will require district Māori councils to provide their audited financial statements to the New Zealand Māori Council, rather than to the CEO of Te Puni Kōkiri.

The amendments proposed in this bill have broad support from the entities who will be impacted by them, and, in many cases, have been proposed by the relevant entities themselves. So I do want to, again, acknowledge the cooperative spirit in which the bill has progressed through the House, the constructive approach by all members in the House who’ve taken to the bill, and I hope that we continue in that vein. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I certainly endorse everything that the Minister for Māori Development has said, and it shall continue in the vein of being supportive for this important legislation to pass through.

So dealing with all parts together, Minister Jackson has identified Part 1 as “Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act”. There is certainly no opposition to the proposals. But the purpose of the committee of the whole House is inviting, also, contributions from other party members—those I see who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. In dealing with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it is, from clauses 3 to 13, detailed in the bill what is proposed to be amended, and it is about amendments of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act consistent with other parts of legislation, particularly administrative functions that go with it.

Minister Jackson has talked about—in my opening statement and question in relation to—the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, which is a trust within the rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto. There may be members in the Chamber and members of the public who have visited the Waitomo Caves, and the recognition and the importance of that as a national taonga, which the trust has the appropriate authority and mana motuhake in terms of that taonga, that asset within their domain, as is recognised under the 1990 Treaty settlement of their Wai 51 claim for the recognition of the trust status of the people of the local hapū, of the tribal rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto.

For that to remain, despite what some of the regulated provisions under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it is required, importantly—and I refer to clause 8 of the bill—that section 231 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act be amended in relation to the review of trusts to say that subsection (3)(c) of section 231 of that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act does not apply in respect of Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. The reason for that, perhaps I could invite the Minister to explain to this committee why that would be, and the importance for that.

So I’m not going to labour it; I’m really putting the onus of responsibility back on to the Minister just to confirm and clarify why that amendment is important in relation to the trusts authority, and that despite measures or legislated accountabilities under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, why the review of trust would not apply to the hapū trust that is the subject of this kōrero at the moment.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Māori Development for being in the Chair and to, hopefully, answer some questions. We just heard from my colleague Harete Hipango.

I’m just having a look at the ballot papers and electronic voting to be made available. This is the amendments to the Māori Trust Boards Act 1955, and I note that it has provision of “electronic voting systems means an electronic voting system provided for by regulations made under this Act,” and that the elections can be by postal ballot or electronic vote “unless regulations provide otherwise”. You see that in clause 50 on page 8—for the Minister’s reference—and I note it says that, “The election of candidates to a membership of a Board must be by one or both of the following as required by the board unless regulations made under this Act provide otherwise: postal ballot or electronic vote.”

I’m just wondering what the Minister’s expectations are for those regulations, because it says “unless the regulations provide otherwise”. So is the Minister’s expectation that electronic vote will become the expectation for the Māori Trust Boards and/or will there be an expectation that it’s a postal ballot and electronic vote; or will there be an expectation that there is something else? Because I do see that there’s provision for “otherwise” here. So I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that point.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I thank the two members for their questions. Part 1 proposes the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to provide that the Māori Land Court’s powers under that Act to terminate trusts do not apply to Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust.

The trust was established by the Māori Land Court, as the member knows, of course, in 1990 to give effect to the settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi claim concerning the Waitomo claims. It’s now an ahu whenua trust under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

Now, issues have arisen in regards to succession orders and to the possibility that if the court was to terminate the trust, the people would be entitled may not align with the beneficiaries of the trust as established. So the intention is that the trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries in a manner consistent with the settlement of the Wai 51 claim.

It also proposes amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 that will extend the notification period for exercising rights of first refusal on proposed sales and certain other alienations of Māori freehold lane, extend the notice period for Māori incorporations to notify shareholders of a general meeting to consider a special resolution.

In terms of Mr Mooney’s question, obviously I think the face-to-face, kanohi ki te kanohi-type hui are much more preferred. It’s the preferred perspective, I suppose, by most Māori, but emerging meetings of assembled owners provision are designed for Māori land that, as the member will know, has multiple owners and no management or governance structure. These provisions enable owners to meet and make decisions concerning their land, and we think that if you’re asking what the preference is, the preference will certainly always be a kanohi ki te kanohi position.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Minister. I always appreciate the enlightenment that you bring to the House with the kōrero and the contribution. On that note also, at clause 15—under Part 2 of the bill, “Amendments to Maori Purposes Act 1959”—it states that section 3 be amended—that’s the interpretation section of the Māori Purposes Act 1959—so that the “definition of adjoining waters forming part of the Lake, paragraph (b), replace ‘Wairehau Canal’ with ‘Wairehu Canal’.” So, again, in terms of enlightenment, it’s interesting that this amendment corrects the spelling, which does have significance in terms of the story associated with the place—in this instance, the canal—having the correct spelling. So is the Minister able to enlighten the House as to why it has taken so long to detect the incorrect spelling and if there is a difference between “Wairehau” and “Wairehu” other than the spelling? Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just having a look at Schedule 3, Minister, on page 12, regarding the “Amendments to Rotoaira Trout Fishing Regulations 1979”, I just noticed that the definition of “adjoining waters forming part of the lake” has been amended, and it now states: “those portions of the natural tributaries of Lake Rotoaira situated within the area bounded by longitude 175°42.000′E, State Highway 46, and State Highway 47”. And I would just appreciate a brief explanation of why that definition has been changed.

And in terms of the definition of “stipendiary ranger”, I note that here has been a small change there as well, but in respect of the “Applications for entry permit”, regulation 6, it’s now going to say it will “apply to a permit officer in person or in writing; and (b) state the period for which the permit is required; and (c) state if entry is required for the purpose of fishing; and (d) if entry is required for the purpose of fishing for trout, produce to the permit officer a current trout-fishing licence issued to the applicant in respect of the Taupo District under regulations made under any Act; and (e) pay the permit officer the fee payable”. What is the purpose for this change and what is the primary thrust of the changes to the Rotoaira Trout Fishing Regulations 1979 with the changes that have been made here?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s an interesting question there from the member Harete Hipango. In terms of the misspelling from “Wairehau” to “Wairehu”, it’s always a big question why we have mistakes in place for so long, and I think that’s the case, probably, with a lot of—Māori have talked about townships being mispronounced for 50 to 100 years, and we go through this whole process of correction. So, in this instance, there’s been a real consultation with stakeholders, and that is the preference from those affected—a little bit like “Wanganui” and “Whanganui”, I suppose, if you really want to go down that track. Some of us stand by “Wanganui”, which, the member will know, the people who live there will always use, and they have that right; but others I encourage to use “Whanganui”. So that’s why there was a change, and sometimes in legislation there are errors, so it’s good that we finally got there.

In terms of clause 12, clause 12 includes transitional provisions that relate to the extension of notification periods in clauses 6 and 10 of the bill. The first transitional provision relates to the deadline for receiving tenders or expressions of interest under a right of refusal. Without the transitional provision, there could be ambiguity as to whether notices under section 147A of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act must specify the present in 15 working days or the new 20-working-day deadline. Clause 12 clarifies that the new minimum deadline would not apply to any notice published before the commencement date. Similarly, there may be ambiguity as to whether a Māori incorporation must give 15 or 20 working days’ notice of a general meeting at which a special resolution is proposed. The transitional provisions clarify that the new 20-working-day minimum notice period does not apply to a notice given before the commencement day.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to the amendments to the Māori Purposes Act 1959 to give the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. Would the Minister be able to make some comments about removing the requirement to hold a trout licence to fish for fish other than trout, and why there has been that change that a right of entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing.

I note, Minister, that clause 17 amends section 11 of the Māori Purposes Act to increase the maximum fine for an offence from $100 to $5,000, which is quite a significant increase, clearly. But it would be good just to have the clarification for anyone watching or anyone reading this transcript, for why that penalty has been increased—it’s a significant increase, from $100 to $5,000—and the rationale behind the warranted officer under the Conservation Act being amended in terms of the definition of a “stipendiary ranger”.

I note also, Minister, the question I asked before about the definition of “adjoining waters forming part of the Lake”, and why that definition has been changed here. So there’s a few little issues in there, Minister, and it would be useful if we could have just a bit of an explanation from the Minister as to the rationale behind these amendments.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Whilst Minister Jackson’s contemplating and constructing answers to the questions posed by my colleague Joseph Mooney, in terms of just something that’s very simple, and it was identified by the Māori Affairs Committee, and has been highlighted in the report back to the House: correcting capitalisation. So under Part 2, clause 15(4) is to provide for the reference of Taupo District—district rather than a small “d”, a capital “D”, which “means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983”.

But what’s interesting also, Minister, to draw your eye to when you do have time, so clause 15(4), it’s been detected small “d” to be capitalised for Taupo District and then under Schedule 3, regulation 2, it states further down in the third highlighted section of the bill “In regulation 2(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: Taupo District”—which is a capital “D” and as minor as this might seem, it’s significant because this about consistency and standardisation. So Taupo District, with a capital “D” “In regulation 2(1) … means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983”, yet in clause 15(4), we have a small “d”. So just pointing out, Minister, whilst you’ve had time to contemplate responses to the earlier ones, the importance of drilling down into the detail to make sure that the Ds are either capitalised or they’re not, so that everything is on point. On that note, Minister, we’re expecting—you know, waiting with bated breath—your responses to the questions posed earlier. Thank you.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, while you’re contemplating answers to those scintillating questions posed earlier—I’m waiting for the fantastic responses which I’m sure will be coming—just in terms of the changes to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, I note that the Government wrote to all Māori trust boards on 9 August 2021. I’m just wondering if you could confirm, has there been a response from all of them now, and, if so, what those responses were.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): We’re still waiting on some of those responses in terms of I think it was your bill—wasn’t it?—in terms of ture whenua. I have to be clear, though, Mr Mooney, that we totally rejected your bill because, well, basically, Māoridom told us, as my good colleague Meka Whaitiri has said, that the ture whenua, as it was, was not acceptable in terms of the way that it was being rolled out. That was conveyed to the previous Minister Mr Finlayson and, I think, conveyed to you, even though I know that you put that up in good spirit and good faith. In fact, I have to say, it was quite a winner, actually, rejecting your ture whenua, for the Māori caucus and our Māori MPs. But feel free to have another crack—feel free to have another crack, Mr Mooney.

In terms of Lake Rotoaira, as you know, that’s privately owned freehold land. It’s currently the primary location for trout monitoring and the location where all Rotoaira trout spawns outside the area administered by the trustees. Now, Part 2 of the bill provides, as you know, several amendments to provide the Rotoaira Trust more autonomy and flexibility to manage the lake and associated trout fishery, principally to include adjoining waters so that the trustees can undertake monitoring and fisheries management activities without authorisation from the Director-General of Conservation.

Mr Mooney, re your question on offences in clause 17, which amends section 11 of the Maori Purposes Act 1959, which is penalties in terms of offences, clause 17 increases the fine for breaching the Maori Purposes Act in regulations made under the Act from $100 to $5,000. The maximum fine is currently $100, which has not increased since 1959. So there’s your answer. Clause 17 increases this to $5,000, consistent with the sports fishery penalties under the Conservation Act 1987.

So I hope those exhilarating responses fulfil your questions. Kia ora.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we turn now to consideration of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any joint objection? There is none. I call on the Minister the Hon Aupito William Sio.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies, Minister. We’re in committee, would you please care to join me at this Table.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill in two parts that amend seven Acts: the Remuneration Authority Act and the six Acts governing two courts and four tribunals. It will transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration of six groups of judicial and quasi-judicial officers from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority. These amendments will strengthen judicial independence and enhance public confidence in these courts and tribunals.

This bill has received cross-party support at the Justice Committee and during the two previous debates. I want to thank members for their constructive consideration of this bill.

Just briefly on Part 1, it amends the Remuneration Authority Act to authorise the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration for environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners at the Environment Court, community magistrates of the District Court, disputes tribunal referees, Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators, the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and, lastly, the deputy chairperson and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. As members will be well aware, the Remuneration Authority is the independent body that determines our remuneration. It also determines the remuneration of judges, coroners, and quasi-judicial officers that need to have, and to be seen to have, independence from the Government. This amendment will provide security of remuneration for these six groups of officers and it will ensure they continue to discharge their responsibilities without fear, favour, or undue influence.

I trust this outline will assist members in their examination of Part 1 of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. I’m happy to go quickly into Part 2, but I’ll give time—go to Part 2?

Chris Penk: Happy, Minister, if you are, yep.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Then, maybe I’ll just do that as well. So in Part 2, I think, I want to point out that the Government Supplementary Order Paper 148 corrects cross-referencing errors in Part 2 and replaces the six schedules. However, the policy intent in the schedules has not changed; these schedules still require the remuneration of the affected officers to remain the same from the commencement date until the Remuneration Authority makes the first determination.

Part 2 of the bill comprises of six subparts—one subpart for each of the Acts governing the six groups of judicial and quasi-judicial officers that I mentioned earlier. These Acts require the remuneration of these officers to be determined under the Cabinet Fees Framework, which is administered by the Public Service Commission, on behalf of the Government. The bill amends these six parts to make the Remuneration Authority responsible for determining the remuneration of these officers.

The principal difference between the Remuneration Authority and the Cabinet Fees Framework is the degree of independence from the Government of remuneration decisions. Both take account of a similar range of factors, such as the requirement of the decision; the conditions of service; and fairness to the person whose remuneration is being set, and to the taxpayer. These six groups of officers require a greater degree of independence from the executive than the quasi-judicial officers whose remuneration will continue to be determined under the Cabinet Fees Framework.

I think I’ll just briefly outline that the environment commissioners and deputy commissioners sit in the Environment Court, either with an environment judge or alone to hear appeals about the contents of regional and district plans, and appeals rising out of applications for resource consent.

Community magistrates, disputes tribunal referees, and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators hear cases that would otherwise have to come before a District Court judge. Community magistrates hear low-level criminal matters in the District Court.

Disputes Tribunal referees hear property disputes of up to $30,000. The Disputes Tribunal is a division of the District Court and hears most of the substantive cases in the District Court civil jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators hear disputes between landlords, including Kāinga Ora, and tenants of residential properties of up to $100,000, and disputes relating to unit title developments such as apartment builds of up to $50,000. The Tenancy Tribunal enforces the healthy homes standards and can impose pecuniary penalties of up to $50,000 on non-compliant landlords.

Next, the Human Rights Review Tribunal hears claims relating to breaches of the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. It has the authority to declare an Act of Parliament inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, a matter which would otherwise come before a senior court.

Lastly, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal hears appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration and Immigration New Zealand relating to residency, deportation, and refugee protected persons status.

I simply conclude by saying that I consider the transfer of responsibility for determining the remuneration of these six groups of judicial and quasi-judicial officers to the Remuneration Authority as necessary to reinforce their independence from the Government and to maintain public confidence in these courts. I trust this outline will assist members in the examination of these parts. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, Minister. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, I think it’s helpful that he’s given us an overall sense of what the legislation’s intended to achieve. I also thank him for the explanation of the Government’s amendment, the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), no doubt in his name, which will make some necessary but small amendments. It’s helpful that he set out that these aren’t policy changes per se. So I can say, as the National spokesperson in the area, we will support that SOP, as well as continuing to support the legislation as a whole. There’s no policy change that’s bypassing the select committee process. It seems as though that’s a genuine good-faith effort to make sure that all the ducks are in a row to achieve the policy aim, which, as the Minister said is mostly in the space of allowing independent parts of the Government to be independent.

So I’ll just take a step back and make a sort of general comment about the legislation, if I may, as a prelude to a couple of specific questions about provisions within these various parts. We’re doing the debate as one whole question, so, for anyone following along at home, we’re not going to necessarily constrain ourselves to specific sections in a chronological way. I don’t have a lot that I really want to interrogate by way of detail for the Minister he’ll be relieved to know, as will the advisers, no doubt; it’s really just a matter of teasing out a couple of explanations about how it all fits together in our tribunal system.

So the first thing is just to acknowledge the Remuneration Authority is a creature of Parliament—that is to say it’s been created by Parliament under a statute; it’s got its own Act. And so, you know, in this place, we needed to set that up—I say “we”, it was long before my time, actually before my time was even born, the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. So there we go. Not showing off, just saying—no actually, I’m sitting near to Simeon Brown who was born even more recently. So anyway. And Nicola Gregg’s laughing, but we won’t go any further.

It’s been a long-standing convention and indeed the law of the land that the judiciary—people who are making decisions in our courts as opposed to the Government with a capital “G”—get to do that without fear or favour of politicians reducing their pay as punishment for a decision that we don’t like or threatening that that might be the case. The Minister has rightly talked about judicial officers and quasi-judicial officers. So there are some who are not judges by name but do judge-like functions, and it’s appropriate for the same reasons that we protect judges from us and from the perception of any threats that there might be, theoretically, from this place. It’s appropriate to treat them in the same way. So that’s really the overall gist of it, and that’s why we’ve been happy to support this legislation from the start. It’s a relatively minor thing, but it’s got an important basis in the context of the court system overall, which is creaking at the seams, to put it mildly—one might say it’s fiddling while Rome burns, but it’s a nice tune so we’re going to play along with it.

In Part 1, we’ve got a list of the different tribunals and also the magistrates who operate within the court system, and also the Environment Court—also within the court system, as the name suggests. I’m just wondering from the Minister whether there were any other tribunals, authorities, or bodies that he or his officials considered might also be brought within the ambit of this legislation. I’m not asking the question to try and flush out an answer that I think is going to be any kind of “gotcha”. I can’t think of any particularly myself, off the top of my head, but just genuinely throwing it out there. Are there others who make decisions that we would want to keep free from the influence, again, of any threatened punishment by politicians in the same way? So I’ll just pause for breath in case the Minister wanted to respond on that point, and if he does, then I’ll allow him to do so. Otherwise I’ll move on.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): It’s been a while since the initial discussions about this to try and get this piece of work here. There was a range of areas we discussed, but by and large we’re basing this—look, as a politician, I’m clear that we do need to protect that line of independence well—the judicial and the quasi-judicial. So the advice I got was really these groups and I’m pleased to say that Cabinet colleagues ooh-ed and aah-ed but essentially agreed to maintain the protection of that line of demarcation between the executive as well as those. So there could be more in the future, but I don’t know.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And also thank you to the Minister, that’s a helpful answer. I suppose if I were to put in a pitch for anyone specifically, and I’m not saying this is National Party policy; it’s a discussion that’s out there in the community and the quasi-judicial community, as the Minister is probably already aware, and that’s the role of judicial JPs. As he knows, and he’s nodding, they perform a very similar function at a level to community magistrates, or CMs as they are commonly known. This legislation does deal with the remuneration of community magistrates and it says that they are to be protected.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that judicial JPs don’t get paid. So, actually, of course it’s not that they would be in this bill, because there’s no pay that they are getting to be protected in this way. But I wonder, as a more general policy point, if the Minister would contemplate or is contemplating potentially using judicial JPs in a way that is equivalent to community magistrates, such as they would also get paid for undertaking similar work, often on a weekend and a public holiday as well. And if the Minister would like more time, I’m happy to take to my feet.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): My recollection is we did discuss JPs and there was a reason why we didn’t include it in this regard. But I can’t recall exactly its—but I think that it also has to do with the way that JPs are structured. It is an independent organisation, it sits under the Governor-General, and therefore there were some complications that the officials still needed to work through before we can make a final decision on this.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s helpful from the Minister; again, appreciate the engagement.

I suppose it’s worth noting that if they were to be paid in the future for doing the work that they are already doing, that’s equivalent to community magistrates, then it would be probably appropriate at that point to bring them into this regime. But for now that’s probably as far as we can go.

In relation to the acting Chief Community Magistrate and acting community magistrate roles, I refer to section 61 as it will be within the District Court Act, so within the bill it’s clause 11. So this is where, if someone is acting as a Chief Community Magistrate or community magistrate but not in that chief role—that top gig—then they also have the protections afforded to the community magistrate proper under this legislation. That seems appropriate. They’re doing the job, and again, we don’t want them to be subject to influence by way of threat that their salaries and allowances and so forth could be reduced in an unfair, arbitrary way that would amount to political interference.

But I do note, actually, just comparing that situation of the community magistrates community with others in the legislation—I don’t know if there’s often an acting role of chairperson or deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, for example. But, if so, would the Minister think that someone who was acting in that role would also be entitled to the same protection as the permanent chairperson or deputy chairperson of such a tribunal?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): My recollection was: absolutely depending on the role and the function and responsibilities that they are performing. My understanding was, an acting community magistrate is carrying out the full functions of that of a community magistrate. So I don’t really see the difference in that.

Again, I think at some stage—and this is one of the reasons why I think it’s important to have this remuneration authority, is so that politicians aren’t tinkering with the salaries of people who are performing a judicial or quasi-judicial role that should remain independent from politicians.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, we remain on the same page. This is going extremely well, actually, if I may say—if I can be accused of liking the sound of my own voice, and actually by now I don’t, but I can assure you that I’m having a great time. I hope everyone else is, too, and feel free to join in, he said while desperately looking around—all around him and behind him. Harete Hipango has spent a fair proportion of her life in and around courts in her professional capacity, and if she wants to rescue us all, then that would not be unwelcome, but I also won’t put pressure on her. There’s plenty more I can say and plenty more the Minister can say, too, for that matter. Simeon Brown is hiding, by the way. He’s also got a law degree but he’s keeping very quiet right now, keeping his head down, probably tweeting!

Anyway, just a little further bit on this—well it happens to be Part 2, but we’re doing it all together so I can recklessly flit about between the different provisions. I did have a question to do with the fact that we’ve got a system where the setting of the fees, allowances, and salaries is set by a body other than Parliament, and yet it is Parliament that appropriates money—that is, passes in an annual Budget—to the Government of the day for the running of the country, let’s just say. Of course, we can all agree or disagree about how the Government is spending money, but that’s how the system works. Of course, it’s outside of their remit to set the salaries for judicial officers, and yet it will be the Government who has to provide the money to be spent by the taxpayer, through them, on this purpose.

So I just wonder if the Minister can explain, because it’s actually an interesting question that arises even before this bill came to us, how it is that the Government knows how much money’s going to need to be spent on these salaries, allowances, and fees, given that it could be set at some very high level by the Remuneration Authority and the Government will be bound simply to follow along.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): We’re really delving into detail that I don’t have before me at the moment, but they are good questions.

My understanding is that the Ministry of Justice is the ministry that is responsible for ensuring that it provides the Budget bids on behalf of all areas and functions. That includes the courts and it includes salaries. I know that they are solely responsible for that.

Obviously, of course, I would imagine that if the Remuneration Authority provided advice that the Ministry of Justice had not budgeted for, then they would be compelled to find it within internal resources. It’s the same function that I’ve observed as a Minister with oversight on this, where often judges will make the call on certain things, and the ministry would just have to find the money within their internal budget. That’s something that is not within my responsibility at all, and it should stay that way so that we politicians aren’t tinkering and interfering with decisions that ought to remain independent as part of the administration and as part of the judicial.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take a very quick call on this. I was admiring the valiant efforts of our chief whip in speaking to the bill; here by himself, as much as he is looking around for support and help—

Harete Hipango: I was going to take the call but you beat me.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, you were getting ready to take a call. But anyway, I’m very pleased to take a call on this, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. Look, I think that it is really important. I want to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done on this, and we can certainly see the sense in it. The only question that I would have for the Minister is with the formation of the new permanent legislative authorities there’s always a concern that these bodies can grow. That’s one of the issues that we have raised, and that I want to raise again in the Chamber today; we’ve seen many, many times when legislation comes through the House that it can be full of best intentions, but the intent of the Minister, or the legislation, is not necessarily interpreted in a way that it was intended and you end up with unforeseen outcomes. I think that one of the points that we’ve raised through the process is whether or not there’s the chance that these bodies could grow dramatically in numbers, and whether or not the Minister feels like there’s any checks and balances in the legislation or that there’s any way of actually being able to make sure that that doesn’t become an unintended consequence of this legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I want to underscore that this bill has had cross-party support from the committee, and the Justice Committee did not amend the bill. But the point to this question about, you know, what it will look like in the future; look, I say to myself that the Remuneration Authority has already been set up, that these are critical roles within our judiciary system and they are entitled to be paid for the roles and responsibilities they conduct. And the question is, should a politician be making that call or should an independent body be making that call? In this bill, here, it’s an independent committee that should make that call. As to the future, well, I think Parliament will always have the role and responsibility to review any of this. So I’d say to my friend, when he is Prime Minister in 18 years’ time, he can then lead the review of this if he has any suspicion that it may not be going in the right direction.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve enjoyed that exchange between the Hon Mark Mitchell and the Hon William Sio.

Just to return to the point that the Minister had made before my colleague took to his feet, I think that’s right what the Minister has said about emphasising that the courts sit within the Ministry of Justice and need to find money to ensure that the payments are made, notwithstanding that Parliament and even the Government of the day aren’t in control of those. I suppose I should say for the sake of the record that there’s no suggestion from National that the salaries and fees and so forth would be set in an unreasonable way that would leave the court system or the Ministry of Justice administering it out of pocket, but it’s an interesting theoretical question just to make sure that things line up, and there’s at least some kind of answer to how the system is going to manage where there’s a bit of tension. On the one hand there’s responsibility, ultimately, for the running of the country by this place, but, of course, the independence of the courts for their operation and, of course, their specific decisions must be respected and maintained for reasons that we all understand.

One of my final questions, or it might even be my final question, but we’ll see—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yay!

CHRIS PENK: A popular call—I said “maybe”, Mr McAnulty; don’t encourage me. It’s just actually question that comes up when you look at the way that this legislation is shaped. There are quite a few different parts making quite a few different amendments in quite a few different primary bits of legislation, and the reason for that, of course, is there are lots of different tribunals, authorities, and other bodies that exist separately from each other. They’ve all got their own Act of Parliament. It’s quite a fragmented system. I suppose you could almost call it an ecosystem of tribunals and lower-level courts.

They don’t particularly relate to each other; in fact, it can be quite confusing for someone who is a layperson to know which tribunal or authority to go to. They might have a dispute and they go, “Well, it’s a relatively small amount of money.”—and I’m self-conscious using that phrase “relatively little” because $10,000, for example, is a lot of money to most people in this country—#CostOfLivingCrisis. But, actually, if you think about the fact that going to court would quickly absorb $10,000 worth of fees, legal fees, and so on, then that person might naturally go, “Well, I’ve got a dispute with my builder.”—for example—“I’m just going to go the Disputes Tribunal.”, or what was previously known as the small claims tribunal or court.

We have a mechanism where someone takes something that’s not going to cost so much, given the amount at stake—let’s say $10,000. I don’t know what you’d get for that building-wise these days but that’s another story for another day. They might say “We’ll go to the Disputes Tribunal.’, without knowing that there’s actually a separate authority that’s the building practitioners tribunal. Or, similarly, there might be a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Let’s say the amount at stake is five grand. Again, it sounds a Disputes Tribunal case, but actually there’s a specific Tenancy Tribunal for hearing those matters.

So these are quite separately carved out, and it’s appropriate, of course, that this legislation, which is amending a whole heap of Acts, does deal with them separately. It couldn’t be otherwise because, of course, we’re amending legislation that’s on the books. This is an omnibus bill, as the Minister started off by explaining to the committee, but I wonder, therefore, if the Minister has given any thought to combining some of the functions of the tribunal so that we don’t have a system where all their pay is administered separately, they’ve got different websites, they’ve got different IT systems, and they’ve got different administration. It occurs to me that you could have a system where the specialist expertise is maintained by the tenancy bit, by the Environment Court bit, by the Human Rights Review Tribunal bit, and so forth, but, actually, just make it a bit more of an efficient system whereby we don’t have all these separate structures strewn across the landscape, which are confusing to people and probably aren’t terribly efficient.

It might be, for example, that the Government takes inspiration from its own health sector restructuring where it said, “We’ll do away with the DHBs because some functions can be combined.” I’m not going to get into that and relitigate that, obviously, but if there is value in centralising or combining—and we say that in some areas it doesn’t make sense because you remove the local voice. But these aren’t really local concerns so much as a demarcation of different subject areas in the law.

If the Minister has given any thought to that, I’d be remiss not to take this opportunity now while we’re speaking with him, and it’s vaguely related to the bill. So I’d be grateful for any thoughts he might have on that.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): It’s a very good question that my learned member asks, but I do want to underscore that this came about in order to maintain the integrity and independence of our judiciary services and ensure those who carry out those judicial or quasi-judicial roles have the confidence and independence to carry out those functions on behalf of all of us and to respond to the needs of our community, as he articulated earlier.

Before I get to what I think might be the answer that might resolve some concerns in his question, it is an omnibus bill because there’s so much other legislation in which some of these roles and functions sits, and I’m thankful that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has prepared a technical Supplementary Order Paper that corrects three cross-referencing errors and replaces the transitional provisions in the six schedules to better align with the policy intent of the bill—this is just to give you some examples before I give my final words—by replacing “terms and conditions” with “remuneration”, specifically including acting appointments; simplifying the wording of the commencement provisions; updating the part and clause numbering in schedules.

It did arise at one time as to how do you streamline all of these functions, but here’s the issue. I’m a politician, and if I’m going to uphold the integrity of our judiciary, I believe it’s the judiciary that ought to lead in that, and I believe that the work that is currently happening, led by the Chief District Court Judge, the Hon Heemi Taumaunu, Te Ao Mārama, will encompass all of that.

Our judiciary system seems to sit in the archaic years of the past in that we’re still using a paper system, sadly. The work that has now begun, led by our judiciary and supported by the ministry, will include a range of things updating and bringing—Te Ao Mārama is described as bringing us out of the darkness and into the light, and the case flow management system that’s also being carried out also means updating our system.

I suspect at some stage that the judiciary may then be prepared to provide their views to the executive of the future about how to combine some of these roles and functions, because I think the driver from a policy perspective is how do you respond to the needs of the community? How do you make sure that they have access to justice and how do you make sure that they’re not going to pay an arm and a leg just simply to put up a minor litigation around a traffic fine or something like that?

So I think it’s an important question that the member has raised. But I think we have to come back and remember that this policy is about making sure that the judiciary—those in those judicial and quasi-judicial roles—can be independent and that their salaries can be decided upon by an independent body, away from the prying eyes of present and future politicians.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you.

Barbara Edmonds: You said you had one more question.

CHRIS PENK: I said I had one more question, maybe, and, in fact, I do now have one question.

Barbara Edmonds: That’s all right. Take it!

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Ms Edmonds. It’s been good, hasn’t it? Come on, don’t be like that! No, just kidding.

So thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence to ask one final question. I’ve found in my notes the final thing that I wanted to ask, and it’s actually reasonably brief. I’ve asked and probably answered two, but that’s up to the Minister, of course.

Within Subpart 6 of Part 2 is clause 26, which contains Section 263, “Remuneration of Environment Commissioners, Deputy Environment Commissioners, and special advisors”. We’ve heard from various speakers—well, really just the Minister and me, let’s be honest—about why we’re having the separation.

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to say, “Well, of course, the Environment Commissioners and the Deputy Environment Commissioner should be included within that regime. They are making substantive decisions. They are qualified judicial.” But the special advisers to them—and I don’t cast any doubt on the value of the work that they do. But it seems to me that it’s interesting for this particular body that operates under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—soon to be RIP RMA! Actually, I shouldn’t say that—should I?—lest anyone think that we’re fond of the current operation of the RMA. But, you know, let’s not make it worse, either.

Anyway, so we’ve got a regime where the special advisers, as well the commissioners and deputy commissioners themselves, would be included in that. I note that advisers to other chairpersons, deputy chairpersons, and so on aren’t included in this. Was that a conscious decision, Minister? Should others feel ripped off? Or is it a windfall for the special advisers to the Environment Commissioners and so forth, that they have been included in this?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): You asked, “Was that a conscious decision?” The answer is yes.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 41, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Statutes Amendment Bill. Members, we should note that there are special requirements for statutes amendment bills. Standing Order 313(2) provides that if any member objects to a clause standing part of a statutes amendment bill, the clause is struck out of the bill. Members, we start with Part 1.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It is agreed to.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I acknowledge that we’re nearing lunch, and we have a saying in Māngere that when you smell the pork, keep it short. I’m also aware that the Statutes Amendment Bill is one of the most sexiest bills around and everybody wants to be part of it, but I also want to say that the bill—I could not bring in any of this without cross-party support.

So let me just outline for those who are not aware just what’s happening here. This bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill, enables Parliament to make technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. The current bill amends 41 Acts administered by 11 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support, and it is a good demonstration of all parties working together.

As previously mentioned, the Governance and Administration Committee made two changes to the bill: firstly, to remove the amendment to the Unit Titles Act as another bill has made that amendment earlier this year, and, secondly, to add an amendment to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act to remove this statutory encumbrance from the discrete part of the South Mangawhai Forest to enable Ngāti Manuhiri to progress with a development opportunity.

I seek the leave of the committee for all provisions to be taken as one, as our whip has put it there. I welcome the deliberations from the committee on this bill. I also commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their hard work and dedication, which ensured that changes made through this bill are technical, short, and non-controversial.

Really, that’s all I wanted to say. I’ll leave it to you, members, and you decide when we finish with this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, before I take the next call, I’d like to remind members that if any member wishes for there to be a separate vote on any provision, please indicate this to the Chairperson during the debate so that we can put those questions first.

The question is that Parts 1 to 41, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the spirit in which the Associate Minister for Justice made his contribution, I’ll recall that in my school days, when the fine young gentlemen of Kelston Boys’ High School were not, perhaps, as focused on algebra as they should have been, the teacher would say “It’s your own time you’re wasting.” In a kind of existential sense, of course, that was right, but until the bell goes, it’s very much the teacher’s time that’s being wasted—or, at least, I don’t know, you feel like you’re somehow getting away with something. I sometimes regret that now—not particularly in relation to algebra, let’s be honest—

Nicola Grigg: Back to the bill.

CHRIS PENK: —but, anyway, here we are. “Back to the bill.”, I’m encouraged by my own colleague! Actually, seeing as we’re on the subject, Ms Grigg thought we’d already done this bill, so riveted was she by proceedings in the previous one. But, actually, I’m off duty now, so I am wasting my own time.

Anyway—the Statutes Amendment Bill. The Minister’s made the very reasonable point that it is a matter of bipartisan consensus—or partisan consensus, I suppose you could say; we do have more than two parties these days, you know, for some reason. Anyway, we’ve got a number of amendments that are pretty uncontroversial. That’s how they’ve made it in here in the first place, and as the Chair of the committee’s noted, it will be possible to vote on those individually and we could record that we agree or disagree with any given one of them. We’re not going to put the committee to that trouble. We have had the chance to check that we agree with the changes being made, and also, in the first instance, that they are changes that don’t need agreement in the policy sense.

They’re just—well, they’re minor, they’re technical, and they’re non-controversial, but, actually, that doesn’t mean they’re not important. They are important to those who rely on these systems operating well—the legislation that governs the way that people can live their lives and do their work, and so forth. I think it’s fair to say—and it would be a Government of any stripe that would do this—these are matters that are small enough that they wouldn’t occupy the House time that the Government’s got allotted to it in and of themselves. You wouldn’t make these 42 Acts’ worth of amendments in 42 different bits of legislation—much more sensible to do it all in one hit. So on behalf of National, I can say that we continue to support the process by which these have been brought forward. We support the changes themselves. We note that there are a large number of them.

In relation to my own area, I will actually just give a shout out to Ngāti Manuhiri in the north of Auckland—the South Mangawhai Forest is referenced specifically; that’s just above the boundary of Kaipara ki Mahurangi. We are very pleased to have in our area a number of different iwi groups, but, certainly, in that part of the world, a constructive player, a significant local player, a force for good locally, and so in the small way that this legislation supports their endeavours and allows them to get on without undue legal impediment—that’s a good thing, which I say from my perspective as a local MP.

Other than that, we see issues as diverse as the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and if my colleagues—who shall remain nameless, other than Ms Grigg—think that the previous bill was pretty turgid stuff, then she should see that bit of legislation. Anyway, obviously there’s some pretty significant stuff: the Evidence Act, dear to the heart of every lawyer who sets foot in a courtroom and, actually, some non-court settings as well; the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act—so there’s some provision there for the board to authorise a class of persons, which is firefighters as a whole, as opposed to individual ones, to perform or exercise a function, power, or duty under the Act. So, actually, without knowing a lot about that personally, that sounds like it could be really significant, and including a Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) contractor as an appointee to a role or rank or position in FENZ, again, seems pretty sensible—again, actually, probably quite significant if you’re in that position or needing to rely on a person taking up such a role.

So that’s sort of the nature of the amendments that are being made. We don’t have anything more specific to say on them, so I finish with that general observation that National continues to support the Statutes Amendment Bill, and we welcome its continued passage which will no doubt comprise a third reading at some stage soon.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge the point that the member made. Yes, these are minor and technical, but they are important, particularly to our wider community.

I just want to make reference to the Ngāti Manuhiri amendment. In March 2021, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust requested the Crown remove an encumbrance from part of South Mangawhai Forest. The encumbrance provides for Māori to have a right of access to protected sites; it’s not a public right of access. Heritage New Zealand concluded there are no protected sites within the discrete area. The encumbrance therefore has no practical effect for this discrete area. Amending the Act to remove the encumbrance from the discrete area would enable Ngāti Manuhiri to fulfil their development aspirations consistent with the land’s status as commercial redress. Such redress is intended to enable iwi to build their economic base. Ngāti Manuhiri have corresponded about the proposal with iwi whose rohe overlap the discrete area and no concerns were raised. So I just wanted to use that as an example of how important it is.

Finally, even though, you know, I said it is the sexiest bill, I have to say the staff who coordinate all of this at ministerial level, at whips’ level—I take my hat off to you. This is probably one of the most painful roles of trying to corral all of us here in the House, so I want to acknowledge them, but I absolutely acknowledge the multi-partisan approach that you all take in this bill. Thank you very much.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to thank everybody, with this omnibus bill. As the honourable Minister said, it’s a really sexy bill, with the crossing of i’s and dotting the t’s. As he says, it is very important to those that this affects. One of the simple things is the Railways Act and that we no longer have registered post. You know, there’s not a lot here that is controversial. Even though ACT doesn’t have a seat on the Governance and Administration Committee, I was quite happy to read through all these 51 lovely little changes of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s—what I’d call a house-cleaning bill.

It’s much appreciated that it does make a huge difference for a lot of people to make it very clear about what’s going on into modern times. And just keeping up with the changes that we had, even with the new additions around the Unit Titles Act—because we passed a new bill within the House, even that had to be changed from what it was originally in this Statutes Amendment Bill.

Basically, all we’re just saying today is thank you again to all those hard-working people that went through all these 41 lovely changes and pointed out the mistakes because of updating issues and new legislation that has come through this House, which kept everybody on their toes. So ACT will continue to support this through. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague Chris Penk—in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill, I had the opportunity to take a call at the second reading. Minister Aupito William Sio, having addressed the House on Part 25A of the Statutes Amendment Bill about amendments to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012, following on from that is Part 26, which is “Amendments to Oaths and Declarations Act 1957”. Minister, I am drawing your attention to this because clause 80 of the Statutes Amendment Bill is a part that seeks to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, with clause 81 to amend section 9 of the Oaths and Declarations Act, which is about, as it says in the bill, “Declarations made in New Zealand”.

It’s interesting, Minister, to note that under the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, it specifies those who have the legislative authority to take declarations, and this Statutes Amendment Bill, importantly, has identified that “a Registrar (including the Chief Registrar) or Deputy Registrar of the Māori Land Court” has not, until this Statute’s Amendment Bill is passed into law, had the authority to take declarations of those persons who attend the Māori Land Court, and, often, in the facilities and the domain of a Māori Land Court, there is not access to, immediately, a registrar or a deputy registrar of a District Court, of a High Court, or of the Supreme Court to be able to just sign off on a declaration for any matter that may be before the Māori Land Court.

So, Minister, this is important. Other than it being deemed to be sexy, I’m going to be pragmatic about this—the importance of this. I spoke and addressed the House, just previously to this bill, on the Māori Purposes Bill and the importance of being able to make consistent, to clarify, and to standardise, but, importantly, to identify members of the New Zealand public to have access to justice.

So clause 81, as insignificant as it may seem to many, for those of our community, for those in the Māori community, who have matters before the Māori Land Court, who require declarations or oaths to be taken—they are no longer going to be inconvenienced by the fact that, up to the date that this bill passes into law, the Chief Registrar, or a registrar, or a Deputy Registrar of the Māori Land Court did not have the same recognition and did not have the same authority as their peers within the District Court domain, within the High Court domain, and the Supreme Court domain. So, Minister, this is very, very important. I highlight that because it was something that was overlooked by me at the second reading, but, to date, has previously been overlooked in the legislation. So, Minister, I invite you to make comment in relation to that, or not, before I do take leave from this House.

I mentioned the commemorative service for Sir Wira Gardiner, and he was one of those persons who frequented the Māori Land Court for many, many an occasion in support of those he gave service to—in his own community, but also in the wider community, and as a public servant.

So, Minister, I invite any comment as you may see fit. Clause 81 is really very significant and very important. It duly recognises the place and role and service of our Māori Land Court, and that our registrars, including chief, and deputy, to date have been overlooked in that dual authority—simply to be able to take oaths and declarations. Kia ora.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 41, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Report of committee of the whole House

Report of committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Māori Purposes Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Statutes Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Civil Aviation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Civil Aviation Bill.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. I move, That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a second time.

With this bill, the Government aims to repeal and replace both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 with a single, modern statute that will be a fit-for-purpose legislation platform for safety, security, and economic regulation of civil aviation now and well into the future.

Both of the current Acts have been amended over time, but require a substantial overhaul to reflect the aviation environment of today and prepare for the future. This has meant modernising the legislation to ensure it is clear and operating as intended, removing ambiguity and redundant provisions. This bill uses modern drafting styles that make it easier to understand and apply, and reflects policy changes needed to ensure the legislation remains fit for purpose in years to come.

This bill adopts a stringent approach towards drug or alcohol use in the aviation system. Unfortunately, not all tragedies are preventable, but we know we can reduce the risk of a crash if a zero-tolerance approach towards drug- or alcohol-impaired operators is actively enforced. We know that drug or alcohol use in the transport system, and especially in the aviation sector, is particularly lethal.

Feedback received during the consultation period for this bill before its introduction to the House showed widespread support across the sector for stronger regulation to prevent aviation professionals using drugs or alcohol. The Civil Aviation Bill will introduce changes to address potential impairment by requiring all commercial operators to implement drug and alcohol management plans, including random testing of those working in safety-sensitive activities.

Other changes proposed are as follows: to preserve New Zealand’s national security and interests, the bill clarifies the powers of the Minister of Transport to consider national security risks within the aviation system and to make rules about when national security considerations might need to apply; to improve aviation security, the bill clarifies the powers, protections, and tools aviation security officers have at security-designated aerodromes; it also provides for the declaration of temporary landside security areas at airports, if they are needed to respond to a heightened threat environment.

To account for new and emerging technologies, this bill incorporates amendments for remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft, and clarifies the responsibilities of the operator. It also provides new intervention powers for police and authorised people to respond to serious misuse of such aircraft. To honour our climate change priorities, this bill puts in place an enabling framework to allow New Zealand to meet its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation Emissions.

To improve the regulation of airports, this bill introduces a modern regulation regime for airports administered by the Secretary for Transport, which includes a requirement for airports to consult on their spatial plans. For some airports, the bill includes a requirement that they set out how they will meet Government agencies’ space requirements, renamed regulatory airport spatial undertaking, or RASU, by select committee.

The bill intentionally limits the statutory basis for airports to set charges to identified aerodrome activities. However, this does not prevent airports from entering into commercial arrangements for charges that are not linked to these activities. Airports can continue to charge for non - aerodrome-related activities on a commercial basis.

To facilitate a growing and competitive aviation sector, the bill also improves the effectiveness of regulatory decision-making by strengthening the process for authorising airline cooperation agreements.

I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the public in shaping this bill. This bill was referred to committee in September 2021 and was reported back to this House in June 2022. The committee received 117 submissions and heard evidence from over 30 submitters. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their time and valuable contributions. The committee proposed changes that reflect a range of perspectives and needs. I support those amendments.

In particular, I am thankful to colleagues from across this House who have worked to improve the way regulatory changes for airports will affect operators and those involved in consultations around RASUs; clarify how just culture is reflected in regulatory practice and how the bill supports that; ensure civil aviation rules have scope to address the adverse impacts of aviation on our communities; and give aviation participants the ability to have decisions that affect them considered by an independent reviewer.

This work has helped to ensure this bill is fit for the modern era of aviation in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the input of the aviation sector and the public. The sector comprises different types and sizes of aviation participants, and the committee saw broad and diverse engagement during consultation. The reported-back bill responds to submitters’ views in a number of ways. In particular, it introduces a more refined regulatory system for security-designated airports that emphasises this Government’s desire to work alongside airports for mutually beneficial arrangements at our border, and a new ability for some people affected by certain decisions made by the Director of Civil Aviation to have those decisions reviewed independently, in addition to existing avenues through the courts.

As a result of consultation, the bill also repeals or amends some provisions, including clarifying that it is not our intention to be able to direct airways to provide services it does not already provide; clarifying how the Public Works Act 1981 applies to airport operators of different kinds; signposting where the bill reflects just culture principles, which offer protections to people giving accident and incident notifications—as submitters pointed out, this was not self-evident.

So with those improvements coming as a result of a sound select committee process, the Government strongly supports the bill, as reported back, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Civil Aviation Bill.

I acknowledge the Minister and I acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee, actually. It’s been one of those select committee process which I think has been quite collegial and where we’ve been able to work closely together to ensure that this bill is in the best possible position going forward. I also want to acknowledge and thank the submitters from the various parts of the aviation sector who have, I think, through their help, actually helped make this bill a better bill by actually bringing to us on the committee the issues which actually really matter to them to make sure that this bill will actually work. So I want to acknowledge everyone who submitted and everyone who spoke to the select committee and provided information, which has been incredibly informative as we’ve gone through.

So I just want to run through a few of the key issues from the National Party’s perspective which have been addressed in the piece of legislation, and then conclude with an issue which I think is ongoing and needs to have some more consideration.

The first is the issue which has been raised already regarding the Public Works Act provisions. The bill in its original form, in our view, put far too much power in the hands of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to be able to decide where land was surplus to requirements, rather than that decision being made by the actual landowner. That has been changed, which is good. It now puts the process of facilitating the land transfer in LINZ’s hand, but the decision as to whether the land is surplus to requirements remains with the landowner, which is where that decision should be sitting, rather than with LINZ, basically, being able to come in and make those decisions for airports. It would, effectively, put a lot of airports—we’ve heard this through the select committee—in a very uncertain position where a Government body would be able to make decisions, potentially, as to whether something was surplus to requirements when those airports, as they said in their submissions, have to make long-term decisions, and have to have land for long-term decisions around future runways or future aprons or future development, which goes much further than the next three or five years, but sometimes 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So what is surplus land is a decision that needs to be kept with the airports.

The other area in which there was a lot of concern—from the airports, in particular—was around regulatory undertakings, or the enforceable regulatory undertakings, which has been amended. It now requires a more consultative approach, rather than a dictatorial approach. The bill, in its original form, effectively allowed those Government departments which operated airports around security or biosecurity, effectively to come and tell the airport exactly how much land or space they needed, and the airports would have to comply with that. Of course, airports build for those services, but, at the same time, there needs to be a more consultative approach because of the fact that they operate within constraints. So this has been changed to create a more consultative approach, which I think is better for airports and puts less power in the hands of those Government departments, but there still is a backstop there, if there is no ability to be able to actually form some sort of compromise.

The issues around operating commercially, that has been addressed by the Minister. But, of course, it still allows airports to be able to operate and charge how they see fit for non-aerodrome activities, keeping that exempt from the regulatory element. Of course, that’s a fair way of doing things, because airports have significant commercial interests which are outside of just simply the aerodrome activities that they operate, and, of course, they are competing with other landowners in the vicinity, and, of course, they should be able to make those decisions based on commercial reality, rather than upon regulatory environments.

And then, we’ve had a range of issues which were raised by pilots in regards to the review of directors’ decisions. There’s been a change which allows for those to be independently reviewed. Of course, that’s important because there was a significant concern raised by pilots around some of the decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority whereby they were having their licences revoked for various reasons, whereas they could continue to have their licence approved in other jurisdictions, which, of course, led to a grey area here in New Zealand. So this independent review, at least, will provide for some accountability or overview of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I do note that that doesn’t go as far as those submitters would have liked, in that they would have preferred that those decisions would have been effectively implemented, rather than simply just being a review with the decision then going back to the Civil Aviation Authority. So I do note that that doesn’t go as far as some of the submitters do want.

The other point I wanted to just touch on is in regards to some of the other issues, which was a key issue raised around aviation security. I note that the ACT Party in their minority view made a point around aviation security and whether that should simply remain with the Civil Aviation Authority. I do think it’s an issue which does need to be looked into. I’m not sure if I agree with the ACT Party’s minority view which, effectively, said to create another body to review the decisions of aviation security. But I do agree with the principle, in that I think there is an issue here. This has been highlighted in recent months with the International Civil Aviation Organisation report, which has not been publicly released yet, but which, I understand, has raised significant issues around aviation security in New Zealand. The issue that I do think needs to be looked at is whether it is appropriate for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Aviation Security Service to, effectively, be within the same agency and reporting to themselves, and whether there needs to be some separation, as we see in other countries. What we’ve seen is that there’s clearly a number of issues, which will be highlighted and they will become public at some point, around how our aviation security has not been keeping pace with our international requirements. That has put significant pressure on airport security at all of our international airports and, from what I’m hearing, has been a significant issue and poses significant risk, actually, to New Zealand as a country, in terms of being able to attract international airlines to continue to fly here and to have confidence in our aviation security. So this is an issue which is real, it’s now. The ICAO report and what it says will have to be released at some point. The question the Minister—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It hasn’t finished; you can’t release what hasn’t finished.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Minister says that it can’t be released yet because it’s not finished. Well, the information will be publicly released as to what was wrong and what needed to be fixed, because that will become very apparent. The issue there is around whether our aviation security service were keeping pace with the international requirements which New Zealand has signed up to, or whether they were asleep at the wheel. That’s something which I know a lot of pilots and airlines have a significant concern about.

So National will continue to support this piece of legislation as it goes through the House. We look forward to it being progressed, because it is a significant reform which has been in train now for nine years. We look forward to it being progressed, being passed into legislation, and being implemented to help support our aviation sector, which has had an incredibly tough last three years, which needs better regulation so that it can be more productive to help grow New Zealand, to grow our economy, to grow highly productive, high-paying jobs. They’re the people who do the work. They’re the ones who help our economy grow. They’re the ones who will move New Zealand forward. The job of Government is not to get in the way; it’s to make sure that we have the conditions for them to succeed, to grow, and to be successful in New Zealand, because that’s ultimately what creates a strong economy, which helps to be able to pay for the public services which New Zealanders ultimately rely on.

So we look forward to supporting the bill. We thank again the committee and all the members of the committee for the work that they’ve done and the constructive approach they’ve been able to take on this, and, again, most importantly, we thank the submitters for putting forward their views on this issue. Thank you very much.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I start by just acknowledging the Opposition spokesperson for transport, Simeon Brown, for supporting this particular bill and, as I understand it, for a change of heart and a U-turn this morning on supporting the Government’s Clean Car Discount, which they opposed for a very long time. So it’s great to see that they have come to their senses—it is important that we reduce emissions amongst our transport fleet. So a full U-turn from the Opposition is welcomed by us today, and it’s potentially a good sign of the great work of our Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the consensus that we achieved together.

But coming back to the Civil Aviation Bill today, can I acknowledge all of our members and colleagues in the House that worked on this particular bill, and also the chair at the time, Greg O’Connor. It was great to hear what was over 117 written submissions coming in on this bill, and, as a select committee, we heard 30 submissions in person.

I guess what’s important in this is that we continue to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the world, and the civil aviation sector is a very big part of that. In order to boost innovation, safety, productivity, and help achieve our climate goals, we are progressing our civil aviation laws to ensure that we are developing our civil aviation infrastructure and creating long-term benefits and support for consumers, for travellers, for industry, and, of course, most importantly, for our wider Aotearoa New Zealand economy.

The Civil Aviation Bill would repeal and replace both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act of 1966. After significant consultation and the work that we did as a select committee to hear these submissions and consider them, there is no doubt that it has been widely agreed that investment in developing the civil aviation sector is fundamental to achieving these long-term benefits and our overall goals.

One particular submission that I did want to acknowledge is the contribution made by the country’s major airport, Auckland Airport, home of Tāmaki Makaurau, and this has been reflected in the inclusion—and recommendation from the select committee—in clause 231, which retains an airport operator’s ability to set charges. As Auckland Airport highlighted in their submission, aeronautical prices have remained stable and are competitive with other peer airports. Since 2013, in real terms, Auckland Airport domestic passenger charges have increased by just 65c per passenger, while international passenger charges have fallen by 10 percent. Landing charges have also decreased by 11 percent in real terms over this period for commercial passenger aircraft.

The pricing certainty provided by this bill supports investment and has provided stakeholders with the confidence that they need to continue investing in Auckland’s airport and Auckland’s infrastructure and ensuring the continuation of the economic benefits of our tourism industry. So I just want to acknowledge everyone’s work on this particular bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to rise and take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill—quite a chunky piece of legislation here—as reported back from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, finally coming through to, now, its second reading. It’s been some 9-odd years in the making since this piece of reform work began under the last National Government ultimately looking to try and streamline, to improve engagement amongst stakeholders, to better define a system that enables the participants to work within that framework in a manner that maximises their freedom and their flexibility whilst also ensuring, of course, we have a robust system to minimise any risks within our civil aviation sector. Ultimately, I mean, the clear purpose here is a safe and secure civil aviation system in New Zealand.

That being said, of course, we need to acknowledge that there are significant advances—particularly over the last few years—around the technological change in this space, some of the different systems that are coming in around unmanned aerial vehicles, the UAVs—or drones or autonomous vehicles or whatever label people want to put on them. Effectively, we are seeing a significant change in the civil aviation landscape, and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are providing a legislative framework that still caters for the variability that we are seeing and, indeed, the potential that we still yet haven’t discovered. And part of the challenge with any piece of legislation, of course, is providing that prescriptive framework but also enabling an industry to innovate, to take up new technologies, and to drive productivity within their businesses; so having the flexibility within the framework that enables that.

I think—for me—that is one of the biggest challenges when we look at the broader productivity within New Zealand. It is declining, and that is a worrying trend. As a country, we have so much opportunity to be driving massive productivity gains and becoming, well, more successful economically off the back of our innovation and the amazing thinking and development and work that’s going on here in the 597,000-odd amazing businesses we have around New Zealand. And so we really need to ensure that this sort of legislation does cater for that type of innovation.

Alongside that, of course, we need to make sure that we are meeting our international obligations. And that’s one of the key aspects of this bill as well, in terms of security requirements internationally but also around emissions. So we had the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation legislation come through—in January 2021, I believe, that came into effect. And now part of this legislation is ensuring that we are complying or meeting our obligations under that requirement as well. But, as I say, those international security challenges unfortunately continue to evolve, and we see ongoing threats around the globe in the aviation sector. Whether it be terrorism or other acts that could be potentially undertaken in different jurisdictions, we have to try and provide a framework where, of course, we allow for normal operations but significantly minimise the risk of anything untoward happening and impacting those participants within the civil aviation sectors in whichever country they may be.

But, ultimately, here, what we are achieving is a better integration with other stakeholders, and I would really like to thank the submitters that gave their feedback on how that can better be facilitated, because, ultimately, again, anything we can do to streamline helps to improve the opportunity and reduce that red tape, compliance, and bureaucracy. One of my pet projects is getting rid of that as much as possible to enable business to get on and do what they need to do to take on those opportunities, to take investment risks, to try something new, to develop a new project—whatever it may be that they are in business for. They’re not in business for red tape and compliance. That has a place in terms of establishing those frameworks, but, ultimately, reducing that is really important. And so some aspects of this bill where there’s better integration around the spatial-planning considerations, for example, and engagement with other stakeholders—locally but also regionally and nationally—are important ways, I think, to help streamline the overall system and ensure that we are getting effective results.

Of course, alongside that as well are the safety aspects that I’ve touched on. We had the terrible tragedy with the Carterton balloon disaster back in 2012, some 10 years ago already—amazing. And so part of this bill is looking to address some of the risks around health and safety or drug and alcohol abuse within the civil aviation sector as well—so looking, again, to improve the experience or reduce the risk for those participants. And so on that basis, we support those considerations as well.

But, for me, it really comes back to that basis of how do we get a fit for purpose piece of legislation that provides the safeguards we expect but also enables the freedom of operation as much as possible within that environment for those participants. And I think it’s of particular importance in the civil aviation sector, given that we have seen such an explosion of growth within the technology space in particular over the last 10 years. And I’m confident that will continue.

As part of my role as spokesperson for defence, I’ve met with a number of different drone or unmanned vehicle companies who are looking at doing some incredibly innovative stuff—some already operating in New Zealand and some still in the start-up phase—and it’s inspirational; there’s some incredible work going on out there, and we just need to make sure that we’re providing a framework that enables them to take on those growth opportunities and that they’re not being overly burdened with compliance and red tape, particularly around getting into markets, getting their product launched, and being able to conduct those flight plans with drones in particular. That’s an area where there are some real challenges, because, as I say, we want to enable that business, but, alongside that, we do actually need to be mindful of potential impacts on civilians, everyday people, going about their daily function—their expectations and rights to privacy, and, of course, any potential environmental impacts that may come from a significant uptake of different technologies, whatever that may be, in the civil aviation sector.

So there is a balancing act there, but, ultimately, less regulation is typically a better outcome. What we’ve got here proposes a raft of changes that will, I think, streamline that. And so on that basis, the National Party has supported it, and we look forward to seeing this bill continue to progress through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it’s a pleasure to take just a short call to make a contribution to the Civil Aviation Bill in its second reading. Can I also lend my voice and say thank you to those who submitted to us—really informative presentations—and, as well, to the officials who guided us through. I also agree with Mr Brown, who spoke earlier, around this being a really collegial and constructive select committee process.

As others have said, in essence, this bill brings our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It’s about simplifying and modernising civil aviation law and about enhancing our safety, our security, and, as others have said, the economic regulation of the civil aviation system.

This bill replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990, and also the Airport Authorities Act 1966, and brings these together to have just one modernised civil aviation system.

As my colleagues have also said, this bill will also set out the responsibilities for the operation of new and emerging technologies. It also provides new intervention powers, specifically regarding the misuse of remotely piloted aircrafts. It gives the Minister of Transport the ability to make rules where national security considerations may apply. It also empowers the commercial aviation sector when managing the risk of drug and alcohol impairment, which is really critical. This makes clear the powers, protections, and tools available to aviation security officers. It clarifies our just culture and also ensures that we are meeting the obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for international aviation. These changes are part of the bigger plan Labour has to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the rest of the world, and it supports the aviation sector, and for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m sorry to break the very fragile consensus that appears to have broken out in the House this morning, but I do think, as we’ve all found in our time in this place, that having the opportunity to be the squeaky wheel gives us the opportunity to draw attention to some really important issues. So throughout my speech this morning, I’ll be laying down why the Greens at present cannot support this bill in its present form.

We did, of course, foreshadow that at what I would like to agree with other speakers was an incredibly collegial and collaborative transport select committee process and stage. I want to particularly shout out to the officials who dealt with many annoying questions about what was actually being proposed in this legislation and how that compared to the current regulatory framework, how that interacts with the likes of the Resource Management Act (RMA), Auckland Council planning regulation, and otherwise.

But this is not a small bill. I’ve seen a few in my five years here and I do need to acknowledge, as others have also said, that this does go a long way to updating our civil aviation law. But as I’ve already acknowledged, it leaves a huge gap. The huge missed opportunity, which is reflected in the Greens’ differing view in the select committee report, points particularly to three key things: that being our opportunity to take action proactively and baking that in now with regard to the climate, also with regard to community impacts, and, finally, around conservation.

As far as that goes, I’d really like to draw the attention of anyone who happens to be tuning in to the submissions of the Waiheke Local Board to Quiet Sky Waiheke as well, and to the Federated Mountain Clubs. All of those reflect things that have been pushed for for a really long time as well by the likes of Quiet Sky Waitematā, by the Waiheke Local Board, Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board, and by the Waitematā Local Board.

I think again, just to kind of unpack all of this, what civil aviation law has tended to focus on—and we see that reflected in the bill in its present form—is our airports, understandably. It’s where we tend to think of airspaces and we tend to think of aircrafts coming in and landing. But the kind of missing piece of this law as presently drafted is in thinking about those community and conservation spaces where an increasing number of private aircrafts are utilising that shared airspace, the airspace of all of us above our homes, above our forests, and above our open and shared space that all of us like to enjoy.

So to give a little bit of an illustration about how all of this stuff interacts—because I never thought that I’d know so much about the interaction between the RMA, the unitary plan, the Hauraki Gulf district plan, and civil aviation law—we currently have a situation which some may have seen presented in the media as concern about the proliferation of, particularly, private helicopter pads in the Hauraki islands. So to unpack this, we kind of have two main, core kinds of pieces of legislation that don’t really talk to each other very well. The first is the RMA and from that comes the Auckland unitary plan and also the Hauraki Islands District Plan. Of course, here I’m speaking primarily about Tāmaki-makau-rau because, of course, that is the home of Auckland Central.

From the RMA, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Hauraki Islands District Plan, we have, effectively, the process that people go through to get consents for these private helicopter pads. As soon as those private helicopter pads are consented for, the genie is, effectively, out of the bottle for the utilisation of the private aircraft that utilise those helicopter pads and their consents. They’re supposed to be governed by Auckland Council, who don’t have the resources, as my many discussions with outgoing mayor Phil Goff and incoming mayor Wayne Brown have indicated. That then leaves a space for the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Civil Aviation Authority under the current legislation—as reflected and carried through into the new legislation that we are debating today—provides the Civil Aviation Authority with the opportunity to create what are called “special use airspaces”. That is, effectively, governance of, through introduction of new criteria, and monitoring of special airspaces that are designated. However, in my interactions with the Civil Aviation Authority and through the likes of the applications from the Waiheke Local Board and Quiet Sky Waiheke, what we have found is that the Civil Aviation Authority actually just doesn’t have the resources to do this stuff, particularly in these private airspaces.

We also have the opportunity to set noise abatement rules, and again, this is something which I put to officials throughout the select committee stage, asking them actually quite explicitly. As is reflected in advice which has subsequently been tabled and available for all to view publicly, the noise abatement rules, which have been asked to be strengthened by these community and conservation organisations, actually, as officials tell us, are not any stronger in this new legislation. In fact, they are about the same.

So this is where we get to the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are on the Table from the Greens. The one in my name is, basically, trying to shift that focus from the kind of voluntary state where the Minister “may make” noise abatement rules and instead moves that into a space where the Minister “must make” those noise abatement roles, considering the community and the conservation efforts in those areas. There are also two SOPs in the name of my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter around those environmental and climate impacts. But this is kind of the unfortunate situation that we’re posed with.

I want to acknowledge the Minister in his willingness to meet with me and to talk through these issues. I’d note that he said that he thinks that there is still the opportunity to address them through that kind of voluntary scheme. But none the less, in its current form, we, unfortunately, are not able to support it and hope that at the committee of the whole House stage we are able to make these amendments to improve things not just for those who are out in the islands like Waiheke and Aotea / Great Barrier, where we’re experiencing this proliferation of helicopter pads, but also, notably, for those of us who live in the city centre, where I’d note that 45,000 people live within the motorway boundaries in Auckland Central, and, to that effect, as we consider more and more housing density, there is a real need to consider the use of the airspaces above that dense housing. If any of us have been on the Facebook community pages of our communities—particularly in Auckland—we’ve probably heard quite a bit about the use of helicopters in those community and neighbourhood spaces.

So just again, to summarise, I’m really grateful for the engagement of the Minister on this so far. But there’s a lot further to go when it comes to, particularly, the integration of consideration of the climate, of conservation, and of our communities, and the Greens will keep fighting that fight.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the ACT Party supports this bill. It’s an opportunity to reform a clunky and out-of-date regulatory framework and improve it, bringing civil aviation operations and the regulation of safety and activities into the 21st century.

But one of the things that we heard from Aviation New Zealand and other submitters on behalf of general aviation—which is your small aircraft, your tourism operators, your helicopter operators, agricultural contractors, as well as the commercial operators—is that it’s not just a regulatory change that’s needed. It’s actually a cultural change, in the way that an organisation like the Civil Aviation Authority manages the sector and manages risk, and the way that they treat people who operate in the sector, who’ve got skin in the game, who’ve invested in aircraft, who’ve invested in people and training and safe systems of work. That requires a behavioural change to develop a culture of mutual respect between the regulator and the industry, and that’s something that many in the aviation sector pointed to and said that they would like to see an improvement in the culture as well as the regulations.

So we hope that the Minister of Transport and his delegates focus very much on improving the workplace culture, the organisational culture, so that it respects the investments that individuals and businesses have made in aviation and plant and equipment, as well as the improvement in safe and efficient operations.

Now, this bill avoids that terrible compromise that so many other bills bought to the House by this Government make, where they aim to reform some regulatory process to make it easier to operate and then they add all of these crazy different things to the mix—like saving us from climate change, or some other social engineering concept. Well, fortunately, those in the Ministry of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority were able to resist the woke climate dogma advocated by the current Minister of Transport, and stick to their knitting—which is to improve the safe and efficient operation of our aviation sector. Imagine if that same philosophy was adopted to our roading network! Safe and efficient operation, instead of wheeling out climate fairies; climate alarmism every time we try to invest in infrastructure and get ahead in New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can the member come back to the bill? In the second reading—come back to the bill, thank you.

SIMON COURT: Certainly. So we need to consider aviation as a wealth-generating activity that promotes tourism, promotes commerce, and promotes lifestyles that can be improved and enhanced through general aviation, commercial aviation, and new technology like unmanned aerial vehicles—commonly known as drones. So we hope the new regulatory framework enables that. But of course, the Green Party showed how much they loathe success and envy wealth, with their proposal to target helicopter movements and operators delivering people to places like Waiheke Island. The Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick brought up the concern she has with helicopter operations above dense housing areas—helicopter operations above dense housing areas. Well, perhaps that member of Parliament lives in an area without crime. I live in West Auckland, and helicopter operations above dense urban areas are something that we’re entirely familiar with in places like Te Atatū Peninsula, where we regularly have one of the three Police Eagle helicopters operating over our suburb in an attempt to detect, control, and apprehend people committing crime—which has gone up enormously under this Government.

Now, ACT’s concerns about this bill have always been to express the concerns of those who operate in the aviation sector who’ve made investments in plant and equipment, in aircraft, in operations, in training—because they are passionate about the aviation sector. Whether it’s about flying, whether it’s about aviation electronics, engineers, people who maintain and service aircraft—or those people who are involved in using newer technologies like unmanned aerial vehicles, who want to employ that equipment for agriculture, for surveying things like infrastructure, assets like transmission lines which extend across the backbone of New Zealand, which is a country with a geography like Chile: mountainous, forested. Hardly anyone lives in New Zealand, and yet it’s almost impossible to stand up a case for drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—to operate out of sight of the controller. Now, what this means is that instead of helicopters flying the transmission lines or going to survey assets like dams around New Zealand, out of sight of the person controlling the drone—you can programme them to follow a route and actually inspect assets, collect data, collect information about how close trees are getting to the powerlines, for example.

Now, what we’ve heard from organisations that operate in the unmanned aerial vehicle or drone sector is that they are waiting, sometimes for months and months and months, to even get an acknowledgment for their application to use drones for the most basic activities currently operated by helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. They point out that these vehicles are unmanned—much safer. Most of them are electric; they have low or zero emissions. And if it turns out that you could use these aircraft to, say, monitor what the Russians are doing in Ukraine, then of course you’d expect to be able to use them to monitor what’s happening to our assets like powerlines and dams in New Zealand. So ACT hopes that not just the regulatory environment changes but the culture and behaviour of the people working at civil aviation—who are tasked with reviewing applications from unmanned aerial vehicle operators—also changes; that they update their attitude and culture and behaviour along with the update in regulation. Because it’s those kinds of activities that are going to unlock wealth and opportunity all around New Zealand.

Then there’s the “just culture”. We heard, at select committee, that many involved in the aviation sector were concerned by the concept of a just culture, where you can report safety concerns; maybe even a breach of the rules, maybe something you saw that wasn’t right—but without fear of being prosecuted by WorkSafe; without fear it would be used against you, that it might affect your job, your career. So what we understand is that changes have been made to the original legislation that was proposed, which reflect how important a just culture that rewards reporting, safety breaches, incidents, near misses—rewards that behaviour instead of punishes it.

We also heard from the aviation sector how concerned they were that there was no capacity in the original bill that was tabled at select committee for an independent review of the Director of Civil Aviation’s decisions. ACT is proud that we’ve advocated for an independent review process to be incorporated in this amended bill, and it has been. So we hope that the aviation sector now has access to a fairer process if they have concerns.

Then we come to the efficient operation of aviation security services in New Zealand. Now, ACT has heard that there are many, many agencies—and we heard this at committee, from airport operators—many agencies such as Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Customs, Police, and of course Aviation Security, who operated airports and who these airport operators are required to give space to. But MPI, Customs, and Police all have their own independent reviewers that report back to Parliament on their performance. Aviation Security is operated by the Civil Aviation Authority and only reports through to the director. The Director of Civil Aviation is the only person or organisation that monitors Aviation Security’s performance. So what ACT is proposing is an independent review, just like all those others who operated airports, which could be by the Office of the Auditor General or a similar Officer of Parliament.

So, overall, ACT supports the bill—we support the intention of the bill. What we now expect is that the Minister and his delegates will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority and those administering the bill to update their culture, their behaviours, and the way that they deliver services to the industry. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for this bill and it’s a piece of work which really is all about the overarching reboot of an aviation law that suits our new time.

One of those pieces of work was about “just culture”, which has been talked about by another member, and that was one that really impressed me because I’d worked in the industry as a lawyer and I had seen the introduction of “just culture” at Air New Zealand and it had been a really effective tool, but a gnarly one—quite difficult. We came across the same problem, in this bill, of the words of the bill not quite matching what we were intending. We got it right, I think. That was really with the help of submitters—we had some fantastic submitters on this bill. We had submitters who told us about “just culture”. We had submitters who told us about things like helicopters—and I definitely reject the idea that those people are just grasping or are worried about envy, they are worried, obviously, about their own communities. Some of those things fitted within the scheme of the bill; some will need to be pursued outside of it.

Another one that came up was fatigue. It was not within the scope of the bill, but it is something that I will definitely take away from the process and consider in this industry. But what we did do was fix a lot of problems that were national problems. We have a really beautiful piece of work here, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues, I also rise in support of the second reading of the Civil Aviation Bill. As my colleagues have mentioned already, this is a bill that seeks to modernise and consolidate a couple of pieces of existing legislation. On this side of the House we do like to support any attempt to streamline and modernise and systemise the statute book. In this instance we are consolidating the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act, which is somewhat older, having been passed into law in 1966.

As is often the case in this Parliament when good bills progress through, it was founded on the work of the former National Government. I remember working for Simon Bridges when he was the Minister of Transport and this work had begun to get under way with a very fulsome review of the aviation security environment around New Zealand. It is very pleasing to see that large parts of this bill as reported back by the select committee do focus on the security of our airports, our aprons, our airside areas, and, of course, the airplanes themselves. As I’ve read in the legislative statement, the uncertainty of the global environment and the ever-evolving nature of terrorist threats mean that our airport security systems should be keeping up with the best in the world, and I think that any future evolution of legislative pieces like this should be founded on that very premise.

A number of people have made note of the clauses that attribute directly to the rapidly increasing use of unmanned aircraft. I know that around Canterbury particularly there is a real prevalence in this use of aircraft not just by civilians for fun but also increasingly for commercial measures. We see regional councils using unmanned aircraft. We see our search and rescue operators using unmanned aircraft. They are increasingly in our skies and they do need to be moderated. This bill will provide the legal framework to give the Civil Aviation Authority some teeth, some legal standing in terms of enforcement where people breach these very, very important safety rules. We’ve seen a number of occasions already in Canterbury in recent years where commercial planes have been grounded because there is an unmanned aircraft or a drone flying around.

We do like to support, as I said, legislation that is practical and has been driven, as in this case, by the grassroots up. It’s been requested by the aviation sector for a number of years. I think it’s been five years in development, and I think that the quality of this bill is very reflective of that. We like to support bills that are driven by the grassroots up, driven by the end-user who will actually be able to put it into practice as opposed to, I think, this top-down approach that we do see all too often from this Government.

I understand from my colleagues who sat in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that we did have some initial concerns when the bill was first brought before the House, but I am pleased to see that they have seemingly been ironed out by the select committee process. So I do congratulate the committee on the extensive work that it has carried out, particularly with industry and—most importantly, I think—security agencies. The changes have been not just regulatory but also with security at front of mind, and I have noted the recommendation to amend particularly clause 23(d), which clarifies the security responsibilities within New Zealand airports and gives the Civil Aviation Authority oversight of the Aviation Security Service. When there have been times of threat—and I think we can all think back to the incident that occurred at the Blenheim airport a number of years ago—there must be a systemised process in place to deal with those life-threatening or even threatening events with immediacy.

So, all in all, the National Party does support progressive, positive, useful bills like this, and we look forward to seeing its continuation through the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill. It’s a bill that brings and updates our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It also strengthens our aviation laws and security rules to keep New Zealanders safe while they’re in the air and on the ground. Of particular note is the strengthening of the management of the risk of drug and alcohol impairment, which is something we should all support. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)